Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRN)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:DRN" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:DNR.
Skip to threads Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread(purge cache)
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, 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 Button rediriger.png 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 guidelines and policy when discussing issues. 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.

The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, whose 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.

The current co-ordinator is TransporterMan (talk · contribs · email).

Do you need assistance? Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

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

  • Refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment only on the contributions not the contributor. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.

Check that a notice was delivered to each person you add to the filing. If missing, add {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page then sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".

If you need help:

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

  • The dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before requesting help at DRN.
  • This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
  • For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over 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:
  • Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
  • Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
  • Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information) and the bot will archive it soon after.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Talk:Under the Skin (2013 film)#Plot assumes way too much. 4Needs Attention Capuchinpilates (t) 27 days, 16 hours North of Eden (t) 9 days, 14 hours Popcornduff (t) 1 days, 3 hours
Talk:Statewide opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Fix_the_map 4Needs Attention Prcc27 (t) 31 days, 13 hours North of Eden (t) 14 days, 5 hours North of Eden (t) 14 days, 5 hours
Talk:British Pakistanis 2In Progress Human3015 (t) 19 days, 5 hours Jaaron95 (t) 1 hours Jaaron95 (t) 1 hours
Talk:2015 ICC_World_Twenty20_Qualifier 2In Progress Srinu523 (t) 2 days, 21 hours Jaaron95 (t) 1 hours Blackhole78 (t) 13 minutes 7Closed Jagtig (t) 2 days, 18 hours TransporterMan (t) 21 hours TransporterMan (t) 21 hours
2015 Thalys attack 7Closed Sandra opposed to terrorism (t) 18 hours TransporterMan (t) 3 hours TransporterMan (t) 3 hours
User talk:Patalexander 7Closed Patalexander (t) 2 hours RMS52 (t) 2 hours RMS52 (t) 2 hours
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 17:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


Current disputes[edit]

Talk:Under the Skin (2013 film)#Plot assumes way too much.[edit]

Pictogram voting wait red.png – Needs attention.
Filed by Capuchinpilates on 00:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC).

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 dispute is over the plot summary originally written by Popcornduff, for the movie "Under the Skin." This dispute is documented in Talk, in the "Plot summary assumes way too much" section. There is an older, similar dispute between Popcornduff and BoogaLouie, in which Popcornduff reverted BoogaLouie's edits twice, but the current dispute is between me (CapuchinPilates) and Popcornduff, who has reverted 3 dissimilar edits I have made to the plot. I am arguing for a plot summary that accurately describes the arc of the plot, and uses primarily those details and scenes that are important to the plot. I argued for taking out a whole mess of minor details that were not crucial to anything. Popcornduff objects to the language in my last two edits as: purple prose, flowery, and overwritten. See talk page for my response.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

My first edit was somewhat misinformed, and reverted by Popcornduff. Then I read the talk section and offered suggestions for a different kind of rewrite. I received feedback, and incorporated it into my rewrite. It also was reverted. In talk I refuted each of the things that were criticized, but I offered to remove or modify each of them if that's what others wanted. I received feedback for one thing, aliens, and made that change to my 3rd edit. It was also reverted, without any talk.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps a mediation or negotiation with Popcornduff on this formum would be useful, because I've already tried doing this on talk and Popcornduff has stopped responding. Also, I think that outside opinions would be useful by editors expert in narrative, plot, movies, or fiction, and not just expert in WP policy. I think it would be helpful for outsiders to compare my 15:30, 1 August 2015 version with the current one, and also read the plot talk section, as it details all the arguments.

Summary of dispute by Popcornduff[edit]

Back in May 2014, BoogaLouie rewrote the plot summary to include a lot of technical detail and speculation, which I reverted. After discussing it on the Talk page, I understood BoogaLouie's objections better: he/she felt the plot summary inappropriately assumed the protagonist was an alien. I thought this was a fair criticism, so I rewrote the summary to remove the assumption.

A year later, Capuchinpilates rewrote the plot summary with a lot of flowery prose and personal interpretation, which I've reverted. The current dispute has nothing to do with the argument with BoogaLouie last year. Popcornduff (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by BoogaLouie[edit]

Just stumbled across this discussion (in connection with another dispute below). Let me repeat my argument again Popcornduff's edits from a year ago: `I put it to you that in a film such this, the director is not so much interested in developing a clear plot but in atmosphere and feeling. With no clear plot, providing (normally extraneous) "technical composition" details is the next best thing. ... In the absence of clear-cut plot indication that the woman is an alien, I think the article is better served by describing the reasons why she might be, even if it moves away from strictly plot description.`
Maybe 95% or 98% of movies seen by audiences have a plot, but for the 5%, 2%, whatever, that don't, may I suggest wikipedia ease its regulations on the "plot" section of articles on movies. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TransporterMan[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Though I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN, I'm removing my DRN hat and entering this dispute as a simple editor, not in my volunteer capacity. I want to offer some comments and opinions and then will not be further involved in the discussion here. First, let me note that I think this dispute is summed up in this edit and my comments and opinions here are based upon that assumption. First, I don't think either version is perfect, but I agree that the result of that edit — let's call that result "PCD's version" though I recognize that it may not be entirely PCD's work — is vastly superior to CP's version. It must be remembered that since the film itself is the source for this plot summary, the film is a primary source and the primary source policy says, in one of the clearest prohibitions in Wikipedia policy, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source" (emphasis in original). That means that when preparing a text summary of an audiovisual object that the summary must be limited to whatever is absolutely obvious from the screen and soundtrack and about which no reasonable person could disagree is what is there, with no coloring whatsoever. PCD's version comes much closer to avoiding violations of that policy, while CP's version fails to do so with paragraphs such as, "However, the woman begins to have a series of increasingly unsettling experiences that leave her confused, curious and afraid. After attempting to pick up a man at a beach, she watches him run off to risk his life trying to save two others from drowning. Later she falls down while walking on the sidewalk, and a number of concerned strangers help her up. Driving around she observes the daily life of regular people. Then, after leading a lonely, romantically inexperienced man into the liquidy void, she is disquieted by studying her face in a mirror, and then noticing a fly trapped against a window." That description is, very likely, a correct analysis of what's going on, but it is an analysis of the kind prohibited by the primary source policy. Next, it needs to be remembered that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog, review site, film guide, or other such medium and plain language suits that purpose much better than colorful or fanciful language such as "liquidy" and "appropriates," just to pick a couple of examples out of many in CP's version. CP admits in this edit that s/he intends to include interpretation, "Wikipedia is ultimately for serving people's needs rather than slavishly following rules, so I’ll include a very small amount of analysis." That's true as a general or default principle, but when one's work is challenged as it has been here (and as usually happens when you go up against policy) then it must be recognized that policy is the established consensus of the community and to do something different than what policy mandates requires that you either change the policy or form a new consensus at the article as a local exception to the result mandated by policy. I see no consensus forming for CP's version, I submit my consensus !vote in opposition to it for the reasons I've stated above, and it should remain reverted until CP is able to obtain consensus for it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Under the Skin (2013 film)#Plot assumes way too much.|Plot assumes way too much. discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been extended recent discussion at the article talk page in the section "Plot assumes way too much". The case is ripe for moderated discussion. I am neither opening nor declining the case, but am recommending that it be opened. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wait, it seems a little unseemly and unproductive to me for someone who volunteers as a dispute moderator on this forum, to come in and vote against a disputant. I asked for a mediation, or the opinion of an expert in plot, not another lecture on WP policy (although I am a bit ignorant of WP policy and how this forum works, and I did learn a thing or two from him/her). Capuchinpilates (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to put a ping out there requesting a moderator for this dispute. Also, I will be on vacation all of this coming week. Upon my return I expect the dispute to be totally resolved, with the result being universal, global worship of my version of the plot. Capuchinpilates (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I'd be happy to moderate a discussion here. First off, regarding User:TransporterMan's comment, it is permissible. Per DRN policy, he identified that he took part in the discussion outside of his capacity as a volunteer. Additionally, DRN volunteers don't have any authority per se, they just more or less help the discussion along, providing suggestions and asking questions as needed. North of Eden (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As a general query, User:Capuchinpilates (and others), would you like this discussion placed on hold while you're on vacation? We can resume discussion afterward. North of Eden (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that would be great if it could be on hold until the 15th. My comment about the dispute getting resolved was a joke, meant to lighten the mood. Capuchinpilates (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
That's what I figured ;) Enjoy your break and looking forward to a discussion at a later date. I'll close the thread as "on hold" until the 15th. North of Eden (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Capuchinpilates: Have you returned, and is there still an interest in discussing this dispute here at DRN? Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes and yes. Capuchinpilates (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it would be useful if I made the observation that, while at first glance BoogaLouie and I seem to be for opposite things, actually we both have wanted many similar things. We both felt it important to use words like "seems" or "appears," or some other mechanism that makes it clear that while the movie does not overtly state something in particular, like aliens, that it does imply it. Both of us also have wanted to add the initial, abstract "shapes" scene. If others want, we could talk about these two things, and I could explain them more. Capuchinpilates (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Popcornduff: I would be genuinely interested in hearing from you why you don't want words like "appears" or "seemingly" in this plot summary, beyond that you think it's against policy, or that they are weasel words, or purple prose, or un-encyclopedic, any other label. How is the world a better place by not having ambiguity in this particular plot summary for this particular movie? Capuchinpilates (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This movie has an ambiguous plot. It is therefore our duty to reflect that ambiguity by avoiding attempts at clarification or interpretation, at least in the plot summary.
If you have to use a word like "apparently" or "seemingly", you're probably making a personal interpretation or judgement. Our plot summaries should describe as neutrally as possible the events on the screen, not speculate about their implications. Popcornduff (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
But if any reasonable viewer would assume that the woman is "alien" or "otherwordly," then who is being victimized by reading a plot summary that communicates that? I don't get it, do you think someone's experience of the film is going to be ruined by hearing that the woman definitely seems to not be from earth? How is keeping this information off the page, helping anyone?
And I think there's a difference between personal interpretation, and representing the trajectory of the movie. Since the movie seems to want us to think she's alien, then this isn't my interpretation, it's just putting down in print what the movie didn't, but we were all thinking. I think the reader of the plot who hasn't seen the movie, deserves to be given the opportunity to know important aspects of the movie, that any reasonable viewer of the movie knows. Capuchinpilates (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Our plot summary provides more or less the same information about the protagonist as the film does. Popcornduff (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, but it would be impossible for a summary to provide the same info as the film, think of all the facial expressions, the body language, the ways of walking, talking, undressing, etc. ect.. All of these things are done carefully in the film, put there by the artists, because they are important, they all are there to communicate crucial things to the viewer. The reader of WP can't get all that stuff, so that's why the WP editor summarizes all this for the reader. The plot "summary," is just that, it's nothing but our interpretation of the total film put before us. Maybe your thinking that the WP editor is objective, or the summary should be objective, but the editing by its very nature is totally subjective, we pick and choose which scenes to include, which aspects of those scenes, which words to represent those scenes, and on and on, the whole process is subjective, full of interpretation, and our own biases. But that's OK.
The plot summary as it stands, doesn't represent the protagonist at all; I find the summary to be a misrepresentation of the film. If I read the summary, then watched the film, they would seem almost like two totally different plots. That's why I think you have to use a bit of language that isn't totally business-like, how can you represent art with business language, it's absurd. Think about why you personally like the film and find it meaningful, its because of the beauty of the characters, the striking imagery, the interpersonal interaction between characters, and the changes in the protagonist, these are all part of the plot, and can be summarized in an encyclopedic way. To leave these things out, is to bleach it of everything that you and I love about it. Capuchinpilates (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand your position, and you're right in that in the end it's impossible to be truly objective in an enclyopaedia article. But we must try to be as objective as possible, and your suggestions go beyond the remit of an encyclopaedia and into the realm of a personal review or analysis. Why you or I "personally like the film and find it meaningful" has no place in the Wikipedia article about it. Your suggestions would require Wikipedia to dramatically change its plot summary policy. Popcornduff (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you might be right that some of what I want would require a larger battle about WP policy, but within the existing policy there is still a lot of room for summarizing things like the feel of a movie, and the changes in the characters, if this is indeed part of the plot of the film. And if the plot is ambiguous, then if the plot summary doesn't represent this ambiguity, I don't see how the summary could be accurate. Capuchinpilates (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@BoogaLouie:What are your thoughts on this current discussion? Capuchinpilates (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Capuchinpilates:I'm afraid I'm going to bow out at this point. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • My apologies for my absence here; I have been swamped in real life and was out for a few days. It looks like things aren't going especially well in the discussion, which is understandable; I am willing to continue discussion if we have enough parties to go forward, otherwise, I can offer some concluding thoughts and offer other options. North of Eden (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
A suggestion from someone not involved. Almost all the problems here come the plot summary being based on what people remember after watching the film. Suppose, instead of it being a film, it had been a real life incident that editors had witnessed - WP:OR would forbid editors writing on the basis of their memories. Instead policy would have them write solely on the basis of what published sources said had happened. If we did the same with this film, you would get out of all your problems. You could cite film reviews and articles about the film for the "facts". This would fix all Capuchinpilates' and Popcornduff's problems with the plot summary. I realise there could be some objections from people who saw the film - but it is the same with real life events being remembered differently from published accounts.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
It's certainly an interesting idea, but I don't think other editors would go along with it, and it would make the plot summary of this movie into a totally different format than all other plot summaries on WP. Also, what happens when reviewers disagree, would the summary cite all of their takes? Maybe Toddy1's idea is something to take to the WP page where policy on plot summaries is discussed. Capuchinpilates (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Yea, I agree, we don't seem to be getting much of anywhere here. I'm happy to continue or negotiate, but BoogaLouie, who has argued for the same things as me, doesn't want to participate anymore, and I feel that Popcornduff is not real into this. So yes, North of Eden, I'd be interested in what you have to say, but I fear you might simply say that, in the absence of consensus it should just remain the way it is, or it shouldn't include any language more complex than it has now. But there's a few problems with that. One, is that the language I'm interested in using is not against policy; there are no rules against using "weasel words" and "purple prose." Two, there are other issues we haven't gotten to here; Popcornduff says language I've used is purple prose, I say it's not (and I'd be happy to say more about that). But the biggest problem is with being able to make any improvements to the plot summary at all. Popcornduff wrote the original summary, and he seems to me to be blocking anyone else from making any substantial changes. S/he's reverted many, many editors, and while many of the reverts I would probably agree with, he seems willing to edit war where others aren't. So if one editor protects their own editing, then how can a WP page ever improve? For an obscure movie like this, I don't think there's ever going to be some troupe of like-minded editors who show up on the talk page at the same time and demand the same changes.
Popcornduff, I think I've probably offended you many times by saying that the plot summary is not very good, and for that I apologize.Capuchinpilates (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not offended in the slightest. FYI, I didn't write the original version of the plot summary, and the current version isn't entirely by me, either - for example, I once argued in favour of saying that the protagonist is an alien, until BoogaLouie talked me round.
Look, I think you're making a hopeless case here. As I and other editors keep saying, including interpretation in the plot is a violation of Wiki policy. If you want to debate whether phrases like "completes her masquerade" and "she is no longer the hunter but the hunted" are purple prose inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, well, perhaps other moderators would like to chip in. Popcornduff (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Glad you're not offended. From the article history, it definitely looks like you added the plot section and the very first summary on March 17 2014. As for a hopeless case, you're probably right, but I think I could make a pretty good argument for those phrases simply being factual, accurate descriptions and not purple prose. I just watched Ex Machina, might try my hand at adding a bit of violet prose to that plot summary.Capuchinpilates (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I stand corrected - I guess I did write the very first version of the Under the Skin plot summary. Time flies... Popcornduff (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I watched Ex Machina this week, so last night I edited its WP plot summary, my first edit since Under the Skin, and within hours my edits have been modified by none other than Popcornduff! My first thought was that I'm being stalked and messed with, but looking down the history I see that PCD had been editing this page before me. It appears that the stalker is me! But PCD, what do you think of the last line of the Ex Machina summary that says that Ava "enters human society"? Or the line, "Persuaded of Ava's emotions, Caleb decides that her confinement is abuse." Capuchinpilates (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I assure you that my edits are nothing personal - we just so happened to both work on another article about a British science fiction movie, which isn't much of a coincidence when you think about it (similar tastes I guess). The community of editors regularly working on film articles is pretty small, really. If you want to discuss the Ex Machina article, I suggest you use the Talk page for that article. Popcornduff (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Statewide opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Fix_the_map[edit]

Pictogram voting wait red.png – Needs attention.
Filed by Prcc27 on 04:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC).

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

There were two polls conducted in Washington both within a day of each other. The PPP poll says Clinton has a 33% lead (margin of error: ± 5%) and the Gravis Marketing poll that was taken the next day says she has a 9% lead (margin of error: ± 6%). There is a map on the article that says Clinton's lead in Washington is less than 10%. But I wanted to stripe Washington with two colors to reflect that there is also another poll that says she has a 30-49% lead. The other user thinks that only the most recent poll should be used (even if it was taken the day after the second most recent poll), and striping should only be reserved for ties.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We've been discussing it at the article's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I think we need you guys to weigh in on whether or not striping Washington is appropriate. Also, you guys might be able to find a way we can compromise.

Summary of dispute by Nitroxium[edit]

As explained in the talk page, the article for the democratic primaries has been following the same format as the republicans in using the most recent polls for coloring the map. Prcc27 proposes we utilize stripes on the maps to show what he considers to be "conflicting polls." However, stripes in the statewide opinion polls (Repub and democrat) are being used for virtual ties. Beyond this, saying that the two polls are conflicting would be WP:OR as we would be making our on conclusions on what can be interpreted from the polls. What we can do and have done in this case is put a footnote saying that the colors on the map may be slightly innacurate due to margin of error which is an undisputed fact. However, both Washington polls that Prcc27 points out cannot be considered conflicting due to the very same margin of errors.

In the talk page of the article I have provided an example of why we cannot conclude through the polls that they are conflicting without it falling into WP:OR.

"First, you can't compare the results in PPP with the polls for Gravis including Elizabeth Warren. People could very easily switch from Clinton to Warren if she was an option in the primaries and there is absolutely no conflict there. Therefore, we must compare the results of PPP with the Gravis results WITHOUT Warren. In the PPP poll, she has 57% with a margin of error of 5%, meaning it could be a support of 52%. In the Gravis poll, she has a support of 45% with a margin of error of 6%, meaning it could be 51%. Likewise with Sanders, in PPP he has 24% which could be 29% and in Gravis he has 36% which could be 30%. Hence why if there was a change of 1% of support from Clinton to Sanders during the next few days (which is completely plausible), these two polls are not conflicting. I must add, the Gravis poll without Warren still includes De Blasio, which means there doesn't even have to be a 1% change of support in the next days. Clinton could have lost 2% to De Blasio in the Gravis poll. There's many possibilities."

Talk:Statewide opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Fix_the_map discussion[edit]

@Prcc27 and Nitroxium: I'm seeing extensive talk page discussion and am happy to take this case. I'll do a little more brushing up on the issues before asking a few questions. Thanks much, North of Eden (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I am going to be working on concluding the English football dispute above, but once that's concluded I will give my full attention to this issue. I plan to put up some substantive comments tomorrow morning in this section. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Prcc27 and Nitroxium: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the basic issue is whether stripes should indicate conflicting polling results or ties between candidates. In this event, I think it's crucial to look at the Republican primary page and at precedent for this page. The same-sex marriage page may be helpful as a guide, but opinion polling on social issues and candidate polling are pretty different things. North of Eden (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • They are different things, but the issue the same-sex marriage map had is the same one the Democratic map has. I believe one user even said is was "fraud" to leave out conflicting polls on that map. It does take longer for a state to trend a certain way on social issues than opinion of candidates, but it's near impossible for a candidate's lead to change drastically in one day just like it is near impossible for a state to change drastically on social issues (with a few exceptions like President Obama coming out in favor of same-sex marriage) in 1 month. Just because the poll that says Clinton has a 9% lead was taken 1 day after a poll said she has a 33% lead doesn't mean her lead is less than 10%. I don't know if I'd call it "fraud" to leave out stripes for conflicting results, but it's certainly misleading- whether it's on a map for opinion polling on social issues or a map for opinion polling on candidates. It definitely won't hurt the map to provide more information- it would actually help the map. Prcc27 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, saying they are conflicting polls is WP:OR, you are coming to your own conclusions about the polls. And the reason it's the same map is first of all, because you changed the map we were using before. Second of all, that is a basic map with no coloring on wikimedia that any editor can pick up and start using. You added that due to margin of errors, the colors may not reflect reality completely as a footnote and that is the step we had to take. Anything else would be WP:OR. We are following the format the republicans use. Nitroxium (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pardon me, but unfortunately I don't even know what your second and third sentences are referring to.. Nonetheless, I feel like what I said on the article's talk page applies to your statement on here too: "You already explained to me that both polls are accurate with each other within 1%, but that's if and only if Clinton has a 21% lead which the map does not have Washington colored as. And it's not the polls that are conflicting, it's that the map doesn't take into account the margin of error, and quite frankly a footnote isn't enough. If readers see Washington striped with two colors and they see the margin of error footnote- they will be more likely to scroll down to find out why Washington is striped and to find out what those margin of errors for Washington are. Then they will be able to come to the conclusion that Clinton has about a 21% lead (which is pretty much what you concluded from the polls yourself) or they could come to the conclusion that Clinton does in fact have a less than 10% lead because the poll that says so is more recent. Regardless, purposely leaving out information on the map adds WP:UNDUE bias and may be fraudulent." Prcc27 (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand concerns about WP:OR; specifically, we can veer close to WP:SYNTH by comparing poll results. That said, I would encourange all to take a look at WP:What SYNTH is not. It's not considered original research to simply summarize an obvious truth; at least to me, conflicting polls would fall within that category, so long as the statement is free of any opinionated analysis. We still have the issue of how striping ought to be used on the map, and I'm interested in hearing more about that (and any additional discussion about WP:OR and simiilar issues, of course). Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Well the current map isn't set up for ties because unlike the GOP map- the Democratic map goes into detail about what percentage a candidate is leading by. If let's say Sanders and Clinton were tied in Vermont it wouldn't make sense to stripe Vermont "Sanders ahead, <10%" and "Clinton ahead, <10%" because neither candidate is ahead- both are tied. Instead, we could simply add a new color for tied states like blue or red. Prcc27 (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
      • That sounds like an interesting idea; what do you think, User:Nitroxium? One of the nice things is we have more leeway than we would with the Republican page, as there's only two serious contenders, and only one who is experiencing polling variations of the type we're discussing. I'm interested to hear Nitroxium's perspective on this, so I can get a better handle on where we should proceed with our discussion. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
        • The whole basis of this discussion has been that the polls are conflicting and that simply cannot be 100% concluded from the information given. Therefore, any conclusion on them being conflicting would be WP:OR. As shown in the talk page of the article, the two polls are not necessarily conflicting but rather could be within a margin of error (ie. Clinton could have lost two points because of De Blasio in Washington). Therefore, drawing an arbitrary line of mixing two poll results together from two different sources just because they are a few days close to each other does not make sense to me. The poll articles (Both democrat and republican) have been absolutely clear on the fact that the map represents the absolutely most recent poll, despite the color possibly being subject to change due to margin of error or not. There are many intricacies about polls, survey methodology and pollsters to mix them into the same bag arbitrarily. I propose an alternative which is to add a footnote leaving a very clear message about the map representing the absolutely most recent poll and an invitation to scroll down and read the section of each state for further information. Nitroxium (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Understood. You raise a very good point and I understand your concerns about OR/improper synthesis of information. Given that the polls are only a day apart, do you think that throws a hitch in things? I can see the argument in favor of "no, it doesn't," if we're operating under a strict "recent is the most valid" rule. It sounds like this may be precedent on other pages and, if so, we should probably give it some deference but, at the same time, we shouldn't cling too closely to rules that we neglect the obvious. In this case, I think the day-apart factor is worth considering, but not necessarily the linchpin of the conversation. North of Eden (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Another solution I may propose is one that User:Prcc27 and I had thought of doing but were unsure if it would be WP:OR. Seeing more clearly WP:What SYNTH is not, I think it may work out and we can settle this conflict once and for all. We had proposed to create our own aggregate of the polls per state, defining our own rules based on what does, which is make an average of all polls within a timespan of a month. I believe this would be a synthesis that would not go against the rules of Wikipedia and would be closer to what User:Prcc27 considers which is a midpoint between two polls that he considers to be conflicing. In the case of Washington, it would literally be a midpoint between the two polls. Nitroxium (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
              • I think this would be a good way to resolve the disagreement, and it likely meets WP:CALC, due to the editors' consensus to use it. That said, I would be very cautious about avoiding WP:ORIGINALSYN, as some may have concerns about aggregating polls. I would encourage proposing this on the article talk page or perhaps beginning an RfC on this to determine other editors' feedback. North of Eden (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
                • I have no problem averaging polls assuming it doesn't violate Wikipedia policy. Using an aggregate from a reliable source seems fine, but making our own aggregate does seem like it would violate WP:ORIGINALSYN. If we don't average the polls I'd say striping for Washington is our best option. Prcc27 (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
                  • If it were to break any Wikipedia rules, I'd go back to my previous alternative proposal of adding an extra footnote. Making them stripes on the map would be just as WP:ORIGINALSYN and WP:OR as aggregates. Nitroxium (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just as a question to User:Prcc27: is the footnote proposal at all acceptable to you? It's certainly fine if it wouldn't be, but just wondering. North of Eden (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    • No because even though technically all the information would be there- the map would be (and currently is) visually misleading! Prcc27 (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
      • The map would not be misleading as all the information would be there. You are acting as if people look at the map and can't look down several pixels. It is the only solution that doesn't break WP:OR or WP:ORIGINALSYN. I think this is getting to a ridiculous point. Nitroxium (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I already explained it would be an WP:UNDUE bias for the map to treat one poll like it is more reliable than the other one when they were only taken a day within each other. If you want to get technical it would be WP:OR to say Clinton has a less than 10% lead without the source saying so explicitly using your logic! The map is so unreliable right now, especially since the map doesn't take into account for margin of errors and you only want to account for margin of error when it's close to a tie. I think all of our problems would be solved: Washington, New Hampshire (which has a statistical tie), etc. if we made the map like the GOP map. The percentages on the map aren't doing anyone good and the GOP map doesn't have them. They might have been necessary when Clinton lead in every single state in the country. But now we learned that Sanders had a lead in Vermont all this time, and New Hampshire has a statistical tie. So two states wouldn't be colored green if we got rid of the percentages. And we wouldn't have to worry about what to color Washington! Prcc27 (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I will repeat myself for the umpteenth time, no poll is being treated as more reliable than another. We are simply showing the absolutely most recent poll and that is as objective as we can get without breaking WP:ORIGINALSYN or WP:OR. The map is reliable as the footnote states that it is not absolutely accurate. You are the only one who has been protesting over the methodology we've used, but many editors have edited the article before and followed through with it without complaint. I did not create the article and did not put the percentages, it was another editor and with good reason. The point is to show more information to the reader, since Clinton has been the commanding leader in the primaries it interests to know by how much. I have had no problem in following through with the methodology currently used unless the race becomes tighter. Nitroxium (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
            • As North of Eden said, it's not WP:OR if it's an obvious truth. It's obvious that a poll isn't more reliable if it's only more recent by a day! You and I are the only ones who have been talking about changing the map since we colored Vermont for Sanders, thus the map is different when other people edited it because Clinton isn't the only candidate that leads in a state. So having a percentage map might have worked somewhat in the past, but now we have another candidate and it's becoming pointless. And there's nobody else around to weigh in on whether we should get rid of the percentages due to Clinton not leading in every state anymore. It's beyond stupid that when New Hampshire is within the margin of error for a tie you decided to stripe the map and threaten to report me for vandalism if I revert you again. Yet, we don't stripe South Carolina even though when you take the margin of error into account Clinton could either have a >69% lead or a 50%–69%. So how come South Carolina is colored for a >69% lead when the margin of error might suggest otherwise? Why is NH the only state that deserves to be striped to take the margin of error into account? It's inconsistent to only take the margin of error into account sometimes (for statistical ties). Did we use a percentage map for the 2008 democratic primary? Do we use a percentage map for the GOP primary? No. At what point is Clinton's lead no longer "commanding"? Because in April 2007 Clinton lead in every state except for 5 states. Was that a "commanding" lead? If so, then why didn't we use a percentage map in 2007? Prcc27 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Also, why do you consider New Hampshire a statistical tie but not Washington..? Washington is within the margin of error of being tied using the most recent poll. Prcc27 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Prcc27 and Nitroxium: As a disclosure, I was notified at my talk page about a potential user conduct issue related to this discussion. Per policy, I can't weigh in on user conduct issues except to refer editors to more appropriate fora, such as WP:AN/I or WP:AN/Edit warring. I have carefully read your postings from earlier today and appreciate the diligence you've put into them. Just as a thought experiment, which may help editors in defusing the current conflict as we proceed, what do each of you think are the other editor's strongest arguments? Essentially, if you were arguing the other editor's point of view, which of his or her arguments might you use or expand on? Sorry if this seems infantile, but I think it may help us make progress here. North of Eden (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Their strongest argument is that we should follow the format of the GOP map. And for the most part I agree with them. I obviously still think that polls that were taken 1 day before the most recent one shouldn't be disregarded and should be reflected on the map. But if we switched to a map that only had three categories: "Clinton lead" (dark green), "Sanders lead" (dark blue), and "Clinton and Sanders tied" (dark gray or striped green/blue)- the dispute we are having with Washington would disappear since we would just color it as "Clinton lead". Since the GOP map doesn't differentiate by what percentage a candidate is leading by, nor did the 2008 Democratic primary map- even though Clinton had a commanding lead and was leading in every state except for 5- I feel like we should follow those maps' formats and not use percentages. The margin of errors are very problematic because a state could possibly qualify as different colors based on only one single poll when margin of error is accounted for. I still don't understand why NH is striped for margin of error, but SC isn't striped to account for margin of error. But a map without percentages would fix the margin of error problem we are having now. Prcc27 (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Removing percentages would certainly render this dispute moot. But I would imagine the rationale for the percentages is that Clinton is the clear frontrunner, so the issue is generally whether she has a commanding lead or not, as opposed to whether she or Sanders is polling higher in a given state. @Nitroxium: what are your thoughts? North of Eden (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I think that Prccc's point in that the map is not completely accurate is completely right and that is why we need to point that out in a footnote to the readers, as we have done so. I am even proposing going even further and will simply go ahead and add that footnote. However, Prccc is proposing to change completely the format that has been used by myself and many other editors since the creation of the article which had established said format because of the particularity of Clinton's commanding lead. To remove the percentages would be to make the map completely useless to the reader. I think we can work off the basis that the map is not completely accurate and work towards making the reader understand that through a simple footnote, that won't change the entire format that has been until now accepted unanimously, that will solve any issues of innacuracies and that has provided more information. Nitroxium (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
          • "Prccc (sic) is proposing to change completely the format that has been used by myself and many other editors since the creation of the article which had established said format because of the particularity of Clinton's commanding lead." Umm.. the the map's format was not set up that way because of her commanding lead. The reason why the map was set up that way was because when it was first created, she had a lead in every single state in the nation (except Vermont, but it was inaccurately colored in her favor at the time). Now, there are two candidates that are leading in at least 1 state. In August 2007 Clinton had just as much of a commanding lead as she does now in 2015. She had a lead in 29 states compared to her current lead in 27 states. If a map without percentages can be used in 2007 when she had a commanding lead- a map like that can also be used now since Clinton's situation is similar then as it is now! "I think we can work off the basis that the map is not completely accurate and work towards making the reader understand that through a simple footnote". A footnote isn't going to fix the inaccuracies of a map; removing the percentages will. A footnote would pretty much be telling readers "this map is inaccurate! Please read article to find out about conflicting results and margin of errors". And if you truly did support footnotes, you would have left New Hampshire alone and let the margin of error footnote explain things instead of striping it without consensus. If South Carolina ins't striped for margin of error then neither should New Hampshire. Also, as you said yourself- all the information on the map is in the article. If a reader can find out about the percentages by themselves on the GOP article, they can do so on the Democratic article too. Prcc27 (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Including the percentages likely increases the overall accuracy and usefulness of the map, which is a plus. However, it sounds as if the precedent in similar Democratic Party articles, such as the one from 2007, is to use a map without percentages. On another note, I've put some thought into the rule that only the most recent poll is used when determining each state's coloration. Generally, I think this is a very good rule. There needs to be a way to determine the state's coloration without veering into WP:OR, and using the most recent poll is pretty much the only way to do this. That said, as great as this model is, it can cause conflict with verifiability and reliable sourcing policies. Specifically, reliance on the "most-recent" rule may cause us to violate WP:RS by including information which is easily impeachable, as it is contradicted by info from an equally reliable and recent source (i.e. the May 14-17 poll in Washington). So I guess the question now is, how do we get around these obstacles? How do we satisfy both OR and RS policies while retaining consistency and accuracy on the map? North of Eden (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
              • Well a map with percentages may be useful but how the map is currently set up is not accurate. The map doesn't take the margin of error into account unless a state is in the margin of error of a tie because Nitroxium striped NH, but not SC and other states with conflicting results when margin of error is taken into account! I think we all agree that we should be consistent throughout the articles so since neither the GOP nor the Democratic map from 2007 used percentages I think that's a strong reason for getting rid of them. Should we possibly go to another noticeboard to find out how not to violate them i.e. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard & Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, or should we only figure things out on this noticeboard? Prcc27 (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
                • The RS noticeboard might be useful; I'm not sure how active the other one is. If you'd like to try that out to vet sources, you are more than welcome to do so. I am happy to keep this discussion open and continue working to resolve the dispute here, perhaps integrating the other processes as well. North of Eden (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
                  • Yes check.svg Done. North of Eden, if you are confused about what I mean when I say the margin of error is only being taken into account when there is a statistical tie- let me know! Also, I think removing the percentages from the map is getting closer to having consensus; especially since another state was added to the Clinton/Sanders tied column. @Nitroxium:, do you have anything to say to try to refute the points I made above about removing the percentages? Prcc27 (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Prcc27: I think I get what you're saying (by all means correct me if I'm getting it wrong!). Your view, as I understand it, is that margins of error are used when determining which states should be striped as ties. They are not, however, used when determining the state's coloration if it's a Clinton-percentage state? North of Eden (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I have also given this matter more thought and think that it wouldn't break WP:OR if we put stripes based on the margins of error (ex. Hillary above 50-69 and 69+ at the same time) but only based on the most recent polls. Is that okay with Prcc27? Nitroxium (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I assume, if accepted by User:Prcc27, this would resolve the dispute at hand? North of Eden (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
        • If they support striping Washington for both polls then yeah. Not sure if that's what they meant from their comment. While I do prefer striping states to account for margin of error I feel like with all these different shades of green and stripes the map will be too cluttered. Getting rid of the percentages altogether would make the map cleaner and more consistent with other maps. But I will probably propose this on the article's talk page since if Nixtroxium concedes that Washington should be striped- the dispute is resolved. Prcc27 (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
          • That sounds excellent, but I'd like the striping resolution to be confirmed by Nitroxium before this is closed. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Just to be clear, Washington would be triple striped to account for the margin of error for both polls (which isn't very desirable for me), but at least both polls would be included. Prcc27 (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
              • As we have discussed at length before, using both polls would be WP:OR and WP:ORIGINALSYN. I am saying to use the most recent polls with margin of error included and to add a footnote clarifying that they are the utmost recent poll. Nitroxium (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
                • Well then the dispute is not settled. so far there is no response from the reliable sources noticeboard, but I just commented about this dispute on the original research noticeboard. Prcc27 (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
                • A user on the reliable sources noticeboard said "this doesn't appear to be a reliability issue so much as it could be a WP:NOTNEWS issue." Any thoughts on how WP:NOTNEWS applies to this dispute..? Prcc27 (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Prcc27: I don't think WP:NOTNEWS applies as much as WP:Recentism, which the editor at the RS noticeboard also mentioned. That said, Nitroxium's point is well made that synthesizing the polls, even just two for Washington, would set a bad precedent involving original synthesis. Ultimately, these are the options I think we've determined:
    • 1. Keep the map in its current state.
    • 2. Remove percentages from the map altogether; keep using striping to denote margin-of-error issues between candidates.
    • 3. Use striping to denote margin-of-error issues for a single candidate, but only using the most recent poll (Nitroxium's recent proposal)
    • 4. Use striping to denote conflicting polls for a single candidate (presumably with consideration given to margin-of-error issues)
  • Obviously, if folks have alternative ideas, or if you want to clarify these, let me know. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I support #2 and proposed it on the article's talk page since it's separate from the original dispute. Prcc27 (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Number 3, there's no reason we should sacrifice an opportunity to give more information to the reader just because Prcc does not agree with more information being given to the reader. #3 while giving more information also fixes the issue. Meanwhile, option #2 does not fix the issue and I find it strange for Prcc to support it, since in the case of two polls coming out on the same day (One showing a statistical tie, another showing a clear winner), the dispute wouldn't be resolved at all. I am sensing bias here. Nitroxium (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
        • @Nitroxium: I am not bias. My support for #2 is entirely separate from what this dispute is about: what we do if two conflicting polls come out on the same day or one or two days within each other. If #2 becomes the new map I would still be in favor of reflecting both polls that come out within a day of each other. But obviously we'd have to change the coloring. If New Hampshire had two polls come out a day within each other- one saying Sanders leads the other saying there's a statistical tie, I would stripe the state dark gray (tie) and blue (Sanders lead). North of Eden, since my proposal to get rid of percentages is separate from the original dispute of what to do when there are conflicting polls- do we have to discuss that proposal on the article's talk page first before bringing the dispute here or are we allowed to have that exclusively discussed here? But I will note that if a user goes on the article's talk page and supports my proposal to get rid of percentages that would most likely mean it has consensus and it wouldn't need to be discussed here. Prcc27 (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I don't have time to provide full comments right now, but I will later today. In the meantime, it is perfectly fine to discuss the percentages proposal here. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
            • There are now 4 states that aren't solid Clinton support. That's 4 times as many states as when Nitroxium initially said that Clinton's lead was commanding. Now, Clinton's lead can no longer be called "commanding" because there are several states where she is not leading. As they said themselves, all the information is already in the wikipedia article. Since the GOP map doesn't provide all the information i.e. percentages I think the readers on the Democratic article can manage. Prcc27 (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
              • 4 out of 50 is completely commanding, and proposal #2 shouldn't even be considered since this dispute is about "conflicting polls". #2 does nothing to fix that.Nitroxium (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
                • @Nitroxium: I think you mean 4 out of 30 since 20 states were not even polled! For the last time, in 2007 Clinton's lead was just as remarkable and there were no percentages on that map. When exactly is Clinton's lead no longer commanding? She is tied in a vital early state and I hardly find that "commanding". North of Eden said we can discuss both issues about the map here. Otherwise, proposal #2 would have consensus since I'm the only one who commented on the article's talk page about it! Prcc27 (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
                  • I'm tired, I'll let North of Eden respond and see his opinion. The fact that it was done in the past doesn't mean we can't improve. I don't see why you see the need to sacrifice being able to offer more information to the reader. #2 doesn't fix the issue of "conflicting polls" at all but it does stop showing as much information to the reader, while #3 solves both issues and doesn't sacrifice anything. Nitroxium (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
                    • @Nitroxium: Well I think we should have the discussion pertaining to #2 on the article's talk page since there are other users involved in the discussion there. The current !vote is 3-2 in my favor and since the discussion isn't exclusively between you and me- we can have that particular discussion on the article's talk page instead of here! Prcc27 (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
                        • This is dispute resolution, I don't know why you're saying to go back to the talk page if the whole reason we came here is to resolve dsiputes in the talk page? Please just allow North of Eden to respond before reverting my edits for the umpteenth time. Nitroxium (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Nitroxium: Fine, but we will have to add the other users that commented on the article's talk page and the Commons talk page about proposal #2 to this dispute resolution. The original dispute is between you and me, but the #2 proposal dispute is between you, me, and 3 other users. I will wait for North of Eden to comment. But on another note, what I reverted you for has nothing to do with either dispute. That particular dispute is about what is considered a statistical tie and what is not. Do we need to have that discussion here too and ping the user to discuss here what they discussed on that matter on the Commons talk page? Prcc27 (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Note I am traveling today (August 14) and tomorrow (August 15), but I will be able to give my full attention to the discussion tomorrow evening. Sorry for the delay. North of Eden (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I originally started this dispute resolution because Nitroxium and I were the only ones discussing the issue and neither one of us could agree on what to do. However, since a user just weighed in on the article's talk page in favor of Nitroxium I'm willing to yield and only use the most recent poll when coloring a state (unless someone at the talk page backs me- then I will try to get consensus there). Prcc27 (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @Prcc27 and Nitroxium: That sounds good. Do we still have an agreement on striping based on margins of error per Nitroxium's earlier suggestion? North of Eden (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
        • In the past few days, the disputes have been resolved, though the striping for margins of error I now have the opinion of not including them, since some reputable sources indicate that. Nitroxium (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
        • @Nitroxium: I'm a little confused; what exactly do these sources indicate? That the margins of error shouldn't be noted? North of Eden (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I fell like the margin of errors should be noted because why would they be given in the first place if they weren't meant to be considered..? Prcc27 (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
            • There's no risk of WP:OR by striping based on margins of error; in fact, all it would do is make the map more accurate. That said, we can certainly discuss this further. I'm interested to see Nitroxium's views on this. North of Eden (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:British Pakistanis[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Human3015 on 12:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Please make your comments in the section below.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute overview

There has been continuous discussion regarding issue that what people from Pakistan administered Kashmir living in Britain should be called? Should they be called British Kashmiris or British Mirpuris (Mirpur is city in Azad Kashmir). If we call them British Kashmiris then there is region named Jammu and Kashmir in India also, and people from Indian Kashmir also live in Britain and they also called as British Kashmiris. But when it comes to article British Pakistanis, vague term "Kashmiris" used for Pakistani origin Mirpuri people living in Britain. Using term "Kashmiris" will confuse the readers. As Pakistan claims Indian side of Kashmir as their part then continuosly using broad term "Kashmiri" for Mirpuri people gave arise to possible conflict of interest, and calling Indian Kashmiris in Britain as "British Pakistanis". There has been same kind of discussion earlier also [1], now new discussion has been started. []. As nature of conflict is such that no party will back off from their stand so DR is necessary, page has been protected on my request after brief edit warring. There is standing consensus that "Mirpuris in Britain" should not called as "Kashmiris". Article name of relevant group is British Mirpuris which has been decided after consensus. Moreover, sources provided in article also supports view point that these people should be called as "British Mirpuris" not "British Kashmiris".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed this issue on talk page. Nature of conflict is such that no one will back off. Here is issue of national agendas of the involved parties.

How do you think we can help?

You check the sources given in article. You decide wether "Mirpuris" is better term or "Kashmiris". this UK gov document is one of basic source. Read relevant pages 7/9. also telegraph news mentioned in lead.

Summary of dispute by Mar4d[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

A person who originates from Kashmir is called a Kashmiri, and this term is not limited only to ethnic Kashmiris from Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, but also applies to other groups such as those from Pakistani-administered Azad Kashmir in Pakistan. As per my comments on the article talk page, both the terms 'Mirpuri' and 'Kashmiri' are widely used to refer to the Pakistani Kashmiri community in the UK, and there is no evidence of one term being preferred over another. For example, the UK government source cited above by Human (which was actually added by me in the lead) uses Kashmiri more frequently than Mirpuri. Human3015 claims that using 'Kashmiri' does not disambiguate between those from Indian Kashmir, but this is actually an unfounded rationale as the article is on British Pakistanis (not British Indians), and therefore terms such as 'Kashmiri' or 'Punjabi' would obviously be used for those who originate from Pakistani Kashmir or Pakistani Punjab. Kashmiris or Punjabis are not an ethnic group limited to India, but that is the sort of WP:POV that some nationalist editors on Wikipedia actively pursue. It seems using the term 'Kashmiri' comes across as offensive to some users as Kashmir is a disputed region which India claims as its own, and therefore, from what I understand, some users would like to remove all mentions of that term from the British Pakistanis article. A great number of sources used in British Pakistanis use the term 'Kashmiri', yet Human3015 removed all usage of that term and replaced it with Mirpuri, which is a form of WP:CENSORSHIP. Mirpur is a town in Pakistani Kashmir from where the majority of British Pakistanis originate from, and the term 'Mirpuri' is commonly used from someone who comes from that town; it is just a placename identifier (like New Yorker, Lahori, Londoner etc.). It is not an ethnicity and there is no article on Mirpuri people. People from Mirpur and surrounding regions are Potohari-speaking Kashmiris. The problem with lumping all Pakistani Kashmiris under the term 'Mirpuri' of course is that while a majority come from Mirpur, not all Pakistani Kashmiris are from Mirpur (see British Pakistanis#Kashmiris). Kashmiris is broader and denotes all migrants from Azad Kashmir. We have sources which clearly use 'Kashmiri' to refer to the community, and most importantly, the Mirpuri community identifies itself as Kashmiri very frequently. This unnecessary removal of the term from the entire article, discarding the citations supporting the text and discarding the fact that a 700,000 strong community in the UK is clearly identified by that demonym, is relentless WP:POV pushing. I am yet to come across a single valid argument as to why 'Kashmiri' should be censored from the article despite dozens of sources showing usage of that term, simply because using the term offends the geopolitical sensitivities of one nationalist user. Mar4d (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the title of the article British Mirpuri, I've already stated that this title has imperfections but it is the best we could come up with. Naming the article 'British Mirpuri' was necessary to distinguish the group from non-related Kashmiris from other parts of Kashmir, and because there is no evidence that there are other significant Kashmiri communities in the UK notable to warrant an article, 'British Mirpuri' is the preferable title as it keeps the scope of the article limited to the Pakistani Kashmiri community (which is a large population and meets WP:NOTABILITY). British Pakistani Kashmiri would be an authentic title, but considering the impractical usage, we settled for British Mirpuri. The title of the article is for NPOV disambiguation purposes, and it does not dismiss the validity of the term 'Kashmiri' nor does it promote the validity of the term 'Mirpuri' more than that. In British Pakistanis article, we don't need to restrict ourselves to that disambiguation as the scope of the article is already defined in the title, and therefore any reference to 'Kashmiri' would obviously refer to Azad Kashmir. Moreover, all Mirpuris are from Azad Kashmir but not all (Azad) Kashmiris are from Mirpur, just as not all Punjabis are from Lahore but the vice versa holds true. Mar4d (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Also, for reference:
Hence Pathans distinguish themselves from Punjabis, while many Mirpuris (a group to which some two-thirds of all British Pakistanis belong) choose to define themselves as ‘Kashmiris’ in order to differentiate themselves from other Pakistanis. There are no accurate figures but it is estimated that 60-70 percent of the Pakistani population are from the Kashmir Mirpur region and settled mostly in Birmingham, Bradford, Oldham and surrounding towns.55 In London the community is more mixed and includes comparable numbers of Punjabis, Pathans and Kashmiris. There are also small communities of Sindhis and Balochis


Mar4d (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In Pakistan, an individual from Azad Kashmir is a Kashmiri. Mirpur is in Kashmir (the Pakistani part) so the terminology Kashmiri holds true for Mirpuris, and by extension, all other migrants from Azad Kashmir. Disputing this fact is akin to disputing that a Glaswegian is not a Scottish, or that a Londoner is not an Englishman. Many sources can be consulted, from which it furthermore becomes apparent that usage of the term 'Mirpuri' is actually non-existent in Pakistan, and that the term was popularised in Britain mainly due to the mass migration of people from Mirpur to the UK. Mar4d (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3[edit]

Human3015 is right that the present dispute is a continuation of the issue first raised on the British Mirpuri page. The community that is called British Mirpuris is from the former princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, of which Jammu and Kashmir are two major divisions, both of which are divided across India and Pakistan. The British Mirpuris come from the Mirpur district in the Pakistan-controlled part of the Jammu division. They are not from the Kashmir division and they are not ethnic Kashmiris.

A well-meaning RfC [2] to rename the page British Mirpuri to "British Kashmiri" did not achieve consensus. Calling British Mirpuris "Kashmiri" without acknowledgement of all the subtleties is misleading in my opinion. I researched into the issue when the previous RfC happened and discovered that, prior to 1990, the community was called "British Mirpuri" and it has tried to rebrand itself as "British Kashmiri" for political reasons that are unrelated to the well-known Kashmir dispute. The RfC shows my reasoning along with the reliable sources.[1][2] I can provide more if needed. Hence, I suggest that on the British Pakistani page, the community should be normally referred to as "British Mirpuri", but of course their claim to Kashmiri identity should be acknowledged. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Ballard, Roger (2 March 1991). "Kashmir Crisis: View from Mirpur" (PDF). Economic and Political Weekly 26 (9/10): 513–517. JSTOR 4397403. 
  2. ^ Evans, Alexander (2005). "Kashmir: a tale of two valleys". Asian Affairs 36 (1): 35–47. doi:10.1080/03068370500038989. 

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:British Pakistanis discussion[edit]

Please comment on the section allocated for you below. You may reply to the comments in this archived section using {{re|<username>}} in sections allocated for you.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  •  Volunteer note: This dispute has been extensively discussed on the article's talk page and I think is ready for DRN. I'm neither accepting nor declining this case at this time, awaiting dispute summaries from the included parties. Please keep your comments restricted to the content rather than the contributor. Regards--JAaron95 Talk 13:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Another volunteer note: I, like my colleague JAaron95 am a regular volunteer here at DRN and, like him, am not either "taking" or opening this case for discussion. I do, however, want to make this comment: When there's a dispute over a word, name, or term, the resolution starts with — just like every other dispute here — with an discussion of whether or not there are reliable sources for the use of one of the disputed terms over the others. But here's the thing that is often missed in that kind of discussion: The only true reliable source for disputes over terms is a source which examines or discusses the term and sources which merely use one term or the other without discussing it are not sufficient to resolve the question, regardless of how otherwise-reliable they may be. To say that because an otherwise-reliable source uses the term and that, therefore, it must be the proper term is a form of prohibited original research because it goes beyond the mere fact that the source uses the term to imply that it's the generally correct term. What's really needed to resolve this kind of question are reliable sources which expressly discuss the term and which, preferably, take all competing terms into account in that discussion. One variation on this issue comes up when an editor wants to put something like "Sometimes called X" into the article. Once again, if that insertion is disputed then a reliable source saying that they're "sometimes called X" needs to be found and merely providing sources which give examples of such use will not ordinarily be sufficient. In either case, if sources of the kinds mentioned above cannot be found supporting the use then the disputed term should not be used in the article unless a consensus can be formed for a local exception to use the term notwithstanding the lack of sources and that's most firmly done through a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    The Alexander Evans source has a section called "British Kashmiris" (pp. 43-46), especially page 45, which I think fits the bill. I quoted from it in the previous RfC, which I reproduce here again: Prior to the early 1990s, most British Kashmiris called themselves Mirpuris or Pakistanis. The Mirpuri category was looked down on by other Pakistanis – Mirpuris were racially stereotyped as uneducated hill-people with little culture. Becoming Kashmiri is an important component of increasing the status and prestige of a group of British South Asians. The tiny UK community of Valley Kashmiris – people who speak Kashmiri – tend to socialize with other Valley Kashmiris. Some 500 families all told, a mixture of Hindus and Muslims, Valley Kashmiris maintain that they are Kashmiris – and Mirpuris are ‘nouveaux Kashmiris’.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: (edit conflict)Thanks all of you for making your summaries. This case has been opened and I'll moderate the discussion. Please correct me if I'm getting something wrong. The dispute is focused on What should be the name of the people/group, who currently live in Britain, and have their origins in Mirpur, Azad Kashmir? Should it be British Mirpuris (or) British Kashmiris? Right? Regards--JAaron95 Talk 14:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Jaaron95: That is correct, with reference to which term should be used to refer to the group within the article British Pakistanis. Mar4d (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeh Jaaron, question is same that what that people should be called in mentioned article. Moreover, I will request involved people that, please comment on content not on editors. This is a dispute resolution board, not WP:ANI or WP:AE. Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove  14:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I guess the question is also to what extent should each term be used. I suppose everybody accepts that both the term should be mentioned. Most of the edit-warring seems to have happened on particular uses of the terms but the disputants have so far neglected to elaborate on those issues. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Good. Now, it seems that the word used in the article prior to this dispute was British Kashmiri and the word was used in reliable sources, wasn't it? Human3015 changed those names to British Mirpuri, which was also used in reliable sources. Now having reliable sources which use both the words, we cannot come to a conclusion based on the reliable sources which merely mentions either of the two words. So, to come to a conclusion, do we have sources which extensively discuss the two names and mention why one name is preferred over the another? Human3015, I think it's your responsibility to come up with a source that discusses the term extensively, as you want the name to be changed. Regards--JAaron95 Talk 15:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have some points:
  1. Separate article on Mirpuris in Britain is named British Mirpuris, this name is came after discussions, consensus and as per WP:COMMONNAME. So how same people can be reffered by different names? At least we should we should move page British Mirpuris to British Kashmiris, though there is no consensus for that.
  2. Moderator said, "both terms have reliable sources". So there is no issue of reliability of "Mirpuri". India also have region named Jammu and Kashmir, people from this area called as "Kashmiris". So using term "Kashmiri" for "Mirpuris" can be confusing, if we have two "reliable" terms then why we should not use non-confusing term which also has consensus on article British Mirpuris. See news search result for term Kashmiri, all news regarding "Kashmiri" are about Indian Kashmiris, not a single news regarding so called "Pakistani Kashmiris".
  3. Now I will give you some scholarly studies, you must read it, this study itself have name "Mirpuris in UK".
  • I will make short comments, if you want more sources or logics then I will provide. I think Term "Mirpuri" has consensus, we have article British Mirpuri, we have reliable sources for it, term "Kashmiri" is used mainly for Indian Kashmiris. I think this much is enough for keeping "Mirpuri". Moreover, I can provide sources or as Kautilya3 said in his first comment that these "Mirpuris" are not actually "ethnic" Kashmiris, people who live in Kashmir valley of India are the only ethnic Kashmiris. But this is not issue here. Read my above comment carefully. --Human3015Send WikiLove  15:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Kautilya3: You are coming with a different point here. Going by your dispute summary, you want both the terms to be included in the article (which I can currently see in the article) and the word British Mirpuri substantially greater than the other word. You also have included a source which discusses the use of both the words. And by the source, people prefer being called British Kashmiri, and 'British Manipuri' was used before the 90's. So, shouldn't the article use the former word more extensively than the later, as it is more preferred by the people? What do you think about this Mar4d and Human3015? Why shouldn't we use both the words, why restrict to one name? Regards--JAaron95 Talk 16:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Jaaron95: That echoes my sentiments and precisely what I've been arguing. Both terms should be used synonymously (like the article currently does) without prejudice against either, but a user here went the extra mile and obliterated usage of the term 'Kashmiri' from the whole article, even when many of the sources cited for the text do not support that blanket rename. In a way, it's POV and source falsification.Mar4d (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are subtle problems of emphasis. Within the overall region of Jammu and Kashmir, Mirpuris would be small in number. However, in Britain, they outnumber everybody else. So their claim to Kashmiri identity has the danger of upstaging the "real Kashmiris," the people of the Kashmir valley. A valley Kashmiri reading this article should be able to feel comfortable with our use of the language. For example, the sentence "Many Kashmiris began emigrating after the construction of the Mangla dam in Mirpur" jars on the ears of a valley Kashmiri because the valley Kashmiris don't have anything to do with the Mangla dam. Within India, only the valley Kashmiris are called "Kashmiri." They are only ones that speak the Kashmiri language. Jammuites and Ladakhis are not called "Kashmiri." So it jars on all the Indian ears too. A solution for this particular sentence would be to say "Mirpuri Kashmiris." That should make everybody happy :-) - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: I think you have explained the problem, in India, Kashmiri denotes the valley Kashmiris. But in Pakistan, that is not so much the case, Kashmiri means someone who is from Azad Kashmir or Jammu and Kashmir. As this article is on a group from Pakistan, why should we not use the widely accepted local terminology? Mar4d (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mar4d and Jaaron95: Since we are writing Wikipedia for everybody, not just the Pakistanis, we should use neutral language that is acceptable (and makes sense) to everybody. This is especially the case with a sensitive and politically loaded subject like Kashmir. (I am deliberately staying away from political issues, but trust me, there are loads of political implications that ride on this terminology!) - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@@Kautilya3: Yes, Wikipedia is for all readers. That is why there is an article titled Azad Kashmir, and not Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Wikipedia does not require us to cater to the political sensitivities or preferences of one group or country. As mentioned, we follow what is accepted practice by reviewing a variety of sources and weighting what different sources say appropriately. If we don't use a widely used term because it does not used among another group, that would violate WP:NPOV. Mar4d (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And as per sources widely used term is "Mirpuri". You are not giving any base foe your arguments. See Wikipedia is not democracy. Wikipedia always try to provide information to readers from reliable sources. Wikipedia write what is true according to RS, not according to people's choice. You people are experienced editors, I have no need to tell these things to you, but just for sake of pushing POV these baseless arguments of "People's choice" has been coming forward when we don't even have source for this term 'Kashmiri' is famous in people elsewhere or people in Pakistan.--Human3015Send WikiLove  09:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Kautilya3, Mar4d, and Jaaron95: If some arguments are coming word "Kashmiri" is "people's choice" then read these news by leading Pakistani newspapers. [3], [4], [5] etc. They are using word "Mirpuris". Even Dawn has used word "Mirpuris" for British Pakistanis from Azad Kashmir. Same news papers use word 'Kashmiri" exclusively for Indian Kashmiris [6], [7], [8]. --Human3015Send WikiLove  10:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think this edit of involved editor in lead section the article tells all story of the article. Editor saying in edit summary that article contains mostly "Kashmiris" elsewhere in article so we must keep only "Kashmiris" in lead. He is against keeping word "Mirpuris" in lead. Moreoevr, page link is of British Mirpuris but he is wrongly linking "Kashmiris" there. What is logic or POV behind linking as [[British Mirpuris|Kashminris]]? Read my above commment in detail, lead no where mentions "Mirpuris" which is common term. --Human3015Send WikiLove  16:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The article uses both Kashmiri and Mirpuri, you are the one who removed all references to the former. And my stance is already known, which is that while both terms should be used, Kashmiri is to be the preferred term for lead, section headings, opening sentences etc. Mar4d (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No one has yet commented on my scholarly sources given also for news result for term "Kashmiri" which is showing only news about Indian Kashmiris. These people are not Kashmiris, they are Mirpuris. Jaaron, as I saw elsewhere that you are new in this arena, I will suggest you to take opinion of Steven Zang, he has resolve one dispute related to Kashmir successfully and he has already done his research regarding Kashmir issue. If you take his opinion it will reduce your time of research. Regards. --Human3015Send WikiLove  16:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on content not on editors. Anyway, you can news search word "Kashmiri" on Google Pakistan or on google US or UK, and can show results to public. --Human3015Send WikiLove  16:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Kashmiri is an ethnic identity, not a regional one. Looking over the previous discussion, particularly the one at British Mirpuris, it appears that there is doubt about the ethnicity of the people from Mirpur currently in Britain. The source provided by Kautilya3 (this one), for example, states that the 'Kashmiri' label is a political one rather than an actual one. If we can't find a source that definitely states that Mirpuris are predominantly ethnically Kashmiri (as opposed to being from a city in Azad Kashmir), then we shouldn't use the Kashmiri label. --regentspark (comment) 17:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Human3015: First, we are talking about two different articles. One focused on the British Mirpuris and the other on British Pakistanis (emphasize on Pakistani). So, we are not talking only about Mirpuri people, rather Pakistani people on whole. Although most people are from Mirpuri, there are people from other parts of Azad Kasmir. If British Mirpuri article is about people only from Mirpur, British Pakistani is for all the people in Pakistan. If they are essentially the same people, why do we have two articles? Same people can be referred to by different names. Example, a New Yorker may be named as an American. It all depends on what context we're talking. And why should we should move British Mirpuris to British Kashmiris? Second, there are no lack of reliable sources for both the term and hence I asked for a source that talks only about the terms. The term Kashmiri maybe confusing if we are talking about India and Pakistan. But here under the article British Pakistanis, why would the term 'British Kashmiri' confuse someone with Kashmiris of Indian State? As I mentioned earlier, equal number of sources use both the term. The scholarly source too uses the word Kashmiri (on a quick glance). Kautilya3 provided a source which mentions that people prefer being called Kashmiris after the 90's. Why shouldn't we use both the terms (which can help clear confusion, if one arises)? Regards--JAaron95 Talk 17:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe the dispute is about how to refer to people from Mirpur who happen to be British? If that is the case, then it doesn't matter which article we are talking about. People from Mirpur should not be identified as Kashmiri if they are not ethnic Kashmiris. Also, do note that we don't take preferences of groups into account on Wikipedia. We follow what is accepted practice by reviewing a variety of sources and weighting what different sources say appropriately. In particular, we need to be very careful if a group is using an inaccurate or contested term for political purposes because giving legitimacy to that term would violate NPOV. --regentspark (comment) 19:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Joran, In this case "Mirpuris" refers to all people from "Azad Kashmir", we should question why article name is British Mirpuris why not "British Azad Kashmiris"? "British Pakistanis" is broad term, it includes people from entire Pakistan, while article British Mirpuris focus on small strata in that regarding people from Azad Kashmir. So thats why there are these two articles. As you have shown "edit conflict" you should read rest of comments carefully. Moreoevr, you claimed that both terms have sources, while in reality term "Kashmiris" is not used much in sources. You said "Scholarly sources uses term "Kashmris" but didn'd said in which perspective, they may have discussing "Kashmir issue" or Indian Kahsmiris. You should post some of scholarly sources you came across. Regards. --Human3015Send WikiLove  17:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Section break[edit]

Well, I should say Mar4d the above sources strongly suggests that Kashmiri is indeed used for the people living in Kashmir valley. What sources do you have for this statement an individual from Azad Kashmir is a Kashmiri? Because, unless we see a source which states that Mirpuris have their ethnic origin from Kashmiris, we can't use the term Kashmiri. Regards--JAaron95 Talk 18:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
There is not much ambiguity in that sense, because Kashmiri in this context is used to denote a broader regional identity, not the ethnic one. So we are not arguing whether they are Kashmiris by ethnicity (as they are not), but rather their Kashmiri identity by virtue of their native land Azad Kashmir, which happens to be a part of Kashmir. Mar4d (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding the sources, I think we're going in circles again like it was in previous discussions and from experience, not much was achieved. One side would simply like to cherry pick sources showing usage of their preferred term, and the other side would also do the same without much rational discussion. We should focus on which is used more commonly in the sources we have. There are for instance more book results for "British Kashmiri" as compared to a narrowed down "British Mirpuri". If we go by scholarly sources, British Kashmiri again has more references than British Mirpuri. So really, making the claim that the latter is the favoured term is a dead horse argument. Mar4d (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Search results for Kashmiris in the United Kingdom, compare with Mirpuris in the United Kingdom Mar4d (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Commment: I don;t know how these searches are relevant here. "British Kashmiris" are "Indians" and there can be search result for them. Moreoevr, as I provided specific multiple reliable sources calling them as "British Mirpuris", you too provide specific multiple relible sources calling "Pakistani Mirpuris as Kashmiris", you have accepted that "Mirpuris" are not ethnic "Kashmiris", then I think issue is over. We can't write "Mirpuris" as "Kashmiris" when they are not actually "Kashmiris", we can't mis-inform our readers. --Human3015Send WikiLove  19:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Convansing: Here Mar4d is inviting one user for discusion here. No problem if Cordless Larry gives his opinion here as he has done some edits to involved article, but we can read "tone" of Mar4d, he is inviting him as if something very wrong is going on here, "plz come here to rescue me". He should have added just note that "there is discussion going on DRN regarding British Pakistanis". Thats it. But anyway, we can't keep on discuss this foreoevr, I think consensus has been achived, we should give some more time to Mar4d to explain his views. Then we can do edit protect request at British Pakistanis. Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove  19:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Striking my comment, discussion should be only on content, my apologies.--Human3015Send WikiLove  21:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Please let me allow one more comment, read this book, book name is Pakistan and its diaspora published by UK's Palgrave Macmillan publication. Read the entire paragraph, I will quote one line from it "Zafar Khan and Ellis have demanded in their joint writing that Mirpuris should be referred to as Kashmiris". We have already established here that "Mirpuris" are not "Kashmiris" but still we got one more reliable source for it. There some people demanding that these people should be referred as "Kashmiris" and not "Mirpuris". So if we mention these people as "Kashmiris" instead of "Mirpuris" in our article then isn't we are pushing POV of some activists in this arena and ignoring mainstream facts? --Human3015Send WikiLove  21:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Another best source: This is probably the best source I have found. this is a government book. I will post details of the book. Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee (4 May 2007). South Asia: fourth report of session 2006-07, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. The Stationery Office. pp. 44–. ISBN 978-0-215-03378-9. 
Read the quotation in book, it clearly differentiates "Mirpuris" from "Kashmiris". And this book is published by Government, book has no author, author name given is Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee. --Human3015Send WikiLove  07:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: After giving so many references how we can put word "Kashmris" in said article for even a minute? We have realised that 'Mirpuri" and 'Kashmiri" are different terms, some activists may call them same for political reasons as I said above. We should not mis-inform readers. This article British Pakistanis is entirely written by involved editor, he has some 300+ edits to that article. He has written same things in other diaspora related articles too. I hope this is dispute resolution is applied to other article too and we should change "Kashmiris" → "Mirpuris" wherever he has written it. Now please close this debate. We have not found any valid rationale from defending party. Writing "Mirpuris" as "Kashmiris" is just political/POV/nationalistic. Wikipedia don't work for any nation's or group's agenda. --Human3015Send WikiLove  07:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Some Important Stats: As I said, involved editor has done some 300+ edits to article. this is his first ever edit back in 2010 to said article where he started inserting "Kashmiris" with first edit itself. And that word still stays there. No one looked for this article. If you see the version before he started editing it, it has line in notable community section I will quote, "The population is made up of Punjabis, Pathans, Urdu Speakers, Mirpuris and Sindhis." Same line still exists in article, only "Mirpuris" is replaced by "Kashmiris" somehow. For More Details --Human3015Send WikiLove  08:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Done edit request: We can't keep on debate with one person who has no chance to change his/her stance in any case. We have provided all reliable sources and we also know edit history of that article. So I have done edit protected request to resolve this issue. Such debates can go on and on. We should end it at least when we have found truth from reliable sources, so I see no reason to debate it further. Many people are commented here randomly, anyone who is looking for this debate please read all comments carefully. (one can check edit history of this DRN page to find out lost comments in this discussion) Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove  09:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moderator's Overview[edit]

No discussion (or) Moderation will happen here as this case has been escalated to the Mediation Committee. Case can be found in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/British Pakistanis. Regards—JAaron95 Talk 15:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lets keep the discussion organised under sections (everything is messed up above). Please keep your comments to the sections allocated for you. Mar4d we'll break the loop ASAP. Please come up with a good reliable source (non-Indian and non-Pakistani source) which explicitly mentions, Mirpuris are (also) known as Kashmiris. We have an unambiguous term Mirpuris, which clearly refers to the people from Azad Kashmir (most of the British Pakistanis are Mirpuris). We shouldn't use the term Kashmiris, unless otherwise Mirpuri people (or) People from Azad Kashmir ethnically came from the Kashmiris. As article Kashmiris lead suggests, which I quote,

The Kashmiris are a Dardic ethnic group living in or originating from the Kashmir Valley, located in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.... Few small and scattered communities of Kashmiris also live in Azad Kashmir, making up a very small percentage of it's total population.

Government sources maybe faulty in this regard, as they definitely have a COI. Unless we are pushing a POV, the article can clearly distinguish Mirpuri people from Kashmiri people. We must not forget that Kashmiri is an ethnic group of people originating from Kashmir Valley. It's their identity and is not interchangeable. Mirpuris cannot be called Kashmiris just because Azad Kashmir has Kashmir in it. Regards, JAaron95 Talk 10:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Mar4d:[edit]

@Jaaron95: While I appreciate this attempt for mediation, unfortunately I do not think we are achieving anything meaningful. One reason of course is that all the editors commenting here are involved parties with their own points of view, and there is no third opinion which would have been much more useful. In this regard, perhaps an RfC would have yielded better insight. The discussion here is just going back and forth and I don't think there is a reasonable compromise here. I would like to maintain my stance as elaborated previously, that the case that Mirpuris is the preferred term over Kashmiris is a weak one. If we go simply by the sources, Kashmiri is more frequently used over Mirpuri and the sources in the British Pakistanis article support that, in addition to the ones I have presented above, in addition to Google Books and Scholar results. The point is rather simple, in the United Kingdom, the term "Kashmiri" is prominently and for the majority of cases, used in reference to Azad Kashmir Kashmiris, not Valley Kashmiris (and we have references to support this). Kashmiri also better encapsulates all migrants from Azad Kashmir, similar to how the article designates other geographic groups (Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtun, Baloch). Mirpuri moreover is not an ethnicity, rather a city demonym (eg. New Yorker, Londoner). The final issue of course is that a great number of citations cited within British Pakistanis use the term Kashmiri, so when we deliberately censor this term from the article to cater to geographic etymology and regional nuances, it comes at the cost of being accurate to sources. It would be better to arrive at some sort of compromise. I am open to the idea of having a summary somewhere in the article along the lines of: "Kashmiris refers to people from Azad Kashmir (not to be confused with Kashmiris from Jammu and Kashmir)".

  • I would also like to bring it to notice that Human reverted his changes back into the article even while this DRN is ongoing and superimposing a "consensus" when none exists. This templating was also inappropriate. I expect better as this rigidity displays bad faith against the dispute process. Mar4d (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Kautilya3:[edit]

JAaron95, Thanks for the overview. I am quite in agreement with it. Mar4d has stated earlier that we would be violating NPOV by just calling Mirpuris "Mirpuris." It is hard to take such a claim seriously. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Human3015:[edit]

I'm agree with moderators overview regarding this topic. Indeed term "Kashmiri" is used for and should be used for ethnic "Kashmiri" people of Kashmir valley. I will just summarize my sources.

  • Term "Mirpuri" is popular in Pakistan: We have several sources of Pakistan's leading news papers like Dawn Media Group and Express Tribune. this Dawn article uses term "Mirpuris" for anything related to British Pakistanis. (culture, influence, language etc). 70% of British Muslims are "Mirpuris". this Express Tribune article also uses term "Mirpuri". While these news papers used term "Kashmiri" for "Indian Kashmiris" [9] [10].
  • UK Sources: There is an report published by "Foreign Affairs Committee" of "British Parliament" named South Asia: fourth report of session 2006-07. This government book clearly has stand on this issue. I think this book was made for this Dispute resolution. It clearly says that 'Mirpuris" and "Kashmiris" in Britain are two different things.
Moreover Telegraph article on "British Pakistanis" clearly mentioning them as "Mirpuris". --Human3015Send WikiLove  12:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Jaaron95: I think we should close this thread and should do desired consensus change in article. Because Mar4d is active in editing other articles but maybe not willing to comment here further, it can be his passive consent to our version. (Though we don't work on any single editor's consent, here community consensus exists backed by sources). It happens many times with India-Pakistan related articles that nobody want to accept his/her so called "defeat". Specially currently there is "patriotic" kind atmosphere in India-Pakistan because of their Independence days. So no use keeping this thread open, we have all our sources and consensus. I think its time to close this thread. --Human3015Send WikiLove  14:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply @Mar4d:; You are yet to provide reliable multiple scholarly sources for your claim. Plain opinions or original research will not work. If anywhere trivial mention is present then still it will not make case, one can't ignore multiple scholarly sources provided on this board. You please provide such multiple scholarly sources. If I go to live in Jammu and Kashmir permanently it doesn't makes me Kashmiri, if I go to live in Azad Kashmir permanently still it will not make me Kashmiri. Regards. --Human3015Send WikiLove  13:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Moderator and non-involved editors:[edit]

Yes, we have a plethora of sources telling Kashmiris are people from Kashmir Valley. But, I don't think there are sources which tells Mirpuris are (also) Kashmiris. Two of the involved editors are agreeing on this and Mar4d, I think you should drop the stick on this. If Mar4d agrees with the fellow editors, this case will be closed as successfully resolved. What do you think Mar4d? Peace? Regards--JAaron95 Talk 03:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  •  Volunteer note: I should make one thing clear here. By having lost an argument or having won an argument, no one is Defeated or no one is Victorious. Walking away from a discussion if you've lost or even won, shows your civility and good Wiki etiquette. If Mar4d has any objections to the result of this discussion, he may make his point in 48 hours. If he accepts the outcome he may choose to either make a comment or not. If Mar4d has no objection (if he doesn't comment here, it will be taken as no objection) in 48 hours, this case will be closed as successful. Thanks all of you for participating in this discussion. Regards—JAaron95 Talk 16:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Mar4d:[edit]

@Jaaron95: Thanks for your reply. A few things:

  • This source you've interpreted, what it is actually saying is that some Pakistani Kashmiris register themselves as "Kashmiri" rather than "Pakistani" and that in order to accommodate them as a sub-group of the wider Pakistani community, the paper uses the term "Pakistani and Kashmiri" while referring to them, in order to respect their usage of their identity. It is not discrediting use of the term "Kashmiri", or saying that the identity Kashmiri is self-created per se, neither evoking a comparison to Mirpuri. This is easy to confuse and I can understand how you interpreted it that way.
  • In India, Kashmiri is an ethnic identity (Kashmiris), but in Pakistan it is a regional identity (i.e. residents of Azad Kashmir). It is important that we respect the differences in usage and its connotations. Wikipedia gives us the liberty to disambiguate terminology, so what is wrong if we follow that approach to stick to the facts and clearly define that Kashmiri in context of British Pakistanis means 'Pakistani Kashmiri', period.
  • Quoting from WP:DISAMBIG: Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous. This is most often when it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.
  • I think we can discuss the mechanisms of how to gain wider input. RfC is one avenue, but third opinion is also an alternative to which I'm willing to lean. Mar4d (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would also like to quote the following from that source: The Kashmiri identity issue is a complex subject that is linked both to ethnicity and to the historical and political legacy in the region. The ongoing struggle by Kashmiris on both sides of the Pakistan/India border for an independent and self-sustaining state continues to impact on the self-identity of Kashmiris from AJK living in the UK. Mar4d (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment-2 by Human3015:[edit]

  • He has cited from UK document where they clearly differentiating between "Pakistani and Kashmiri' heritage. In same document at page 7 they have clearly mentioned them as "Mirpuris". This claim has been supported by Report on South Asia by British Parliament written by Foreign affairs committee named South Asia Fourth Report where they clearly differentiated two groups "Mirpuris" and "Kashmiris".
  • Mar4d has made plain statement that term "Kashmiri" is used in Pakistan for "Mirpuris" without giving any source for that, while leading Pakistani newspapers use word "Mirpuri" for these people. Dawn, Express Tribune. While same newspapers use word "Kashmiri" for Indian Kashmiri. [14] [15]. We can get many sources for it.
  • About "Disambiguity". One can see current Language section in article, They have given population of "Kashmiri language" speakers in UK. Sources only cites number of speakers of "Kashmiri language in UK", did not say they are Pakistanis, while Kashmiri language is primarily spoken in Indian Kashmir. But Article is giving falso info using word "Kashmiri' there which gives perception that all Kashmiri language speakers are "Mirpuris" or "Pakistanis" while "Mirpuris" don't speak Kashmiri language.
  • Kindly read more scholarly sources in my above comment secrtion. We should give Multiple scholarly sources as I'm giving, we can't stick to one source and one line in it when same source is also referring them as "Mirpuris".

  • reply @Jaaron95: Yes, I'm in favour of third opinion, but I'm against opinion by apparently Indian or Pakistani editor, I'm in favour of seeking opinion by Admins (both Indian and Pakistani plus neutrals) as their neutrality can't be debated much, they have got consensus of the community by getting 100-200 votes, though I'm also in favour of opinion by experienced apparently non-Indian, non-Pakistani editors. We can also seek opinion of other experienced volunteers here on this board. Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove  05:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • reply2 @Jaaron95: It has been experience regarding RfCs on India-Pakistan issue that these RfCs gets heavily infested by sock puppetry, it has been also experience that apparently Indian editor !votes for Indian side, and apparently Pakistani editor !votes for Pakistan side. Population of India and internet users in India are such that every RfC can go in favour of India if we just count !votes in RfC, so I will suggest that Wikipedia is not democracy, we should not go by !vote count rather we should go by rationale given by commentor for their !vote. Decision should be "policy based" and not "demand based". If someone says 'Kashmiris' should stay in article then we should look for 'validity' of rationale given by commentor, same case for those who are in favour of 'Mirpuris'. Both sides should provide multiple reliable sources for their claims. Regards. --Human3015Send WikiLove  05:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Kautilya3:[edit]

Comments by Moderator and non-involved editors:[edit]

To Mar4d,

  1. From what I can see, sources (many) do point out that, Mirpuri is the term used to identify the people of Azad Kashmir. Even if it's not the case, on what grounds do you suggest people from Azad Kashmir are Kashmiris? Please come up with a reliable source (non-Indian and non-Pakistani) that explicitly mentions this case.
  2. While Mirpuri may not refer to a ethnicity, Kahmiri does. How do you expect an ethnic name (identity) to refer another group of people who don't belong to that group?
  3. There are 301 sources to the article British Pakistanis and I can't go through each one of them. Although I randomly picked five sources and got a picture of why 'kashmiri' is used for Azad Kashmiris. This British source[1] perfectly explains everything (why Kashmiri is used over Mirpuri). I quote

    Many people of Pakistani heritage in Britain define themselves as Kashmiris. This self-definition is taken into account in surveys conducted by certain local authorities but not in national surveys and statistics. From time to time in this book the phrase ‘Pakistani and Kashmiri heritage’ is used in order to reflect and respect usage in the communities themselves, and to signal that there are significant differences within the large group referred to in national statistics with the single term ‘Pakistani’.

    As you can see, the term kashmiri is a self-definition (name they (Mirpuris) kept for themselves). And that explains why kashmiris are used in sources in Britain (to reflect and respect the views of the community). So, we are not censoring it but, we are sticking to the fact. This self-definiton thing should be mentioned in the article, but not Kashmiris in the place of Mirpuris, in that case, we'll be spreading false information.
  4. This source (also UK)[2] used by you uses Mirpuris > Kashmiris. And very particularly Mirpuris, to distinguish Punjabis and Azad Kashmiris.
  5. You've mentioned about involved editors and RFC. You want other volunteers to make their statements in this case? (or) You want take this to Third opinion? (or) You want an RFC to be put out?
  6. Conduct issues cannot be discussed here and can be reported to appropriate noticeboards.
Please comment on the content and not on the contributor. Regards—JAaron95 Talk 15:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

To Mar4d,

  • I did a good amount of research in this topic and I'm convinced that my interpretation (actually it was not an interpretation) was indeed right. What you are saying is that, Mirpurian people in UK wanted to distinguish themselves from other Pakistanis by identifying themselves as Kashmiris. But that doesn't seem to be a fact! Here I provide diverse sources with quotations on why 'Mirpurians' identify themselves as 'Kashmiris' for very different reasons. According to this source,[3]

    However, the term 'Kashmiri' is problematic—and increasingly self-defined with non-ethnic 'Kashmiris' using the term to describe themselves...This self-identification does not relate to their ethnicity or birdari... They are seeking to obviate 'perceived condescension from Punjabis' and create a 'rhetorical basis for a stronger sense of self respect'.

The above quote is self explanatory.
  • In this source[4]

    ..., in recent decades they (Mirpuris) have chosen to define themselves increasingly Kashmiris....

This too is self explanatory.
  • This source,[5] puts out everything in detail. I'm not going to type the content in pg.55, which explains the pre-state of Mirpuris before they chose to call themselves Kashmiris.

    the Mirpuri diaspora in U.K..., began identifying itself with Kashmiris though they neither speak Kashmiri nor have culturally anything with the inhabitants of the Valley.

So, your first point was wrong. They did not call themselves Kashmiris to identify them as a sub group rather, it's because they were looked down by other communities in UK (even by Punjabis). Pakistan continued to neglect Mirpuris and they started distancing and alienating from Islamabad. Adequate rehabilitation was not provided despite the major portion of their foreign exchange went to Pakistan.. etc.,. And that's why they began calling themselves as Kashmiris.
  • In the same source above in Pg.128,

    Growing discontent and dissatisfaction with Pakistan on the one hand, and not too happy a relationship with Potahari dominated society on the other, forced the Mirouris and Badialis to look for their socio-cultural identification... The people had been disillusioned with Pakistan to the extent that they hoisted Indian Flags and raised slogans in favour of India. Deprived of their arable lands at home, neglected in the economic development of their native place and meted out a foster brotherly treatment by the Punjabi big brother, the Mirpuri emigrant diaspora in the UK found mental relief in cherishing the idea of identifying itself with Kashmiris Although they are fully aware of the big cultural divergence between the people of Srinagar Valley and those in the south-western upland of Pir Panjal, yet they find for themselves no source, or emotional satisfaction other than that of calling themselves Kashmiris the only probability for their sociocultural identification.

I think the above perfectly states you were wrong at your first point.
  • You stated—In India, Kashmiri is an ethnic identity (Kashmiris), but in Pakistan it is a regional identity (i.e. residents of Azad Kashmir).
We want to know what the world thinks. If we were to go by your statement, we are are in the POV of Pakistan and not in NPOV. Specifically, answering this question is what I quoted above from the article Kashmiris,

The Kashmiris are a Dardic ethnic group living in or originating from the Kashmir Valley, located in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.... Few small and scattered communities of Kashmiris also live in Azad Kashmir, making up a very small percentage of it's total population.

The article doesn't mention anything about the word being used as a regional identity for Azad Kashmiris.
  • WP:DISAMB doesn't ask us to 'ambiguate' a word before disambiguating it.
  • For your last statement, Kashmiri from AJK is used for what I stated above, in order to reflect and respect usage in the communities.
  • You also stated that you are willing to lean to Third Opinion. @Human3015 and Kautilya3: Are you in favor? See below.

Please comment on content rather than the contributor. Regards—JAaron95 Talk 04:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  •  Volunteer note: Please pardon me. Third opinion cannot be asked in this case as there are well over than two editors involved in this case. But a Request for comment can be put out. Are @Mar4d, Human3015, and Kautilya3: in favour of RfC? Regards—JAaron95 Talk 05:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: @Human3015: Indeed those (!votes) will be assessed by an uninvolved administrator and SPAs and Socks won't be considered. Regards—JAaron95 Talk 05:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Robin Richardson; Angela Wood, eds. (2004). The Achievement of British Pakistani Learners (Work in Progress), The report of the RAISE project, 2002-04 funded by Yorkshire Forward. Trentham Books Limited. 
  2. ^ The Change Institute (March 2009). The Pakistani Muslim Community in England: Understanding Muslim Ethnic Communities. Department for Communities and Local Government, Government of United Kingdom. ISBN 978-1-4098-1173-2. 
  3. ^ Snedden, Christopher (2013). Kashmir: The Unwritten History. HarperCollins India. ISBN 9350298988. 
  4. ^ "With Friends like these..." Human Rights Violations in Azad Kashmir, Human Rights Watch, September 2006.
  5. ^ Kaul, Shyam; Kachru, Onkar, eds. (1998). Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh: Ringside Views. Khama Publisers, Atlantic Publishers & Dist. ISBN 8185495513. 

Comments by Mar4d:[edit]

Comments by Kautilya3:[edit]

@JAaron95: Thanks for your excellent analysis and research. The Christopher Snedden book and the Human Rights Watch report are excellent sources. I guess you will have to close the case as having failed, but you can of course state your summary view and recommendation. Whether the disputants will abide by your recommendation or pursue other means of resolution is up to them. Personally, I think it would be a mistake for them not to respect the opinion of a neutral third party moderator. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment-3 by Human3015:[edit]

  • I think other party has failed to provide any kind of source for their claim, while filling party has provided plethora of reliable sources and willing to provide more sources if needed. I just wonder how fair it is to go for another DR kind process just to lengthen dispute resolution process which disputants usually do. Now we clearly know the facts related to this content from reliable sources. We all can't unite just to satisfy or please one person who never came with reliable sources. It is more likely that other party will not satisfy even after RfC. Regards. --Human3015Send WikiLove  10:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • reply @Saqiboberoi: Welcome to discussion, see, we have to give sources for each claim. You said "not all people are from Mirpur district" while sources above (click on above links given in further information) says that 70% British Pakistanis are "Mirpuris", it is not like 70% people from Azad Kashmir are from 'Mirpur district", it is 70% among all 'British Pakistanis'. UK census uses word 'Mirpuris' for these people. You are talking like "we should respect sentiments of these people" etc. But sorry, Wikipedia is not place of any social activism or respecting sentiments of anyone (though we do take care of BLP). Calling them "Kashmiris" is like pushing agenda of some people, you do read my two sections of comments, it is one of agenda of pro-Pakistani separatist organizations for which I have given sources in "political motives" section in first section of comments. These separatists don't respect uniqueness of ethnic Kashmiris. Anyway, you were made some changes to article which were also reverted by other party. But you please give sources for your each claim. Thanks. Regards.--Human3015Send WikiLove  15:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Moderator and non-involved editors:[edit]

Hello everyone. I was one of the editors who changed the markup on the British Pakistani page from Kashmiris to Kashmiris because it was simply wrong since the article Kashmiris deals with ethnic Kashmiris who are mainly from the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. I have gone through all the discussion along with the sources given by all the editors in this regard. All the sources given by moderator JAaron95 except for "Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh: Ringside Views (" are reliable as far as the ethnic and regional identity of the the people from Azad Kashmir (in particular Mirpur) is concerned. The reason i mention about this particular source as not being reliable is because i could not help but notice the false information at some places and political motives behind spread of such misinformation. And it is very easy for someone who does not have a close association with the region and has not researched the finer details to overlook such issues. One thing everyone agrees on is that the people in U.K with roots from Azad Kashmir are not the ethnic Kashmiris of the Indian Side. However the people from Azad Kashmir have been self-identifying as Kashmiris in the UK and as many sources cited in the previous discussion say that it is respected by the UK authorities where they are mentioned as Kashmiris many times. I think we need to respect their claim to the identity and it does not harm or misinform anyone if they are mentioned as Kashmiris in the British Pakistanis article with a redirect to the British Mirpuri article. However if you guys go ahead with mentioning them as Mirpuris, then it is important that you know that all people from Azad Kashmir in the UK are not from the Mirpur District, rather there are large numbers of them from the surrounding areas of Azad Kashmir. Therefore some other term or option needs to be used to cover all the people from Azad Kashmir. Regards. Saqiboberoi (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Final Comment from Moderator[edit]

  •  Volunteer note: This discussion appears to take us to infinity. And this case cannot be failed as there was a good exchange between editors. Considering the contentiousness of the topic, strong opinions and the number of editors involved, I am escalating this case to Formal Mediation. Involved editors (@Mar4d, Kautilya3, and Human3015:) and those who wish to be involved can make their statements in RfM. A Mediator will take over the case and will mediate the case to a resolution. This case will remain open until the case has been taken for mediation. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/British Pakistanis is the page where the case is filed. Thanks all of you for participating in this discussion. Regards—JAaron95 Talk 16:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Note from Mediation Committee: The request for mediation filed with the Committee would ordinarily have been rejected since this case has not been closed, but it's clear from the foregoing that this is on hold until it can be determined whether or not a mediation will go forward. Though unusual, that is acceptable so long as no more discussion or moderation occurs here and provided that this case will be closed if mediation at MEDCOM does go forward. Since all the primary participants have agreed to mediation, the case has been accepted. Fourteen days are now allowed to see if a Committee member will volunteer to take the case. If no member does, then the case will be retroactively rejected for lack of a mediator. The DRN volunteer moderating this DRN case may, therefore, need to extend the "do not archive until" date in the DRN case header to allow for that time to pass. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson) (wearing my MEDCOM hat rather than my DRN-volunteer hat)
Yes check.svg Done. Regards—JAaron95 Talk 15:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: This case will be closed once the case in RfM has been assigned a mediator. Regards—JAaron95 Talk 15:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: Unfortunately the RfM case was rejected for the lack of a mediator. Is this dispute of any interest now @Human3015, Mar4d, and Kautilya3:?? Regards—JAaron95 Talk 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2015 ICC_World_Twenty20_Qualifier[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Srinu523 on 19:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

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

In that article some matches has the result status as No Result. These matches were like Warm up, Group A, Group B, Semi finals, finals. Few of the matches called off with some play and some matches has no play (even toss). A match result should be No Result when a match called off due to rain at any time of play is in progress(even when toss has taken), and a match result should be Match abandoned/Match abandoned without a ball bowled when if no toss has taken or not started. It was already discussed at WT:CRIC, and that one has achieved in archive 78 with a title of No result. In that discussion many user told that A match result should be placed as No Result when a match called off due to rain at any time of play is in progress(even when toss has taken), and a match result should be placed as Match abandoned/Match abandoned without a ball bowled when if no toss has taken or not started. However user Lugnuts not accepted and not agree to change the result.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

That discussion has archived so again I post that discussion at WT:CRIC and also that Talk page as Result status.

How do you think we can help?

Please say what is the correct?

Summary of dispute by Lugnuts[edit]

Please keep it brief - fewer than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

No result is the result, IE the result of the match was "No result". That is the correct way to record it. Anything else is recorded in the notes field, which is what that is for. Note that PeeJay made this change after this DRN was started, which I see as being disruptive and pointy. I have no idea why Srinu is banging on and on and on and on and on and on and on about this. Their level of editing is poor to begin with. Maybe he can put that much effort into article space edits, rather than pointless talkpage discussions. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by PeeJay2K3[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Oh goody, another DRN discussion for me to comment on. Okay, this whole topic is verging on WP:LAME. Basically, I don't know why we're even discussing this when we have a reliable source that states exactly what we should give the result as – ESPNcricinfo. We should display the result exactly as they have there (except perhaps without the "with X balls remaining" bit for limited overs games). – PeeJay 15:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by BlackJack[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Blackhole78[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:2015 ICC_World_Twenty20_Qualifier discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  •  Volunteer note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This issue appears to have been extensively discussed in the article's talk page and at the archived discussion here. I'm neither taking or declining this case at this time, but just reminding that it is the responsibility of the filing editor (in this case, Srinu523) to notify the involved editors of this filing in their talk pages. The template {{subst:drn-notice}} may be used for this purpose. This discussion will be closed as abandoned, if the other editors are not notified on their talk pages within a time span of 48 hours. Regards—JAaron95 Talk 05:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: As all the parties have been notified, I'm now waiting for other involved editors to make their dispute summaries. Having gone through the discussions in the talk page, I consider Srinu523, Lugnuts and PeeJay2K3 essential parties of this case, without them making their dispute summaries, I'd be reluctant to continue this case. If the essential parties don't state their rationale in 48 hours, this case will be closed (general close). P.S. To participate (or) not to participate in this discussion is under the sole discretion of an editor. He/She is not required to participate but are encouraged to. Regards—JAaron95 Talk 17:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment:As mentioned by Jaaron95, now essential parties have made their comments. Though Jaaron has not opened this discussion officially still I would like to comment here as involved editor and not as DRN volunteer because this page is on my watchlist. We have sources for both claims regarding what should be written in result section. If we see ICC website, see Match 11 of Pool A Bangladesh vs Australia (World Cup 2015) where they wrote "MATCH ABANDONED WITHOUT A BALL BOWLED", but at other places See Match 20 of Group A Sri Lanka vs Australia (World Cup 2011) where they wrote "No Result". In many stat tables we can see acronyms like W, L, NR, T. Here, "W" is for "Win", "L" is "Lost", "NR" for "No Result", "T" for "Tie". So I think "No Result" is more in use. --Human3015Send WikiLove  19:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I think you're making assumptions about something you actually don't fully understand. "Match abandoned" and "No result" are listed in the same column in points tables since they are worth the same number of points to each team, and because an abandoned match is effectively the same as a "no result" as there is no result from the match. However, as detailed and referenced at Result (cricket), these are different types of results. – PeeJay 00:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I echo everything Peejay said above. Especially about how LAME this is. It's ridiculous. --Dweller (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I am following this discussion since the very first day, now it has turned into a very long, never ending, boring and pointless discussion. My point is this is an encyclopedia and not a scorecard, the objective is that the reader should appreciate the fact that the match was abandoned and not a single ball was bowled. So either write it as "MATCH ABANDONED WITHOUT A BALL BOWLED" or write "NO RESULT" and mention a note about the balls. Both conveys the same, all that is required is for us to be adult about it and decide what to do to maintain consistency and not what is correct. Thank you.srini (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: As all the essential parties have made their dispute summaries, I'm taking this case for Moderation. I will be your moderator till the end of this case, unless otherwise notified. Involved parties who haven't yet made their summaries are free to chime in at any time. Before diving into the discussion, let me point out some basic rules to make this discussion a smooth process. 1) Please check the discussion at least once in every 48 hours. 2) Comment only on the content and not on the contributor. Personal attacks/Harassment are not tolerated and will have this case closed. 3) Try not to edit the article until the case here is closed. 4) Discuss the issue here and not at any other talk pages. 5)And last but not the least, please be civil and concise. A page long reply is usually disregarded. Stick to the point and hit the nail on the head. Good luck and Regards—JAaron95 Talk 02:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

First round of statements[edit]

Moderator's Overview and opinion[edit]

From all these discussions I understand it is the dispute of using the word Abandoned and No Result. Let me first put out my views here. In normal world, both words are used interchangeably. However I'll try to portray their meanings here. If a match is termed abandoned, it could've been abandoned at anytime i.e., before the toss, after the toss, at the middle of the match etc.. So, using the word abandoned could be confusing and should be used with support of another words. For eg., abandoned with a toss, abandoned without a toss etc.. So, abandoned can be used to indicate what happened to the match (or) fate of the match. But result can be used to indicate the outcome of the match. Outcome cannot be abandoned. For eg., if someone asks you the result of the match, you might say, won, lost, tie (or) no result. So, outcome cannot be abandoned, it should be any form of a result. But, abandoned can be used in unison with no result, which enhances the detail and enlightens the reader on why it was a no result. I've done some research and came up with a second to none source (Laws of ODI cricket from ICC website) here. I quote all the instances of no result and abandoned in the article.

Out of all these quotes, the last quote hits the nail on the head. What it states is that, a match could have a result, even if it is abandoned. Now, editors who refute/confirm my statements can comment below within 5 lines on why you do so. Feel free to correct me if I've got something wrong. Properly indent your statements (Or I may). Also, you can reply to other editors' statements (only on content). Please be civil and concise. No personal attacks, comment on the content not on the contributor. Regards—JAaron95 Talk 04:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Follow on Statements[edit]

I read all the above statements, then why should not we use ICC Official site to add Scorecard links instead of ? We use ESPN links because that one also followed all the rules and regulations of ICC. We used ESPN as a reliable source to add the score, results and stats. PeeJay told that in his summary as when we have a reliable source that states exactly what we should give the result as – ESPNcricinfo. We should display the result exactly as they have there (except perhaps without the "with X balls remaining" bit for limited overs games). If ESPN false, then why we still use that as reliable source. In our Wiki there was a article named with Result (cricket) and in that article explained clearly what is No result and what is Abandoned. In Abandoned it have when the officials decide to abandon play then the result is termed 'abandoned without a ball being bowled'. If that was also wrong why that one allowed in Wiki since 2004.

  • Some Users treated said the topic was LAME and RIDICULOUS. What ever it(result of discussion) may be, I feel happy, because all the cricket articles (tours/tournaments/Leagues) in wiki use Match Abandoned/Match abandoned without a ball bowled for which was called off before the toss Excluding the discussion article, if my thought/arguments went wrong then all articles will be corrected, else it helps to know about No result and Abandoned. And I am Sorry if I hurt any one with my discussion. Srinu (Talk | contrib) 19:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: First of all I would like to thank Jaaron95 for his detailed analysis, you are really doing good work for Wikipedia and DRN. I would also like to reply those who are calling this dispute as "Lame or Ridiculous", usually we think that DRN should host "serious" issues relating to "disputed articles between 2 nations", "topics related to religions" or "Biographies of famous persons" etc, but Cricket is also "religion" for many and change in "religious terms" can be a big dispute. ICC rulebook is obviously a Bible of Cricket. I think there is no harm in following ICC's rulebook. --Human3015Send WikiLove  19:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I appreciate the work done by Jaaron95 and find no justifiable reason as to not follow the Laws of Cricketsrini (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Srinu523: You are more than free to use ICC scorecard as a source. Of course ESPNCricinfo is reliable and a great source and no one opposes that. But when reliable sources fail us, we should climb up to higher grounds. And that's why as Human3015 said, 'we are looking into the holy book of cricket'. Please answer me this question—1) Is ESPNCricinfo better than Laws of Cricket from ICC? Regards—JAaron95 Talk 12:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
      • However, I think which rules was posted by Jaaron95 were not suitable to add the result place with No result/Abandoned. If we add ICC source, as per that we can see result as Won/Lost/No result/Abandoned/Tie/Canceled, so there is no problem to add Won/Lost/No result/Abandoned/Tie/Canceled to the result status to wiki. And we can add Match abandoned/Match Abandoned without a ball bowled to this article or any cricket article, User:Human3015 already told ICC rule book is obviously a Bible of Cricket. So we can add Match abandoned/Match Abandoned without a ball bowled as per ICC. why Lugnuts not accept this. Srinu (Talk | contrib) 13:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I forgot to answer, I am sorry for that. I don't know, but may be ESPN is not much more than ICC, So we can add/change the all scorecards to wiki from ICC Official and result status as there mentioned. I think so many Cricket lovers/Wiki followers more prefer ESPN than ICC. Why? Becasue ESPN is more notable than ICC. Here the all results from ICC for this World T20 Qualifiers. Srinu (Talk | contrib) 13:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Srinu523: Question 1: Can result be abandoned? 2: match is abandoned, but a result is achieved — What is your answer to this?
Yes, you can add Match abandoned before toss or any kind of abandoned, as long as it is preceded by No Result. We are not talking about notability criteria rather, we are talking about how much reliable sources are. When it comes to that, ICC is more reliable. Yes, people use ESPNCricinfo more than ICC, but that doesn't matter when it comes to reliability. ICC is the decision making body of World Cricket and not Cricinfo. It's just an info providing source. The source (ICC) you provided talks about the fate of a match and uses the word 'result'. I acknowledge these kind of conflicting uses. This is happening because we have a dispute in a 'not-likely-to-be-disputable' word. Lame or not Lame, we'll have to end this dispute in the best possible way. Regards—JAaron95 Talk 15:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
What you say Jaaron95, we should follow the ICC rules but not the result. Is that? Srinu (Talk | contrib) 15:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
ESPN is not more than ICC, but ESPN record the result as per ICC. We updated the all stats/scores/trivia as per ESPN, and all the result status as per the ESPN. We can't update like Team 1 lost by XX runs/wickets instead of Team 2 won by XX runs/wickets against ESPN/any other reliable source. So why not update as Match abandoned/Match abandoned without a bowl bowled what's wrong with that statement. Srinu (Talk | contrib) 15:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The match result is Abandoned as per ICC, am I wrong. Srinu (Talk | contrib) 15:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: We have equal number of sources with result as abandoned, and result as no result. Now we are at a point where sources are irrelevant. Hence we'll now look at the law book only. As I have quoted above, the law book of cricket uses no result with abandoned. Therefore I would suggest we use both No result and abandoned in this format; NO RESULT (MATCH ABANDONED WITHOUT A BALL BOWLED). Using this format, readers will know there was a no result and the reason why there was a no result. Of course this is sort of a compromise. What do you think @Srinu523, Lugnuts, PeeJay2K3, BlackJack, and Blackhole78: Agree? I'm looking for consensus here. Answer in a sentence or two on why you agree/oppose. Regards—JAaron95 Talk 15:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC) edited-15:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Can we record as Team 1 won by XX runs/wickets (Team 2 lost). There is a lot of difference between No Result and Abandoned. Match Abandoned/Match abandoned without a ball bowled is correct to record as per the ICC, Don't we all see the Discussion at WT:CRIC Archive 78 title as No result and current discussion title Result status comments. Srinu (Talk | contrib) 15:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Srinu523: This is getting more lamer than I thought! If team 1 won, doesn't it naturally mean team 2 lost? As I said, we are going by the LAW now and not by any other sources/discussions. Per the Law, usage of both words in unison is justified. Regards—JAaron95 Talk 16:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we are not edit the ICC's Web page to follow the Law, Law already applied at the ICC The one where we are writing here from ICC. Srinu (Talk | contrib) 16:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
ICC web site says that ICC follows the Laws cricket from the ICC Committee and update as per Laws. We can just take that and update as result status exactly as which one at ICC/ESPN/Any other source, we can't update as Team 2 lost by XX runs/wickets as per the Source. Srinu (Talk | contrib) 17:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: If we look at the ICC's actual scorecard for the matches in question (Scotland v Netherlands, Hong Kong v Ireland), we will notice that it uses Match Abandoned without a ball bowled. Since the ICC is the global governing body of cricket and they use Match Abandoned without a ball bowled, Wikipedia should as well.Blackhole78 talk | contrib 17:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Jagtig on 22:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

2015 Thalys attack[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Sandra opposed to terrorism on 22:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC).

User talk:Patalexander[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Patalexander on 14:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC).