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.
  • Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~).
If you need help:

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

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

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over 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:Transhumanist politics#Sources too closely associated with the subject 2In Progress Haptic-feedback (t) 17 days, 15 hours Drcrazy102 (t) 3 days, 3 hours Dsprc (t) 3 days, 1 hours
Talk:Dark web#New_section:_Size 2In Progress TvojaStara (t) 12 days, 15 hours Robert McClenon (t) 6 hours TvojaStara (t) 12 minutes
Talk:Battle of_Ilovaisk#This_agreement_was_not_honored-correct.2C_but_it_was_no_honored_by_Kiev.27s_forces_not_by_resistance_fighters 1New (t) 6 days, 8 hours Robert McClenon (t) 5 days, 13 hours (t) 2 days, 10 hours
Talk:Abe Vigoda#survived_by 9On hold Mlpearc (t) 5 days, 13 hours UY Scuti (t) 3 days, UY Scuti (t) 3 days,
Zionism 8Failed Makeandtoss (t) 5 days, 8 hours Robert McClenon (t) 11 hours Robert McClenon (t) 11 hours
Planet of the Apes (2001 film) 1New Ommnomnomgulp (t) 16 hours Robert McClenon (t) 11 hours Robert McClenon (t) 11 hours
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 10:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


Current disputes[edit]

Talk:Transhumanist politics#Sources too closely associated with the subject[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Haptic-feedback on 18:24, 24 January 2016 (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

A few editors disagree about whether a specific template should appear at the top of the transhumanist politics page. The template says, "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral."

The supporters of this template say that the neutral point-of-view and verifiability policies are violated by the page, because some of its sources are primary sources, and the page purportedly gives a distorted perspective.

The opposing editors claim that the page does not violate policy on these grounds, because these policies explicitly allow primary sources, and there is no body of reliable sources that disagree with the perspective of the page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A lengthy discussion has taken place on the relevant Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

1) Please judge whether the neutrality or verifiability of the page has been compromised as claimed.

2) If it has been compromised, please point out the offending sources, along with quotes from guidelines or policy that say why.

3) If it has not been compromised, please judge whether the template should be removed.

Summary of dispute by Dsprc[edit]

(Late to the show; am traveling at the moment and a bit jetlagged so if I'm not clear please _do_ ask follow-ups; it may take some hours or up to a day for me to respond.)

The vast majority of the article relies entirely upon affiliated, primary and unreliable sources from a small subset of a fringe milieu which may not reflect mainstream positions or the reality of the subject.

Numerous efforts to resolve this problem through discussion have proven unfruitful as a great deal of objections and roadblocks are raised by Single Purpose Accounts, with a lot of "I didn't hear that" and cherry-picked wikilawyering. This is largely fallout from a rejected Transhumanist Party article where meatpuppets and SPAs then redirected their attention toward shoehorning that poorly sourced content elsewhere.

There is extensive discussion covering numerous issues and documentation on the article Talk page & archives as well as AFD and Draft of aforementioned failed article. (may have to consult WP:WAYBACK Machine)

The dispute over the tag is but a minute fraction of issues which plague this article. Tagging was done to encourage inclusion of higher-quality sources which present a more varied view from organizations and individuals not closely affiliated with the subject; and to alert readers and contributors to some issues with the article they could possibly help to resolve. -- dsprc [talk] 02:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Doncram[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I was notified of this DRN, and during the 4th round have again been requested to comment]. I was reluctant to participate because I see no way in hell for there to be any resolution in this forum. I appreciate the good will of the DRN moderator who, correctly, wishes for focus on content not contributors. However the salient issues at the Transhumanist politics Talk page are behaviorial: obtuse and extreme I-didn't-hear-that behavior, after repeated in-depth discussion of the content, repetitively, again and again, involving considerable time and attention of all other editors.

I'm sorry, but I regret and resent the waste of good effort by the moderator and others here.

For example, could (Redacted) acknowledge that their insistence of the existence of an American "Transhumanist Party" as a political party was wrong-headed, given the evidence--including Zoltan Istvan's own words--against that (in any reasonable way of construing what "political party" means)? How about acknowledging that interview mentions by Istvan or blog mentions of the "Transhumanist Party" term do not constitute any evidence at all of the existence of such a party (which should not be hard as again the non-existence is completely clarified by Istvan and some or all of the interviewers and bloggers).

and the moderator would correctly point out that pre-conditions like I ask for are not typically given here. However, the objections all stand, and this statement by me explains my non-eagerness to participate here. I will comment in the 4th round below, now. --doncram 19:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by David Gerard[edit]

This is a tiny fragment of the actual problems:

Past talk page disputes on this issue: almost the entirety of Talk:Transhumanist politics and its archives. Seriously, read the talk page and both the archive pages (archive 1, archive 2).

Multiple non-transhumanist editors have been exceedingly patient with Haptic-feedback in the past six months, painstakingly explaining why the terrible sources are terrible. The usual response is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As you'll see from the archives, literally the same questions come up repeatedly. I've posted to WP:FTN (and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transhumanism) a few times asking for more eyes, but the problem is persistent editing with no understanding of Wikipedia sourcing.

I can foresee any discussion here being a close copy of the discussions already on the talk page and in its archives. If you're interested in helping, reading through these will help a lot and avoid repetition of discussions.

We can hyperfocus on this one tiny aspect, but that's what the actual root cause of the problem looks like here. I'm not quite sure what to do to alleviate this - David Gerard (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gap9551[edit]

On my talk page I explained I'm not involved in the dispute, but since my opinion was asked, I had a closer look at the article and the list of references. The latter is a combination of sources close to the subject and apparently independent sources. Despite partially relying on sources close to the subject, the article itself appears to be quite neutral and balanced. It provides contrasting viewpoints (with attribution), and mentions some disagreement and criticism. I don't see positive interest issues. However, that doesn't mean that there can't still be a conflict of interest. An important policy question to consider here is to which extent primary sources/interviews are acceptable as supporting sources (as independent sources should dominate). My advise to resolve the dispute more effectively: It should be pointed out which specific sentences are considered not neutral and why. Then better sources for those statements have to be found, or the statements have to be removed/rewritten. Ideally the article should be improved to the point where everybody agrees the tag is no longer needed. Gap9551 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Abierma3[edit]

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

Talk:Transhumanist politics#Sources too closely associated with the subject 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 discussion at the talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors, and it is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors at their talk pages (the article talk page is not sufficient). Also, a Request for Comments is in progress. We cannot accept this dispute unless two conditions are met. First, the other editors must be notified. Second, the RFC must be withdrawn or closed. This case will probably be closed shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: Thank you for taking such quick notice, but I am still in the process of informing the other editors. Please also note that the request for comment on that page is about a different issue, so it should not affect this dispute resolution request. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: - Confirming that the notifications have been sent to all involved parties by the filing editor, Haptic-feedback. Also confirming that the RfC concerning "Istavan's bus tour" is mostly irrelevant to this case; only relevance is editor conduct towards each other, bringing me to the final point as I am pre-empting the comments that may be made in the above summary sections. Civility is mandatory on Wikipedia and is more heavily enforced while a dispute is ongoing at the DRN by the various Volunteers, per the Mediation policy. Comments will be either collapsed or struck if deemed to be uncivil, or a personal attack, towards an editor(/s); the focus is on content, not contributors.
    I am willing to accept this case, pending the summaries of the involved parties. Participation at DRN is voluntary but often helpful for disputing parties to better understand each other, and to reach either a compromise or a new solution that is acceptable to the consensus of both sides in regards to the content dispute. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Drcrazy102: Thank you for (tentatively) taking the case! I will greatly appreciate the extra civility. :) --Haptic Feedback (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Drcrazy102: Speaking of civility, please note Mr. Gerard's summary, which attacks my character and intelligence instead of actually summarizing the content dispute. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Some of the comments weren't specifically about you as an editor but your actions, which I see as acceptable so long as it is not uncivil or otherwise aggressive. I've done a collapse on the comments regarding you as an editor, as that is not the focus of the dispute. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

First Round of Statements[edit]


Please comment only in your assigned section unless requesting a clarification. Remember to be civil and concise in your responses.

Second round of statements[edit]

Third round of Statements[edit]


Fourth round of Statements[edit]

Moderator (Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum)[edit]

I have removed the Elkerton source, and associated text, with agreement from Haptic-feedback.

I would now like to move onto the IIET sources, but before doing so I would like to ask that all involved editors either respond or tell me that you won't be responding. I waited 4 days for responses; I agreed to 2 days or I would close the discussion. If this continues to happen, I will close this case and recommend it be taken to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and/or the Neutral POV Noticeboard for discussion amongst the wider community. If editors would prefer to do that now, no worries but please let me know. I will wait 2 days, if there are either no, or only one, response(/s) by the third day then any DRN Volunteer may close this discussion due to a lack of participation.

Pinging @Haptic-feedback, Dsprc, Doncram, David Gerard, Gap9551, and Abierma3: for responses and comments.

Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The IEET sources appear to be the most contested and so I would remind editors to be civil and concise in responding.

4) Hughes, James (10 April 2009). "Transhumanist politics, 1700 to the near future" & 5) Hughes, James (1 May 2013). "The Politics of Transhumanism and the Techno-Millennial Imagination, 1626-2030"
This paragraph of text is likely to meet WP:UNDUE per #Balancing aspects. Perhaps cut down the size of the paragraph and include other opinions, or – even better – definitions of "transhumanist politics" to balance this and fill out the paragraph.
8) Konovalenko, Maria (26 July 2012). "Russians organize the "Longevity Party"" & 9) Pellissier, Hank (20 August 2012). "Who are the "Longevity Party" Co-Leaders, and What do They Want? (Part 1)"
I have to admit that IMO, source #8 (M. Konovalenko, 2012) is a particularly 'weak' source considering that it is originally a self-published blog, and should have been referenced as such – not to IEET's republication. However, for attributing the "100% transhumanist party" quote, it would be deemed as 'reliable, in context'. Move the citation to the quote and there should not be any concerns since the quote is being cited, not the remainder of the article. The quote is important as it comes from a founder of the Longevity Party, but it could still be removed without impacting heavily on the article.
#9 (H. Pellissier) is a better source since it is not a self-published source, and in context is reliable for simply stating "In 2012, Russia-based Longevity Party started organising to be a balloted political party" since it is interviewing one of the founders of the Longevity Party who does mention this. I would suggest finding a better source for this information, excluding IEET sources, just to avoid this discussion cropping up again.
23) Twyman, Amon (7 October 2014). "Transhumanism and Politics"
Good in regards to in-text attribution, but does the source and information warrant inclusion? Are there any other definitions of transhumanist politics, and its political outreach? Include those as well since this comes off as a bit undue to IEET, and Twyman, in a political belief held by a "diverse range" of adherents (see source).
25) Hughes, James; Roux, Marc (24 June 2009). "On Democratic Transhumanism"
Comment – Expand on "why" Ronald Bailey is critical of the "democratic transhumanism"; possibly WP:UNDUE due to the continued use of Hughes' sources, ideas, etc. Find alternatives or just make the claim (using reliable and external sources) that Hughes is a "giant" in the field of Transhumanist Politics.
31) Riccardo, Campa (24 June 2009), "Toward a transhumanist politics"
This is starting to enter WP:UNDUE territory for the section "Core Values" (see reasoning from #4 J. Hughes). Bundle the IEET authors into a summarised version and include external opinions and sources, or you may have to remove some parts. I also can't access the source so if someone could provide a WayBack url, that'd be great.



4 & 5: I think that the last two sentences of the paragraph should be condensed into one. Maybe Roland Benedikter's Age of Transhumanist Politics (Part I, Part II, Part III) can be used for a couple of sentences of content.

8 & 9: I support moving citation #8 for clarity. Unfortunately, I cannot find any better sources for #9's content.

23: I've found it quite hard to find good sources that actually define transhumanist politics (not just transhumanism), so I consider this source particularly important. The only other good one that I know of is the one used for the opening sentence of the article. #23 is also helpful listing some different aspects of transhumanist politics, so I would really like to keep this material.

25: Hughes does seem to be an important scholar on transhumanist politics – most other sources on transhumanism seem to neglect its political aspect. His Google Scholar page shows over 1336 citations of his work in academia – surely enough to warrant multiple mentions in a field that he is pioneering, especially if he has a coauthor, as he does here.

31: Again, the IEET post is just a republication of an article in a scholarly journal. I posted a WayBack Machine link above – did you miss it, or did it not work for you?

--Haptic Feedback (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Moderator Comment - @Haptic-feedback:
  • Good to hear about 4 & 5, it is best practice (when possible) to use a variety of sources when referencing. There are few areas (outside gaming and some music) where there are not multiple sources from a variety of authors. This may be one of those areas, but still try to use a variety. @Doncram and Dsprc:, would you accept these sources for use? (I haven't yet checked - will update after checking)
  • I'll move 8 then. If you can't find anything else with 9's content, you may want to consider whether it fits within the WP:NPOV's fringe section. Again, in context it seems passable but not for general usage.
  • I'd suggest creating a private list of the contended sources where you list which ones you really want to keep and which you can let go. This may help with searching for new sources as you don't just go looking for everything. At any rate, 23 seems passable with in-text attribution. 25 is entering different grounds of continued usage of the same source, same author, becoming a tad promotional which is not good and why varied sourcing is preferred. Try using Hughes' actual academic work then, rather than his IEET postings, since – as you state – "His Google Scholar page shows over 1336 citations of his work in academia.
  • I did miss the WayBack link you posted above and have looked at the link now. It seems that this (or the English "original") should be the referenced link (again, it seems someone needs to do a clean-up of a few citations using the tips here, and finding the actual originals). As to the source itself, it is another IEET link but as stated in the source "Example text" and with the in-text attribution that it is Campo's opinion, that seems to cover the WP:UNDUE clause and would be reliable, in context, as long as it is presented as Campo's personal opinion until further (and varied) reliable sources back this statement.
  • @Drcrazy102: To mitigate the perception of promotion of Hughes, we could remove the content attributed to him in the introduction that does not have a citation. We can also remove his name from content citing his research where that research is not controversial or from a newsblog and therefore can be said without his name. I think that this, along with reducing the information from him in the first paragraph of the history section, would be enough.
Also, that is a good point about using original sources. We should do that.
By the way, thank you so much for helping out here! It is great to have a productive conversation with someone about content. (I will defend myself against Doncram's character assassination attempt, though, if you think that it will help.)
--Haptic Feedback (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

IEET are personal web log entries with zero controls; anyone can and does publish anything unchecked on this social network (given example was Richard Stallman's whatever this thing is) -- they're not the aforementioned Journal. ((strike: these appeared in the Journal; differentiation is difficult when jointly published on open blogging platform))

More broadly IEET serve as an advocacy and promotional organization which raises reliability issues.

One of the problems is we have only a small sect of a transhumanist milieu discussing the subject and very little from outside them. Coverage of subject is predicated almost entirely on opinions of this intermingling and coalescing milieu: "So-and-So believes", "according to X" and so on, with scant facts a' la "X is Y" or input from mainstream publications that aren't transhmanist or other advocacy organizations with conflicts of or vested interests in the information presented.

If Hughes has a well-vetted piece which is oft-cited, discussed or critiqued in mainstream publications then we should use those not his personal blog entries.

The source mentioned above is also just a random transhumanist blog/Web-site, not a "scholarly journal".

Some stuff from 3rd round which I missed:

  • New Scientist piece relies on click-bait title alone with content not supporting claims so that can go.
  • Carrico can go as agreed.
  • Existenz is KJSNA (an advocacy org) not BU. Only reason it lives at is because of Olson's tenure. Aside from that we still suffer opinion.
  • That Rothman contradicts themselves with loose "facts" raises questions about reliability of these statements and probably should not be included since both have proven inaccurate and untrue. -- dsprc [talk] 08:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see my just-completed initial statement above. It is important to economize here. In the 3rd round, which I see has now been collapsed, an Elkerton source was questioned and H-F conceded "Yes, I am fine with removing the Elkerton material." So, I think the presence of the tag questioning sources is supported, and this DRN item should be concluded. The tag is upheld. Done. I am dead serious that I think this is the best possible resolution here. I don't see merit of further discussion. --doncram 19:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Moderator comment - So, Doncram, you don't want to actually discuss the problem behind the tag? That's what we have now moved onto; discussion of the sources that required the tag to be placed. If you don't wish to participate, no worries since DRN participation and discussion is voluntary, but the discussion needs two-sides or I will have to close this case and say "Go [here], [there] and/or [somewhere else] for more help". Thank you for commenting. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Drcrazy102, I do appreciate your trying to help. What is the dispute to be resolved, and how can it be resolved, however? The request for DRN asked for help in terms of addressing the template. "How can DRN help", approximately, was spelled out, approximately, as 1), 2), and 3) elements which were to ascertain if there were bad sources, to identify specifically at least some of them, and then to determine what to do about the template (presumably to judge that the template should be removed, assuming it would be deemed all is hunky-dory). The scope was not to include finding different better sources to support some position so that material could be kept without a negative template. The scope was not to rewrite the article. Tasks like those would be furthered by talk page discussion, if they could be achieved. Or perhaps it is not feasible right now to revise or to completely rewrite the article adequately so that no tags would be justified. The explicitly defined scope has been completed: it has been determined there are sucky sources used, and a negative tag was justified. Drcrazy102, do you now have a different scope in mind?
Put it another way: can a troll or anyone else assert there is a dispute whether some stub should be rated as a featured article, and demand that every omission be spelled out by others, where they must provide exact wording of what would remedy each omission. So the troll could copy-paste the new work into the article and slap a featured article tag onto it, and no one could protest? DRN cannot be used to put burden on others or else a high quality rating gets to be applied (or equivalently that negative tags get removed). That's not how things work.
I suggest this DRN be closed, with call for a next step to be a positive one instead of this. If one wants to have a productive discussion at DRN or talk page, it should be positively framed: e.g. "Here is a new passage, can we accept or revise it so it can be added, or so it can replace some existing passage." Rather than the double negative type of proposal: "I for one don't agree that this passage is bad/unsupported, so I am going to remove the negative tag (or add back the passage that was removed)". doncram 06:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
p.s. At the Talk page I make proposal to remove "history" which seems egregious and would happen to drop sources 4 & 5 (under discussion here). This is related because I do disrespect those sources or at least how they have been used in construction of a supposed history. (One could call this entirely negative, not improvement by asserting double negative.) doncram 06:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Doncram, you had me ... then you lost me somewhere in the second paragraph and I rallied in your third paragraph.
So first, my understanding of the dispute was - at the 'tip of iceberg' - "is the tag justified, how so and why?" Just like you said, but below that 'tip' is the actual dispute over "what can be done to improve the article's neutrality?" I pretty much answered the first question as soon as I started going through the sources but then I started to answer the dispute, politely and civilly, with reasons why sources and statements were non-neutral (if applicable), and options for improvement - based on the talkpage discussions. I have not started a discussion on "finding new sources", that was my recommended solution to resolving this dispute. In saying all that, I'm happy for the discussion to go back to the talkpage if it will continue to be civil and productive; if not, then it's just going to come back to DRN and I would prefer to resolve this now rather than having to re-moderate the dispute at a later date, if not recuse because I've already become "involved".
The example you have provided is a bit of a straw man argument since DRN accepts content disputes informally. We leave the formal "status" of pages alone. We help resolve the content dispute, through moderation, providing suggestions and making editors focus on the content - not each other. Which means - yes, we go "oh hey, there's a problem, there's another, oh found another ..." if it is appropriate. Often, we simply ask each party what they think the dispute is, we then tell everybody "you're arguing about this, this one detail" and provide some help in reaching a compromise/solution through discussion. I'm now doing that last part, the "help in reaching a compromise/solution through discussion" part. I'm changing the article content because the person who input the text, said "okay, my mistake, get rid of it" - done; then they agreed "okay, move the citation to show what it is there for" - done; I'm resolving the actual dispute, not the tag (which is getting resolved anyway) but the sourcing that caused the tag to be put up in the first place.
If you want to contribute to the discussion on removing the tag by fixing the article content and sourcing, by all means join us; if you don't want to, you don't have to since discussion is voluntary. I'll note that you said for this to be closed and if Gap and Dsprc say the same, I will since there won't be a dispute to moderate.
Finally, I'm failing to see this as a double negative since I've been the only one proposing anything and it's been along the lines of "Ok, this is bad - this part here and it's source - here's a solution to make it good; agree, disagree, or did I make a mistake?" ... that seems to be a 'positively framed' discussion. If that isn't, then I'm going to need to re-study a lot of logic lessons. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
David Gerard[edit]


Talk:Dark web#New_section:_Size[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by TvojaStara on 18:43, 29 January 2016 (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

We are arguing about the following question. Are intranets an example of a darknet? If so, are web pages inside intranets part of the dark web? I say yes, two other editors say no.

My original plan was to start a Size section on the dark web page. I managed to find a reference saying what percentage of deep web are intranets and planned to use it in my new Size section to estimate the size of this part of the dark web relative to the entire deep web. I then wanted to contrast this with the size of the Onionland, showing that intranets are huge and Onionland is tiny in comparison.

My edit was reverted by Deku-shrub who wanted to discuss the aforementioned question.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to persuade other involved users that I am right by quoting the definition of a darknet from the dark web Wikipedia page and the definition of intranet from external source and claiming that they match. I also claimed that when the term darknet first appeared, it stood for what we now call intranet and supported it by another quote.

dsprc did not participate in the discussion much. Deku-shrub keeps opposing my views from the beginning.

How do you think we can help?

Somebody who knows what the terms darknet, intranet, deep and dark web (should) mean could bring an expert opinion to the discussion.

One of the opinions voiced in in the 9 August 2015 Requested move voting on the same talk page claimed that Dark Web stands for "criminal, malicious operation". This is probably inevitable shift in meaning given the connotations of the word "dark".

Are botnets examples of darknets? What about lobby systems and matchmaking networks in multiplayer video games? What about the Skype P2P network?

Summary of dispute by dsprc[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Deku-shrub[edit]

TvojaStara is adding original research, claiming that:

a) Intranets are darknets

b) The dark web therefore extends to intranets. Not that this would follow even if this were the case, which it's not.

He's not been able to cite either of these positions Deku-shrub (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Dark web#New_section:_Size 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 sufficient discussion at the talk page. The other two editors have been notified. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but it is ready to be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN and, though I'm not sure I want to take the case, I do have a question for the filing party, TvojaStara: The burden section of the Verifiability policy says, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The "directly supports" in that quotation is well-established to mean that the source which supports the material must actually say what the source is provided to support. In this case, an assertion that intranets are part of the dark net must, therefore, be supported by a source which says that they're part of the dark net, using the term "dark net." The synthesis policy which is a type of prohibited original research expands on this, saying "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." (Emphasis added.) So my question is this: Do you have a source which alone says that intranets are part of the dark web and does so using the term "dark net"? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out WP:SYNTH, my original justification is out, then. I do have new sources for it. I found this statement from (somebody claiming to be) Shava Nerad, Founding executive director of The Tor Project, which says this explicitly TvojaStara (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@TvojaStara: Quora and Nerad are not reliable sources. Further, the link you provide throws a generic "Server error" 404-esque message so can not be verified. -- dsprc [talk] 08:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Quora was down about the time you wrote your reply. TvojaStara (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@TvojaStara: Thanks. Example given in social media post is a Techradar piece authored by an unknown "PC Plus". It has some issues, but I don't know if should wait to address those as formal procedure here or to close/abandon this DR and follow up on talk page (personally feel DR was a bit hasty and premature). -- dsprc [talk] 20:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer to continue with the DR. In my 14:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC) comment on the talk page, I raised what I consider legitimate objections against the definition of dark web in the dark web Wikipedia article (namely that it does not come from the references given after it) which Deku-shrub choose to completely ignore. Ultimately, the article should list all relevant definitions. TvojaStara (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

First statement by moderator[edit]

I will be opening this case for discussion. Here are the ground rules. Comment only on content, not on contributors. This noticeboard is for content issues, not conduct issues. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Uncivil comments or comments on contributors may be hatted. Overly long (non-concise) posts do not clarify. Do not engage in threaded discussion; do not address other contributors. Address your comments to this noticeboard as such. Do not make any non-minor edits to the article while this discussion is in progress. Avoid discussion on the article talk page while this discussion is in progress, because discussion on the article talk page may be ignored. Check on this noticeboard at least every 48 hours and respond to questions in a timely manner. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Will each editor please summarize concisely what issues they see? I see that at least one editor wants a Size section. I also see that there are issues about reliable sources and synthesis amounting to original research. I note that the existing article does address the inconsistency in use of terminology. Are there any issues about whether that should be changed? Please summarize concisely what each of you thinks the issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors[edit]

My apologies, I'll abbreviate it.

Intranets: I was unable to find a reliable source stating that intranet is a kind of a dark net. IMO it is an obvious consequence of one of the definitions, but no reliable source bothers to spell it out. I therefore accept that my assertion cannot be part of Wikipedia.

Definition of darknet, in the article: It is unsourced by the references cited just after it. (refs #2 and #3)

Definition of darknet, in general: There are many, I tried to list all I found on the talk page. I would like to reach an agreement that all those definitions exist, they are relevant to the article and that legality of darknets is an aspect to many of them.

Size section: What I originally wrote was original research, therefore it is out of the window, and it made not very useful conclusions to boot. What I want to do now is to focus it on Tor sites, since them being part of the dark web is not disputed.

Inconsistency in terminology: During the summer, there was an effort to unite the definitions (darknet/dark web/deep web/...) throughout Wikipedia.[2] My summary of the referenced article is that journalists started using the terms interchangeably, in response to that company Bright Planet has decided on firmly reestablish definitions for those terms. Now we have a dilemma, as the article puts it "Should denizens of the dark web and deep web attempt to fully claim the term ‘deep web’ from Bright Planet, or alternatively should communities start to move to more distinct terminologies?". This summer project molded Wikipedia content to follow what Bright Planet declared and in this way took an active step helping to resolve the dilema in their direction. Doing this seems to me worse than original research. Put in this way, it describes what amounts to an act of creating the substance matter.

TvojaStara (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  1. Since there is admission the claim on intranets not being darknets then it appears the scope of this dispute has been resolved.
  2. Definitions of darknets and Web are well established. [(net)(web) Google Scholar]
  3. Listing everything one can think of and writing a manifesto is not helpful: WP:TLDR... They're only illegal in oppressive regimes (e.g. Iran) but so is most free expression. [Freedom House: Freedom on the Net 2015]
  4. Proper nomenclature for deep web is also known. [Google Scholar] (Never even heard of Bright Planet but cleaning up articles and covering the conflation therein is not a dilemma) -- dsprc [talk] 20:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I will admit these pages have been a personal research project and that the articles written about them are in fact synthesis. I stand by my position that intranets are not darknets - even if those writings (which isn't even cited) were to not be considered. Deku-shrub (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator[edit]

So is there agreement that intranets are not dark nets, because they aren't on the Internet at all? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there agreement among all of the editors to throw out what has been labeled as original research? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please explain what the Bright Planet issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The article does refer to inconsistencies in general use of terminology. Does anyone think that it needs to be changed? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

One editor wants to introduce a statement about the number of TOR web sites. Do other editors agree? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

What else are the remaining issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Second statements by editors[edit]

Intranets: There is no source saying "intranets are darknets", neither there is a source saying "intranets are not darknets". My interpretation (which would be likely considered to be WP:SYNTH) is that under some definitions of darknet intranets are darknets, under other definitions not. I concede that statement on the relationship between darknets and intranets cannot be part of Wikipedia, because it is unsourced. I consider this point resolved.

The terminology is IMO not well established. For example, second-from-the-top result from Google Scholar (first open-access) results provided by Dsprc says We define this reverse side of the Web as a “Dark Web,” the portion of the World Wide Web used to help achieve the sinister objectives of terrorists and extremists." (Chen, Hsinchun, et al. "Uncovering the dark Web: A case study of Jihad on the Web.") This shows that individual researches feel free (in 2008) to ad-hoc define the term dark web for use in their article and do not feel bound by existing definitions. On the talk page, I listed a whole heap of different darknet definitions (that I copied from a linked review article in a law journal).

Point #3 by Dsprc in first round: This is a misunderstanding. Some definitions (from the review article) explicitly say darknets are illegal. Some, e.g. the Microsoft paper from 2005, define darknets as filesharing networks for copyrighted content. Therefore (WP:SYNTH?) under this definition darknets are illegal everywhere there is copyright law in place. I remember reading once that Afghanistan does not (yet) have copyright law in place. But otherwise darknets (when defined the Microsoft way) are illegal in the rest of the world.

What I think are remaining issues:

  1. Definitions of darknet and dark web in the dark web article are not supported by references. (refs 2# and 3# that are being cited after the definition do not support it and contain in fact a different definition)
  2. There are many disparate definitions of darknet and dark web, in case of darknet ranging from "an anonymity network" to "a community of reclusive people who break copyright law" (I am paraphrasing here). I maintain that the relevant WIkipedia articles should eventually (as editors' time permits) acknowledge this and the articles should not read as if there was one true definition for each of those terms, which they do now.

TvojaStara (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of_Ilovaisk#This_agreement_was_not_honored-correct.2C_but_it_was_no_honored_by_Kiev.27s_forces_not_by_resistance_fighters[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by on 01:47, 5 February 2016 (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

Do the cited sources say there was an agreement? Who said there was an agreement? Was the agreement violated? What is best way to neutrally phrase? One of the sources in question is pay-walled(WSJ), so an editor with Wall Street Journal access is preferred.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion, Requesting Citations, Posting to WP:3

How do you think we can help?

By my reading, the sources don't seem to say what RGloucester says they do. But I'm not certain how he is arriving at his interpretation since, he won't quote the text that he thinks supports his position, so I'm not sure what to do.

Summary of dispute by Iryna_Harpy[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by RGloucester[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by[edit]

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

There is a reference to a broken agreement in the article overview. My question is this do the cited sources say there was an agreement? Who said there was an agreement? Was the agreement violated? What is best way to neutrally phrase?

By my reading, there are two sources. Kyiv Post and Wall Street Journal. Kyiv Post says

"Russian President Vladimir Putin called for a “humanitarian corridor for besieged Ukrainian soldiers in order to avoid senseless victims,” the Kremlin said. " but it doesn't say an agreement was reached or that it was violated. At best it sort of speculates that there might have been a miscommunication or that no agreement was reached: " But either the Russian troops disobeyed their leader, were never ordered to open such a corridor in the first place, and Ukrainians who tried to use the corridor, were destroyed."

Wall Street Journal doesn't assert that there was an agreement. It quotes Beryoza claiming there was an agreement but doesn't explain the terms. Neither WSJ or Kyiv post says the agreement was violated.

My preference for resolution is:

A) Attribute the claim to Beryoza

B) Present both interpretations of the terms.(were arms allowed? were arms brought?)

C) Remove the reference to violated agreement and just stick to the reported facts.

A&C seem like the better options to me as B is probably messy. (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of_Ilovaisk#This_agreement_was_not_honored-correct.2C_but_it_was_no_honored_by_Kiev.27s_forces_not_by_resistance_fighters 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 adequate discussion on the article talk page. (A Third Opinion request was made, but was declined because there are more than two editors.) The filing party (the unregistered editor) has not notified the other editors of this filing. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors. This request is being left open to provide time for the filing party to notify the other editors. When the other editors are notified, if they agree to take part in dispute resolution, this case will be ready to be opened. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I posted notes in their user talk pages, is this sufficient notification? (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, that is satisfactory. One of the editors deleted the notice, but that means that they saw it, and participation is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Great. I've never done one of these before, how do we proceed? (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Abe Vigoda#survived_by[edit]

Pictogram voting comment.png – This request has been placed on hold.
Filed by Mlpearc on 20:16, 5 February 2016 (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

This meaning of "Survived by" is in dispute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requested page protection but, that won't resolve the issue

How do you think we can help?

More opinions

Summary of dispute by American In Brazil[edit]

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

WP:MOS - "Biographies of living persons should generally be written in the present tense, and biographies of deceased persons in the past tense. When making the change upon the death of a subject, the entire article should be reviewed for consistency. If a person is living but has retired, use "is a former" or "is a retired" rather than the past tense "was".

Correct – John Smith (1946–2003) was a baseball pitcher ... Correct – John Smith (born 1946) is a former baseball pitcher ... Incorrect – John Smith (born 1946) was a baseball pitcher ... Historical events should be written in the past tense in all biographies(.) [emphasis added] American In Brazil (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Abe Vigoda#survived_by discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Notified Mlpearc (open channel) 21:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editor of this filing. In view of the fact that this is a simple question about wording, a WP:3O:Third Opinion would be an option, but discussion can take place here after proper notice to the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
A third opinon was given at the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay's opinion did not resolve the matter, other than to say: "There's nothing there." In fact, MOS clearly states that historical events should be in the past tense in all biographies of deceased persons. American In Brazil (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

MOS-in-question, isn't clear on this situation. Requested clarification there. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is. WP:MOS - Historical events in biographies of deceased persons should be in the past tense. Is there anyone out there who disputes Abe's passing? -American In Brazil (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would you say that ? This discussion isn't about Vigoda's death, no one is disputing that. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If no one is disputing it, then his death is now historical and the principle of WP:MOS applies: Historical events of deceased persons should be in the past tense. American In Brazil (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Volunteer note - Keep discussion here to a minimum until a moderator accepts the case. Until then, discuss at the article talk page. When there is a moderator, discuss here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: I'm taking this case as a volunteer of DRN for moderated discussion. Given the inconsequentiality of this dispute, I'm not going to go over the regular process of sectioned discussion. I believe we can solve this sooner than typical DRN cases. Please be civil, concise and comment on the content, not on the contributor. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 04:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@UY Scuti: It might be better if you didn't, as we are both active at ACC. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Since Mlpearc has indicated he has no objection, I'm continuing with this case. The dispute words are is survived by and was survived by. Both the words here imply that the someone is dead and that someone's relative is alive (immediately) after their death. But the difference in using those is here. If you're going to use is survived by, implies that the person is dead and their so and so are alive, even now. For example, Foe is survived by his wife and two daughters (meaning, Foe is dead but his wife and two daughters are still alive). If you're going to use was survived by, implies that the person is dead and their so and so were alive, but not now. For example, Foe was survived by his wife and two daughters (meaning, Foe is dead and his wife and two daughters 'were' alive). The use of was can be justified if even at least one of their so and so is not alive. For example, Foe was survived by his wife and two daughters could be used if either of his daughters or his wife is dead. Per this source (cited in the article and uses is survived by) Abe Vigoda's daughter, grandchildren and a great-grandson are still living. And this source which explains the use of is survived by. Did that solve the issue? (pinging participants American In Brazil and Mlpearc) Regards—UY Scuti Talk 06:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@UYScuti - Thank you for your analysis. However, it is gramatically incorrect. The subject of the sentence, "He" (Abe Vigoda), is now dead; his death is an historical fact. Therefore, he should be referred to in the past tense in WP, in accordance with WP:MOS - Past tense of historical events should be used in biographies of deceased persons:
It is acceptable to use the present tense in obituaries, which are written shortly after the death of the subject. But historical facts are written in the past tense in common English usage. Precision of language is important in conveying information. In any event, WP:MOS should prevail. American In Brazil (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@American In Brazil: Yes, we should be referring to history, as history, no questions. In this context, the 'is/was refers to the people that are surviving the dead person and not the fact that the person is dead. Use of was can be justified if atleast one of the people surviving him are dead. We don't consider forums as reliable sources but I'm ignoring all rules and giving you this source. Please read the comment #4, consider that as a third opinion to this dispute. Then I found this dictionary definition, and I quote
And the news source cited in the article uses is. Can you give sources supporting your claims? Thanks. If we don't come to a conclusion, the plausible solution would be a compromise of using a different wording. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 15:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see, and the reference from the article which uses is survived by [3] Mlpearc (open channel) 15:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ "The Dark Web, Deep Web and Dark Net – Terminology Hell". Retrieved 9 February 2016. 
  2. ^ "The Dark Web, Deep Web and Dark Net – Terminology Hell". Retrieved 9 February 2016. 
  3. ^ Italie, Hillel (January 26, 2016). "Abe Vigoda, sunken-eyed character actor, dead at 94". Associated Press. Retrieved January 26, 2016. 

@Mlpearc & @UY Scuti. Thanks to you both for your thoughtful comments. I am familiar with the Associated Press obituary you reference, since I am the one who cited it in the article. As stated above, the present tense 'is survived by' is acceptable in obituaries, which are written immediately after the death of a subject. But in referring on an historical basis to the death of a person, such as a WP article of someone who is deceased, the correct usage is the past tense 'was survived by'. The Oxford English Dictionary agrees with this usage, which is the same for British and U.S. English: (definition 1.2 of the verb 'survive' - to remain alive after the death of a particular person: 'he was survived by his wife and six children'):

This reference is the definitive answer to your question. As a general rule, it is best to follow WP:MOS, which is unambiguous on this point: Biographies of living persons should generally be written in the present tense, and biographies of deceased persons in the past tense...Historical events should be written in the past tense in all biographies(.)

American In Brazil (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@UY Scuti: FYI, I have nothing further to say. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
If Mlpearc has nothing more to say, I believe this case can be general closed with no further discussion. This case will be closed in 24 hours. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 04:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc & @UY Scuti - If we are now in agreement, and without further objection, in 24 hours I will change 'is' to 'was' in the Abe Vigoda article. I trust this meets with your approval.

This seems like such a small point, especially in view of the major controversies swirling around the current U.S. presidential candidates and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (see 'Zionism' immediately below), but I think there is an important lesson to be learned here. If we as editors are helping to create an encyclopedia for the world, accessible by anyone anywhere, we must apply consistency, as well as objectivity, in the treatment of the subjects we cover. The best way to do this is a manual of style. Fortunately, the creators of WP recognized this and have given us WP:MOS. If we follow it, we will have a superior product, one that fairly and accurately summarizes the world's knowledge. I thank you both for your intelligent comments and cordial conversation. -American In Brazil (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@American In Brazil:, @UY Scuti: I only said "FYI, I have nothing further to say" because I feel there is no need for me to provide any more evidence for my point, because I believe I have shown that American In Brazil point is incorrect in this instance. I will say if the discussion is closed, in favor of "was" because that is just wrong, I will take this to the next level. American In Brazil I suggest you do not return to edit warring after the close of this discussion. Also @American In Brazil: please review Wikipedia:Indentation as you are making following this discussion very inconvenient. User:Mlpearc|Mlpearc]] (open channel) 16:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc:, @UY Scuti: I thought by your comment that we had concensus. I am disappointed you do not accept the authority of the Oxford English Dictionary, which is considered by scholars to be the final arbiter of definitions and usage in the English language. In addition, you apparently do not accept the principles of WP:MOS which should be the standard usage of all WP editors. If you wish to take it to another level, that is your prerogative. I will not make any change to this verb for 30 days, which will give you ample time to make your case. As for indentation, I start on the left and write to the right. Why is that difficult to follow? -American In Brazil (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@UY Scuti and American In Brazil: Let me be clear, I think "is" is correct. I stand by all my evidence and statements I have made. I would like the opinion of more users, not just one moderator, If I have to the next stop is I guess WP:RfC. @American In Brazil: Please use indents. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@UY Scuti and Mlpearc: This should be a learning moment. You own your opinion but not the facts and facts are stubborn things. If the Oxford English Dictionary and WP:MOS are not good enough for you, please take it to the next level. PS, how's my indentation? -American In Brazil (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: I acknowledge the contradicting sources and I have asked help from the reference desk for language. If we see varying opinions there too, we'll go with a compromise. Until then, I've placed this discussion on hold. Once participation in that thread ceases, we can bring back our discussion here. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 09:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Pictogram voting delete.svg – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Makeandtoss on 01:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC).

Planet of the Apes (2001 film)[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Ommnomnomgulp on 17:08, 10 February 2016 (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

Editor trying to prepend "appears to be" in front of "Lincoln Memorial" since the person memorialized within the memorial is not Lincoln, but an ape general, calling into question the in-universe connections between human history and ape history. "Appears to be" doesn't change the truth value of the sentence since the Lincoln Memorial always appears to be the Lincoln Memorial. This seems a logical compromise since the truth value of the sentence does not change, but it properly calls into question the absolute parallel between our Earth and the movie universe Earth. If it's the Lincoln Memorial, fine--"appears to be" doesn't change that at all. One editor has also wholesale reverted the change of a word "now" for "actually," which, once again, doesn't change the truth value of the sentence, but merely states that the statue is "actually" Thade and not "actually" Lincoln. "Now" implies that the statue was, at one time, Lincoln, and was changed--even up to the moment we view the film. While this may be true, it's impossible do deduce if the statue was ever Lincoln from the film, itself. "Actually," in this case, is directly accurate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy conversation on talk page. (Note: I realized that WP:RFC may be the better option and I'm happy to withdraw this and move it to that venue)

How do you think we can help?

Determine whether the addition of "appears to be" (and perhaps the change from "now" to "actually") is detrimental to the edit and if not, allowing the change.

Summary of dispute by SonOfThornhill[edit]

The editor, who has never contributed to the page in question, parachuted in and began to make substantial changes to the meaning of a long standing passage based solely on his own personal opinion and interpretation without any source in support. His edits were reverted and the editor was asked to discuss on article's Talk page before making any further changes. However, instead of waiting for a consensus of editors on Talk page, the editor in question again changed the wording of the article to his version. The editor in question has yet to show any sources that support his opinion nor has gotten a consensus of editors to agree with the changes. Despite this the editor in question is still making changes to the article based on his opinion. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Just want to add that the Dispute Resolution process may be a bit premature. This only started 2 or 3 days ago. I'd would like more time to give other editors a change to weigh in on the issue. That is the usual process. SonOfThornhill (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes (2001 film) 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 discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor of this filing. It is the responsibility of the filing editor to notify the other party of the filing of this request. Leaving this case open for filing editor to notify other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - The other editor has been notified and has made a statement. This case is ready to be opened. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)