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:Shah Rukh_Khan#perhaps_the_world.27s_biggest_movie_star.3F 2In Progress Bollyjeff (t) 13 days, 4 hours Winkelvi (t) 13 hours Tsavage (t) 3 hours
Talk:Health care in the United States 1New 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 (t) 8 days, 9 hours Hasteur (t) 1 days, 4 hours 2601:647:4601:4634:A8D3:C40:D286:B3E2 (t) 13 minutes
Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias 2In Progress Miesianiacal (t) 7 days, 12 hours Drcrazy102 (t) 1 days, Qexigator (t) 23 hours
Talk:Foundation for_Economic_Education#Oldest_free_market_organization 7Closed Id4abel (t) 6 days, 2 hours JQTriple7 (t) 6 days, 1 hours JQTriple7 (t) 6 days, 1 hours
Talk:OpenIndiana#Screenshots removed 1New Huihermit (t) 3 days, 3 hours Hasteur (t) 1 days, 4 hours Huihermit (t) 1 days, 1 hours
Talk:Muhammad#Aisha .22reaching_age_of_puberty.22 7Closed Trinacrialucente (t) 1 days, 2 hours Drcrazy102 (t) 1 days, Drcrazy102 (t) 1 days,
Talk:Lewis's trilemma#.22Largely_ignored_by_theologians_and_biblical_scholars.2C_who_do_not_view_Jesus_as_having_claimed_to_be_God..22 7Closed Cpflieger (t) 14 hours TransporterMan (t) 13 hours TransporterMan (t) 13 hours
Talk:List of highest-grossing animated films#Spongebob movies 1New Paleocemoski (t) 14 hours TransporterMan (t) 13 hours TransporterMan (t) 13 hours
Talk:Indo-Pakistani War_of_1971#RFC.2C_Should_.22Decisive_victory_of_Provisional_Banlgladesh_Government.22_be_written_in_result.3F 7Closed Xtremedood (t) 11 hours JQTriple7 (t) 10 hours JQTriple7 (t) 10 hours
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 07:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


Current disputes[edit]

Talk:Shah Rukh_Khan#perhaps_the_world.27s_biggest_movie_star.3F[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Bollyjeff on 02:22, 18 November 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

* Semitransgenic (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article Shah Rukh Khan passed FA and TFA recently with a certain sourced statement in the lead and blurb. A couple days after it was TFA, someone thought that this statement should be removed. Since that time several other editors have chimed in on the discussion page, some agreeing with this, some wanting to keep it as it was, and some wanting to go even further in the direction that it was. DRN was suggested a couple times so I thought of giving this a try. I am the editor who took this article to GA, FA, and TFA, and I think that something along these lines needs to be in the lead for our readers.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Many more sources were brought to light upon request supporting the statement, and alternative statements were proposed, edited in, and rejected. The current form is different than the TFA version.

How do you think we can help?

Maybe we need some un-involved parties to help resolve the conflict now. There may be some involved who have some sort of agenda (this has also been suggested on the talk page).

Summary of dispute by Semitransgenic[edit]

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

Saw an FA/TFA stating, in the second sentence of a WP:BLP lead, that subject was Described by the Los Angeles Times as perhaps "the world's biggest movie star" . It appeared to be an intentional misquote; either promotional (WP:SOAP) or hagiographic (WP:PEACOCK). Claims associated with a newspaper's POV need to sourced to an editorial statement. I removed the content, it was reverted. I corrected the attribution and opened talk flagging WP:POV.I questioned the validity of any claims employing the phrase "the worlds biggest." Further sources were offered, I suggested we employ the word "reportedly," this word use was disputed. It was demonstrated that multiple actors have been described as "the world's biggest movie star" and that no such claim can offered as a statement of fact. Various arguments were offered to do with audience sizes, earnings etc. to justify the claim; none of which stood up to scrutiny. To update, if we look at the Forbes World's Highest Paid Actor List 2015, in the top 10 we see three Bollywood actors (Amitabh Bachchan, Salman Khan, and Akshay Kumar), all of whom are exposed to the same sized audience as Khan, and all of whom earn more than Khan (similar claims about "world's" this and that can also be found for each actor). My view is we should not be making claims like this in a BLP FA without something like a properly sourced consensus statement of fact based on clear supporting evidence. Using entertainment news so prominently in the lead is inappropriate. Of all information found in a newspaper, such news is, arguably, the least reliable. Semitransgenic talk. 14:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Fideliosr[edit]

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

Here's a brief summary of my concerns:

  • There's no universal consensus that he is the "biggest" movie star in the world. The mention looks quite fanboyish.
  • Mere and inconsistent opinion of a bunch of journalists. Not that noteworthy stuff.
  • Tom Cruise vs. SRK debate, in my opinion, is irrelevant here.

Fideliosr (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Human3015[edit]

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

Read this FA version (first para of lead), which says "Described by the Los Angeles Times as perhaps "the world's biggest movie star"". Some editors had concern that it is view of that journalist and not of LA Times, and it is "paid news". Some users said that chief executive editor or owner of that news agency should say that he is "biggest star" then only we can attribute to News agency. There are several other sources who call him "biggest star" as seen in this version. Most of sources called him biggest star in terms of number of people know him. Around 3.5 billion people around the world knows him. [1], [2], [3], [4] all these news sources saying that SRK has around 3.5 billion audience but as per other parties these are "paid news". I think we can simply write that "Shah Rukh Khan is known as biggest film star in the world in terms of number of people know him, it is estimated that around 3.5 billion people around the world know him". --Human3015TALK  12:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Vensatry[edit]

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

The fact that the claim appeared that way when the article passed FAC/TFA appearance is irrelevant. It's possible that our reviewers had overlooked that. The way in which the claim was there before I participated in the talk page discussion was clearly a violation of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Besides, I don't think it's a lead material. Human3015's argument about the 3.5 billion people adds no value to the discussion. Wikipedia doesn't work that way! Vensatry (Talk) 09:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Kailash29792[edit]

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

I have just tried supporting the article being how it was during its FAC pass, and TFA appearance. I supported the LA Times quote about the actor being in the lead because, even though it praises him, we are maintaining neutrality by quoting someone else rather than praise him through our own words. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Shah Rukh_Khan#perhaps_the_world.27s_biggest_movie_star.3F 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 extensive discussion at the article talk page. However, the filing party has not notified the other editors. Another editor may provide a procedural close if the filing editor does not first notify the other editors. The filing editor can notify all of the other editors. I am not opening or closing this case, but it may be closed if the filing editor does not notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
They have now been notified. BollyJeff | talk 04:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note:  Verified All involved parties have been notified on their talk pages. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Note to participants: Can parties please refer to diffs when discussing prior versions of the article in question. It helps to save DRN Volunteers' time when looking through your statements, instead of edit-history trawling. You can also use the {{diff}} template to create "in wiki" links (without the 'external' link icon in the corner). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Not particularly about the dispute but reading the disputed sentence I think it worth noting that Described by the Los Angeles Times has a different meaning from described in the Los Angeles Times. The first refers to an editorial statement while the second merely states that the description has appeared in the newspaper. From all appearances, the second statement - described in the Los Angeles Times - is the more accurate one here. --regentspark (comment) 02:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Note to participants: Please keep discussion to a minimum before the case is opened by a volunteer, which will happen as soon as all parties respond, or in a few days if they don't. Thank you for your understanding. JQTriple7 (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by volunteer moderator Winkelvi: Since it has been a few days since everyone involved has been notified of this DRN, I will go ahead and take a stab at this. From a first look at the article, it does not seem to me that the content should be in the lede to begin with, rather, it should be in the body of the article. It's an opinion by a newspaper journalist in one article, not an honor or title given to the article subject in the mode of "Sexiest Man Alive" ala People Magazine. Frankly, I am amazed that the inclusion of the statement in the lede made it past those reviewing the article for GA, FA, and TFA. The wording as well as the statement itself ("...biggest film star in the world in terms of number of people know him, it is estimated that around 3.5 billion people around the world know him") seems very fan-site-ish and very un-encyclopedic to me. Regardless, if it stays in the article (and I personally don't think it should as it is), it's not suited for the lede per this: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph". -- WV 22:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"XYZ editor is a fan of this actor or that actor" such accusations are already made by each party on each other on talk page of the article, thats why we have came here to have discussion without any accusations. 2nd thing is that all claims are supported by the sources. You can read this and this which are reliable sources stating SRK is more popular than Tom Cruise on the basis of a popularity survey. Also this abc news is giving reference of Business Week and stating that his estimated audience is 3.5 billion (there are several other sources to back it). These are not opinions of journalist. These things needs mention in lead somehow. --Human3015TALK  23:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Human3015 - This is rather getting odd because you haven't been listening to anybody's opinion and presenting your own thoughts based on that, but only repeating the same 3.5 billion thing over and over again. @Winkelvi - I totally agree with your suggestions. Fideliosr (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you are repeating your statements and ignoring sources. What I have provided is not journalist opinions. Above ABC news attributing to "Business Week" and not to any "journalist" while stating about 3.5 billion audience, and other sources are attributing to "popularity survey" when comparing SRK with Tom Cruise. --Human3015TALK  21:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: The statement that you made above is not the original, or current version. It is "Described by the Los Angeles Times as "perhaps the world's biggest movie star"". There are many sources available, as discussed on the talk page, but only one was used in this version. The 'In the media' section discusses the subjects popularity, so the lead needs some sort of summary of that section. It is important for readers to know the magnitude of the subject's popularity. If we agree to remove the original statement per your concerns, how do you feel about some of the alternatives that were presented on the talk page, which tone it down such as, "He has been referred to as one of the world's biggest film stars in the Times, the Guardian, and The Los Angeles Times."? How would you choose to include something of this nature? BollyJeff | talk
Please be sure to sign your comments after leaving them. Thanks.
Stating "He has been referred to as..." per your suggestion is certainly preferable as it is not in wiki-voice. Wikipedia doesn't declare article subjects to be the "best" or "biggest" or "greatest" anything - that's not the job of an encyclopedia. My suggestion, however, would be to not list the publications in the statement, but to say something along the lines of "He has been referred to by a few <reporters/writers/critics> as "one of the world's biggest film stars" (or whatever the exact quote is). It has to be worded correctly and appropriately and not in Wiki-voice and certainly not in a manner that would violate WP:PEACOCK or WP:OR. Since the beginning of Hollywood, there have been many great film stars, but few have actually made the list of "the world's biggest film stars". I hardly think the article subject is of the caliber of Clark Gable, Errol Flynn, Judy Garland, Meryl Streep, Bette Davis, Katherine Hepburn, Marlon Brando, James Dean, and so on. His name isn't a household name, he's not really known in the United States, and other than what comes out of the UK, nothing compares to Hollywood in film star greatness. Those are just my personal thoughts. Here's something compiled by AMC that lists the 100 greatest film stars of all time. Is the article subject on the list? (I haven't looked at it yet and I think I already know the answer). AMC 100 Greatest Film Stars. -- WV 21:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, its beginning to look like I am defeated here. If I say "referred to as ..." without giving an attribution, the "by whom" tag will come back. We never said that he was the greatest actor, just the most popular. The whole point of the statement was to show people that only know about American actors, that there are other actors out there in the non-Hollywood-centric world, that are even more well known and loved than those on your AMI list that everyone knows about already. If the statement can stay in the body, but not in the lead, I suppose its okay. I cannot speak for the other editor here who wants even more coverage in the lead though. How do we end this gracefully? BollyJeff | talk 00:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, now -- there's no need to look at it as you are personally defeated, Bollyjeff. If the right thing happens according to policy and guidelines, then it's Wikipedia that is the winner and no one loses. We're supposed to be editing for the betterment of the encyclopedia and the reader, not for ourselves, after all! Having the statement in the body is fine, as long as it is sourced properly and the sources support the wording -- which needs to remain neutral and not in Wiki-voice. Ending it gracefully? I have no idea other than what you just stated re: retaining the content in the body of the article rather than the lede. Thanks for having a good attitude, and really, don't think of it as a "loss". I've "lost" plenty of discussions/arguments in Wikipedia. But, as I said, if the encyclopedia and the reader ultimately are the winners according to policy and guidelines, then the right thing was decided on and done. -- WV 01:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::re: "The whole point of the statement was to show people that only know about American actors, that there are other actors out there in the non-Hollywood-centric world that are even more well known and loved than those on your AMI list" Not our job as editors to engage in this kind of thing, lacks objectivity, is this some kind of activism you are involved in? Might be worth reading WP:ADVOCACY. You should be very careful editing if this is what motivates you. Semitransgenic talk. 16:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We can look for any replacement in sentence, we must show somehow popularity of this actor. For example good article of Frank Sinatra says he is greatest singer of 20th century by giving attribution to someone (read last line in lead). So such kind of things we can write in this case.--Human3015TALK  17:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Need a Moderater: I did not comment here for last 3-4 days because I thought some moderator will come and will open this debate so that we can do proper debate. But no moderator has officially opened this debate. I came here to comment only when one editor here who is commenting like "disputant" but claiming as moderator appealed one of disputant to close this thread as "resolved". How a disputant can close this thread? This "moderator" seems to lack experience of dispute resolving, we really need a proper moderator to resolve this dispute. Also one of disputant claimed consensus here and done same controversial edit. See, current pre-dispute version can be changed, here we are not discussing whether to keep or remove current version but rather how we can replace it with better and acceptable version. There are many articles of artists where they have called as "greatest" or "biggest" etc but with proper attribution. We can do here also. This actor has been mentioned as "biggest" in several international news media, we can't ignore it even though they are so called "opinions of journalists". And I hope one moderator will come to moderate this debate. Thank you.--Human3015TALK  19:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

* User talk:Human3015 behavior beginning to enter into the realms of WP:TR/WP:HEAR. Semitransgenic talk. 20:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not place to discuss behaviour, you can try another board. My behavior is at least better than this. See, Wikipedia is not democracy or majority vote. Here things work as per consensus, "10 people are agree of this and 2 on that so 10 people must be right" this is not case here. Rather there should be fruitful discussion so that any middle path can be followed. --Human3015TALK  22:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: See what I mean? Although I may be able to move on, others are not. What do we do now? Does your role as volunteer make you a moderator? Can you help us craft a compromise, rather than a straight deletion? BollyJeff | talk 00:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Is "He has been referred to by British reporters as "the biggest film star in the world"" okay? Because that is what's there now, and you are not letting me change it. BollyJeff | talk 01:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - @Human3015:/@Semitransgenic:/@Bollyjeff: This is your first and only warning. We do not discuss conduct of other editors on this page. The next time one any of you lobs a conduct accusation (ex: 01:30, 30 November 2015 comment) I will step in and close this with a referral to AN as the conduct of the editors has taken the primary focus over the disputed content of the article and let administrators sort out what sanctions should be applied. Now as to the case at hand, having read the quote and the source that backs it up I am uncomfortable even the POV attribution shading that is done in the lead section. If the prose could be worked in to some other portion of the page (possibly in the "In the media" section) I think this could balance the issue between the attributed statement. I would also note that the author appears to be a beat reporter for Arts/Entertainment and that his last published article shows as of June 2012 (with the source being from 2011). Is it possible that the "biggest movie star" quote is no longer accurate? Hasteur (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The statement is currently present in the "In the media" section. Have you seen the alternative that was proposed? It is something like: "He has been referred to (by the Times and the Gaurdian) as the world's biggest movie star". There are several sources from 2015 given on the talk page. Of course this cannot be verified as a fact, but the fact that he has been called this by several reputable non-Indian magazines/newspapers should count for something. Do you think there is room for a statement like that in the lead? BollyJeff | talk 02:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bollyjeff: In order for it to be in the lead, I would want to see it in NYT/LAT/WP/etc repeatedly. The source that is backing up the statement ( does not make that statement and plays a paraphrase of the statement using a rhetorical device. For a FA we absolutely want sensational statements to be iron clad sourced. Therefore the statement needs to be excised from the lead, the statement needs to be edited to reflect what the source says, or a new source needs to be found that supports the claim. Having looked at the talk page I see you leading the charge (sometimes with less than conduct appropriate actions) for this statement to be front and center in the lead. Hasteur (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Bollyjeff, Hasteur is correct. It's not an actual distinction. It's not an actual label given to him as an award or honor. A couple of reporters giving an opinion in print does not make Khan the greatest actor in the world. I really think you need to drop this and go with what the consensus appears to be: the statement needs to stay out of the lede and stay toned-down and non-POV/violating WP:PEACOCK in the body of the article. Additionally, I'm going to recommend that the article be re-evaluated as an FA. -- WV 03:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Really? Please don't do that. I said just yesterday that I was okay removing the statement, and wanted to end this. I really don't think we need to go through a whole FAR process now. I have informed the FA co-author about this but he may not be very active now. Although he is one of the most respected and prolific editors in the business, sometimes @Dr. Blofeld: stops editing because he has to spend too much time dealing with disputes instead of improving the project.BollyJeff | talk 03:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::unfortunately, this is getting nowhere, per the original observation I made, this content has no place in the lead of an FA, and it's evident that neutral opinion is being ignored here, therefore i second Winkelvi, FA re-evaluation is required. Semitransgenic talk. 12:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, once again I will say it loud and clear: "I am okay with removing the offending comment from the lead." I would even replace it in the body with the toned down version citing the several newspapers from 2015, and leave any such mention out of the lead entirely. I would do it myself, but the article is currently locked. BollyJeff | talk 13:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor: The quote "perhaps the world's biggest movie star" does not appear to be inappropriate in context, although given the current level of opposition, in terms of Wikipedia's "consensus on compromise" approach to conflict resolution, an alternative wording in the lead could be found. The statement is not only well-supported (three reputable news publications, Los Angeles Times, The Times, The Guardian, cited, all say the same, and quick Google research indicates that Khan is currently in the top couple of highest net worth movie actors, and among the top 10 in annual earnings), given the population size of his potential audience, there should be no general argument against this quote of an expert journalist's opinion appearing in a reputable major news publication. The language within a quote, strictly speaking, explicitly falls outside of WP:PEACOCK, as the Dylan example in that section clearly illustrates: attributed quotes can say what they like. What remains is whether, in the lead, this statement still seems somehow promotional and undue.

In fact, the central issue appears to be one of Wikipedia's overall POV, and maintaining an international perspective. It is probably true that a large majority of English-speaking residents of English-speaking countries, who are aware of, say, Tom Cruise, have not heard of Khan, therefore, presenting the fact that Khan is "as big as or bigger" (in terms of audience, financial worth) than the top Hollywood household names is certainly noteworthy from a world perspective, English and foreign, and provides basic context in learning about Khan. So the question is, in the lead, what is the appropriate wording to convey that Khan is "as big as or bigger" than the very top couple of Hollywood stars, while maintaining an appropriately balanced world POV? --Tsavage (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

If, as your seem to be saying, Tsavage, the "biggest star in the world" label applies to Khan's monetary status -- that's one thing. Left on its own, however, the wording is all-encompassing rather than qualified as "his financial status makes him one of the highest-paid stars in the world" (or something along those lines). If his "biggest star" status according to the opinions of critics is based on how much money he makes, that needs to be said for readers to better understand. Editors, too. Eventually, there will an editor or new user who comes along and thinks, "No way is this guy the biggest movie star in the world", and it gets changed again, edit warring ensues, etc. If the label it's not based on that, and the claim has been made by opinion only of critics, then it's just an opinion. In any case, it needs to be supported by something more substantial than the opinion of reporters, critics, and so on. For example: a few reporters from the NYT, LA Times, Dallas Morning News state in print and online: "Barack Obama is the greatestmost popular, ever" -- how do we add that to the Obama article without some sort of poll statistic? The answer is: we don't. Experienced editors will immediately challenge it because it's only based on opinion, not a solid supporting reference/statistic. I see this situation as no different. We need to be specific, and if we can't be specific and these claims about Khan are simply opinion, then they need to be qualified as opinion, not fact. -- WV 16:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: Your comments are consistent with what I said, therefore, I am in agreement with you, up to but not including your Obama parallel. Perhaps the most common and unambiguous way to include an opinion is to include it as an attributed quote, this is fundamental to core policy, and is precisely the case with the "perhaps the biggest..." quote. This is the point of leaving analysis to reliable, independent secondary sources, so we don't argue the conclusions via original research - if other, equally reliable sources counter the views of an RS, then we can act (for example, there are also reporters who do not speak highly of Obama). Here, we have multiple sources in agreement with a conclusion they have come to, and one that is based in all cited sources on consideration of metrics such as audience and income, so that's pretty much that.
Your concern about "all-encompassing" can be most directly resolved by adding a couple of words - e.g. "'perhaps the world's biggest movie star' by audience size and income" - but my comment indicated that a rewording is suggested, so your argument is against what has already been conceded: come up with a paraphrased version that is clearly scoped and not over-encompassing.
My bolded bottom-line point remains: To maintain balanced international perspective, it seems highly noteworthy to indicate that Khan is at the very top tip of the global actor heap as far as commercial measure (audience, financial), and this is what we should include, neutrally worded, in the lead. The use of the quote does fairly achieve that - and is consistent with the intention of the reporter in the source article, and with WP:PEACOCK - however, given the opposition here, it is not the only way to record that information, which can be presented with other wording. Failing to do that can be well-argued as failing to fully summarize the article, by omitting a prominent fact about Khan's commercial stature from the lead. IMO, participating editors who want a resolution should pursue this course of rewording. --Tsavage (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Have a clear, bottom line suggestion for wording, Tsavage? -- WV 17:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I could probably craft something about audience size using the sources that Human3015 provided, but as someone suggested, they are a few years old. Does that matter? I doubt the audience size would shrink much. BollyJeff | talk 17:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, he is not "biggest star" in terms of "fan base" but in terms of "audience" or "people who know his name". As someone said above regarding population base from where Khan belongs or the place where Khan is most popular (India-Pakistan-Bangladesh and Middle east) have large population, so something related to audience base will be more appropriate. --Human3015TALK  18:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Winkelvi:: I don't have wording at the moment (though I will share if something pops up), and I think that is up to the compromise involved editors may be willing to reach. I am speaking from my (experimental) mediator/moderator mode, where I can imagine how some editors are genuinely seeing red at the prospect of having one movie actor be in any way prominently proclaimed "the biggest actor" by Wikipedia, and going on to vigorously argue the point (and there is always grounds for argument). As an editor on the page, which I am currently not, I would be probably be arguing for inclusion of the quote, well-qualified, of course, because it does what otherwise requires cobbling together various sources of varying quality (audience polls, income estimates), with an eye to avoiding synthesizing a conclusion.
This appears to be a classic "verifiability not truth" issue: I think we are all in agreement about the factual content, as far as top of heap commercially, we however need a perfect source. The three top-tier news organizations that sum things up as "perhaps biggest" do do that in my opinion, but we are left with the opposition, and no one high quality alternative (as far as my look at the article and brief Googling turned up). Perhaps a paraphrasing of the three cited "biggest star" news sources taken together might work. --Tsavage (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::what's verifiable is that various entertainment news writers made claims about someone being "the biggest xyz," but should that be the second sentence of the lead of an FA BLP? Nope. See the Forbes World's Highest Paid Actor List 2015, in the top 10 we see three Bollywood actors, Amitabh Bachchan, Salman Khan, and Akshay Kumar, all of whom reach the same audience as Khan, and all of whom earn more (Khan appears to be placed 17th in this list). Similar claims about "world's" this and that can be found for many of these actors, for example the Independent led with the same claim for Amitabh Bachchan in February this year. So what does all this tell us about truth? Semitransgenic talk. 19:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

() @Semitransgenic:: I'm not in general disagreement with you, and you are arguing against a point that I am not making, and I don't see as having been made in general.

Your argument directly above appears to be that Khan is no different than at least three other Bollywood actors, who share the same general audience base, may have equivalent or higher income in a particular period, and have been referred to (at least in one case) as the "biggest star" in the same global context, therefore, highlighting this aspect (at least, with any sort of superlative like "biggest," even a quoted one) is inaccurate. Your support for this, however, is limited: a survey of income for a 12-month period, apparently reflecting only film income (not sponsorship and other income), and an article about another Bollywood star, saying he is "the biggest" - you are arguing against reputable sources with your own slim evidence. What you need is an RS source that says, in effect, "Despite assertions to the contrary, Khan is not nearly the biggest star in the world." Meanwhile, there has been no attempt to portray Khan as "the biggest" in the first place (at least, in this DR case), so this is overall an off-point argument (a red herring, some might say).

The real heart of the issue is that the current quote, "perhaps the world's biggest star," and the equivalent in the other two sources, are clearly figurative: none of them are claiming definitively that Khan is literally THE biggest star by any one measure, they are all written in context of an English-speaking audience (the target audience of these news organizations) not having heard of this actor (and the same for Bachchan). And the sources present a broad basis for these claims, including that "Bollywood has a global audience of 3.6 billion; Hollywood has 2.5 billion" and a quote from a top Hollywood producer, "Shah Rukh Khan ... Harvey Weinstein calls the ‘biggest star in the world’" In addition, from various sources, Khan has an estimated net worth of $600 million, exceeding most or all Hollywood stars (and Bachchan, at $400 million). This appears to be the "truth" of the matter - it's not simply a few fanboy journalists writing what they want in major news media, it is a widely considered conclusion that Khan is at the top of the heap, commercially speaking, as a movie actor, above most or all Hollywood and Bollywood actors, measured by these criteria. This does not preclude other actors from sharing similarly elevated status, however, Khan is the subject at hand, and his dominant commercial standing is a noteworthy fact that merits coverage in-article and summarized in the lead, in part to maintain an international perspective, not a US- or Anglo-centric one. --Tsavage (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @User:Tsavage, nope, misapprehension on your part, that's not my "argument," this is going around in circles, you do know I accepted those sources right?, bottom line, "biggest" suggestion is patently false based on the evidence at hand, that's the only truth here, any claim to greatness is dubious, and needs to be framed appropriately. But hey I tell you what, I see what's happening here, done, take this bullshit, put it in a pipe, and burn it up, then drop me me a note about your trip on my talk page when you come down. Adios amigos. Semitransgenic talk. 00:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@Semitransgenic:: As you wish. But seriously, as it stands now, He has been described in the Los Angeles Times as "perhaps the world's biggest movie star".[3][4][5] I have an extremely hard time seeing as anything but what it is, a comment framed from a Western POV, indicating, "this actor you probably never even heard of is as big or bigger a star than anyone on the Hollywood A-list." And it passed FAC review (don't know how rigorous a review that was, but it is what it is). And this DRN process is negotiating to undo that... --Tsavage (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tsavage: Thank you for your eloquent remarks. Could everyone who is left now perhaps settle on a statement such as "Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein has called Khan the ‘biggest star in the world’." ??? Here is the source from the times UK in 2013: [5]. BollyJeff | talk 01:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bollyjeff:: Still in moderator/mediator mode, I believe successfully resolving this dispute by coming to an agreement perhaps favors a paraphrase in the lead rather than using a "world's biggest" quote - quotes can be included and developed in the article, it's more convenient but not absolutely essential to conveying the point, and respecting the not unfounded concerns of other editors at this time, can be worded in a more qualified way. And quoting Harvey Weinstein in the lead seems further from the point of establishing Khan's relative commercial stature than the original "perhaps the world's biggest..." Maybe something along the lines of, "In terms of audience size and income, Khan has been described as one of the biggest film actors worldwide" - with the appropriate citations? --Tsavage (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, income was already covered in the previous sentence as "He is one of the richest actors in the world, ..." but yes something like this is fine with me. I want to here what the others have to say now. BollyJeff | talk 03:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Health care in the United States[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 on 21:37, 22 November 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 is a conflict on whether the several articles that relate to the Healthcare of the United States contain excessive negativity and are biased towards such negative opinions, including the sources that are largely opinion based and not reliable. It can potentially affect the neutrality and reliability of the articles in question as well.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing the issue constructively with the user on the article's talk page. Notifying another administrator for possible assistance as well. The admin is: User:The Blade of the Northern Lights

How do you think we can help?

Provide neutral insights on this issue and give a constructive decision on how to resolve this heated problem regarding an important aspect of Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by CFCF[edit]

The filing user has provided no sources for any statements whatsoever and simply deletes properly sourced material they find objectionable. There are other parties present in the discussion, also detailed in the currently active post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Health_system_article. Even a cursory glance at the page histories [6] show that this single editor has seen unilateral opposition (from at least 6 other editors) and is now engaging in yet another time sink. (I have added more editors to the list of involved parties, because they have either edited the articles in question or commented about the behavior of the IP-user)
Please disregard this notice and close as appropriate. CFCF 💌 📧 22:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Drbogdan[edit]

I also agree with the comments made by "User:CFCF" re the issue(s) presented (hopefully, this is a better location for my comment than my earlier post below) - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MaterialScientist[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Escape Orbit[edit]

I have some sympathy for the specific issue that filing editor 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 raised regarding the view that "Issues like injuries, homicides and sexually transmitted infections cannot be atributed to the system of healthcare or can be atributed at most a little."

However, when it was suggested that perhaps the content in question be moved to a new, more suitable article (like Health in the USA), this was rejected on the grounds that this article would also "portray the U.S. in a negative light". So the chief concern isn't accuracy or neutrality, but the image of the U.S.?

The other thrust of the filing editor's argument is that the fact was poorly sourced. It was sourced from an academic paper written for the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Some may disagree with the conclusions reached, but there are no grounds for questioning its reliability as a source.

The topic of this article can be controversial, and naturally opinions differ. It would be more profitable use of time to balance the opinions (and facts that they are based on) with others authoritative sources, rather than simply requesting that content is removed because you don't like it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Flyer22 Reborn[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Ozzie10aaaa[edit]

I would concur with CFCF appraisal of the situation on the article in question,( and have little to add beyond his statement above) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Health care in the United States discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  •  Volunteer note:  Verified There has been sufficient prior discussion on the talk page. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: Not all participants have been notified on their talk pages. Filing party should do so, otherwise I will do so shortly. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Note to participants: Please keep discussion to a minimum before the case is opened by a volunteer. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note:  Verified All participants have been notified on their talk pages. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: Recusing myself from volunteering on this request as I have interactions with at least two editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: After a close look, I don't see any rules this chapter break and the consensus go toward keeping it. Everyone seem open for a sourced replacement or addition. However, this would require an actual suggestion. Iluvalar (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: - There are errors in the filing of this case. The filing party has failed to list themselves as a party to the case, but has listed two editors who have not been involved either in the discussion on the article talk page or in editing the article. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but am recommending that it be procedurally declined. All editors are advised to be civil and concise, both here and on the article talk page. Civility is not optional in Wikipedia, and excessively long posts are often ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: New volunteer, so I'm not sure of the conventional approach to this question/suggestion: Wouldn't it be more practical to just edit it to include the filing party as a party (which is just a technicality) and hat the "invitations" of the irrelevant parties and any commentary they made?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: - Having read the unhatted statements and discussion, I think sending this back to WPMedicine or to the article's talk page for the 2601 IPv6 user to establish consensus for the changes that they want to make. Pending no reasoned objections, I intend to close this thread with those reccomendations 48 hours from my timestamp. Hasteur (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the recommendations. Discussion will now take place on: Talk:Health care in the United States. 2601:647:4601:4634:A8D3:C40:D286:B3E2 (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Miesianiacal on 18:33, 23 November 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

Editors are divided on whether or not content relating to Elizabeth II at List of the oldest living state leaders is both biased and inaccurate. Now at the level of revert warring.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion at the article talk page and User talk:Neve-selbert.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a mediating service, part of which may involve reminding dispute participants of policies and guidelines.

Summary of dispute by Neve-selbert[edit]

I concur with GoodDay; in her positions as Queen, she is predominately referred to as being Queen of the United Kingdom (rather Queen of England, a popular misconception) rather than as Queen of Jamaica, Queen of the Bahamas or even Queen of Pakistan. Instead of over-complicating the article with the inclusion of every single sovereign state and entity she has ever reigned over in her entire lifetime (derived originally from the British throne), we can simply add a link to the Commonwealth realms, and readers can click this link and understand why, exactly she is the monarch—and has been the monarch—of almost a quarter of a hundred states. To follow the argument of Miesianiacal would be to remove the link within the table pertaining to the other Commonwealth realms, as he would make this collective group redundant by naming tirelessly and individually every single sovereign throne she has ever sat on. Neve-selbert (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GoodDay[edit]

IMHO, there shouldn't be any disagreement at the article-in-question. Verifable sources will easily proove that Elizabeth II is associated mostly with the United Kingdom. She was born there, got married there, was crowned there, will likely be buried there. Because she resides predominantly there, the UK is the only Commonwealth realm which doesn't have or require a governor general. Let's be honest, aswell. Do we often see headlines like Queen of Tuvalu, visits.... or howabout Queen of Antigua and Barbados, visited....? we must consider WP:WEIGHT here. Furthermore, having the United Kingdom and the other realms spread out into the article-in-question, in such a manner (instead of just having United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwelath realms), is un-necessary. For the article's structure, we should go with the consice & compact version. So again, there really shouldn't be a dispute at all. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Miesianaical[edit]

In the row for Elizabeth II, in the 'state' column, there is currently depicted a British flag preceding the words "United Kingdom and 15 other states". In the 'position' column is "Queen (1952-present)". The problems with the aforementioned are: a) Elizabeth II has been queen of only four of the 16 realms since 1952. She became queen of the 12 others at various later dates. b) The Commonwealth realms (what the "United Kingdom and 15 other states" is indirectly referring to) are not collectively represented by the British flag. Even if the flag is intended to be associated only with the words "United Kingdom", it is still possible for readers unfamiliar with the topic of the Commonwealth realms to interpret it as being associated with the whole bloc of countries. c) The UK holds no special status apart from, let alone "above", the other realms. Some editors claim it does by virtue of not having a governor-general and the monarch will die and be buried there. However, those are differences and "different" doesn't necessarily equate to "superior" or justify special treatment. This fact is recognised in the row for Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who was both President of France and Co-Prince of Andorra; it does not say in the list "President of France and head of one other state", though Giscard is (some editors would likely say) "known mostly" as President of France, will be buried there, had a representative in Andorra, etc. And d) not only are the not-UK realms relegated to second class status relative to the UK, but to every other country in the list, as well. The list consistently provides the flag and name of every country except when it comes to the "15 other states". Again, Andorra and France are both given full display and flags next to Giscard.

The edit I first made on 18 November seemed, to me, to resolve all those issues in a way that at least provided no reason to object. It still "favoured" the UK by way of keeping it at the top of the sub-list (though, that also follows the established protocol for listing the reams), yet made the other realms no different to the UK or every other country in the larger list by way of showing their names and corresponding national flags; it is more consistent with the list as a whole. Additionally, it corrected the misinformation on the length of Elizabeth II's reign as queen of 12 of the realms.

One editor stated my change did not recognise the countries Elizabeth II formerly reigned as queen of. However, the present iteration of the list doesn't, either. -- MIESIANIACAL 19:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DerbyCountyinNZ[edit]

Summary of dispute by Killuminator[edit]

The cause of this dispute is the perceived bias in favor of the United Kingdom. Queen Elizabeth II is head of state not only in the UK, but also for many other countries. These countries (Canada, Jamaica, Australia etc.) were completely omitted. Since the numbers of countries is over a dozen, some contributors are in favor of simply stating that she rules the UK + these other countries and some contributors wish to enumerate them claiming bias. Many users agree that the Queen is mostly associated with the UK (she lives in the UK, she's British etc.) and claim that giving same weight to other countries is not necessary and that this bias does not exist. I took a look at the UN website to see how they address the Queen. She is mainly referred to as the the Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other UN Member States which prompts me to believe that this is an adopted norm in international relations. In many ways , my stance is similar to that of user GoodDay so I will avoid redundancy. --Killuminator (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  •  Volunteer note: Recusing myself as a volunteer on this request as I have had interactions with at least one participant.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note:  Verified There has been sufficient prior discussion on the article talk page. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: Not all participants have been notified on their talk pages of this request. I will do so shortly if filing party does not. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: Is DerbyCountyinNZ included as a participant? Killuminator only rejoined the dispute at the list talk page after GoodDay pinged him today and he made his first comment after I placed this request. There is a general notice about this request at the list talk page, but I will leave a note at Killuminator's talk page, as well. -- MIESIANIACAL 20:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: I've invited DerbyCountyinNZ. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  To DRN volunteers: I have manually added DerbyCountyinNZ to the users involved list. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Note to participants: Please keep discussion to a minimum before the case is opened by a volunteer. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note:  Verified All parties have been notified. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Note to participants: Are the involved parties inclined to wait for DerbyCountyinNZ before we begin, or should we start without him/her? Also, will Killuminator be joining us? JQTriple7 (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps give it 24 hours from time of posting this request? -- MIESIANIACAL 01:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
He will be joining us, shortly. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Excellent. I will accept this case either a) when all dispute summaries are complete, or b) 24 hours from posting of the case. JQTriple7 (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: Hello everyone. Thank you for your summaries. It doesn't seem like we will be hearing from DerbyCountyinNZ, and since participation here is voluntary, the silence of one party does not prevent this case from beginning. The final party may join at any stage if he/she so pleases. I am JQTriple7, and I will be moderating this case for the duration. I would like to begin by laying some ground rules. Failure to follow these rules may result in the case being closed as 'Failed'. First of all, I expect you all to participate every 24-48 hours. If this doesn't happen, the case may be closed as stale. I also expect you to focus on content, not conduct, any personal remarks will not be tolerated. Please be clear and concise in your responses. Failure to follow these rules may result in comments being collapsed or deleted. Finally, please avoid editing the article while this dispute is taking place. Hopefully we can resolve this dispute successfully. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

First round of statements[edit]

1st statement by volunteer moderator[edit]

Greetings everyone. I've looked extensively at all the summaries and evidence provided and it isn't clear to me how to proceed at this stage. I've done a little bit of research, and I am aware one user raised a concern about only the British flag being displayed if we go with 'United Kingdom and 15 other states'. There is in fact a Commonwealth Flag, and it seems to me that another possible solution would be to place the Commonwealth Flag there and state that she is the queen of the Commonwealth of Nations or the British Commonwealth, as it is more commonly know, and to link to the Commonwealth of Nations page where a user can view all member states. I just thought I would add that to the list of possible solutions. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

1st statement by Miesianiacal[edit]

Thanks for taking this on. (You may deserve a bravery commendation at the end of this.)

As others have noted already, Elizabeth II is monarch of only 16 of the 53 member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. So, neither the Commonwealth Flag nor Elizabeth's personal flag would apply in the context we're focused on.

The problem of the British flag also is one that stems from the existence of another problem: the UK being named and the remaining Commonwealth realms being lumped into "15 other states". Even if there were a solution to the flag issue, the pro-UK bias in that row and the inconsistency in the overall list (which itself includes a double-standard; see the entry for Giscard) would remain if the wording "United Kingdom and 15 other states" were unaltered. -- MIESIANIACAL 22:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If we were to list them all, would you be inclined to list the 16 former States, not mention them, or simply state that there are 16 former States? JQTriple7 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I see no real problem with listing the states formerly headed by Elizabeth II. It would show readers which countries she is the incumbent leader of and which she is no longer leader of and for how long she was leader of those states, as is consistently done for all the other former leaders in the list. The only other way I can conceive of dealing with this is to somehow link directly to the "Titles and succession" table at Elizabeth II#External links, which already covers such information. But, the whole line for Elizabeth II in List of the oldest living state leaders would have to be changed, a note explaining the inconsistency included, and biased wordings like "United Kingdom and 15 other" still avoided. -- MIESIANIACAL 19:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The issue of removing all the flags is a red herring; it's drawing focus away from the other problems with Elizabeth II line of the list as is. As I noted above, the flag problem is really just the result of the existence of another problem: the random highlighting of the UK (which itself leads to inaccuracy and inconsistency in the list). Keeping in or taking away the flags won't resolve the latter issues.

Additionally, the drop-down idea, as executed, did not resolve those problems, either. -- MIESIANIACAL 20:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

1st statement by GoodDay[edit]

The Commonwealth of Nations proposal, is unacceptable. Most of the 53 member states are republics & so don't have Elizabeth II as a monarch or as their head of state. There's also monarchy members (example:Swaziland) which don't have Elizabeth II as their monarch or head of state. Per WP:WEIGHT (via international recognition) it would be best to go with Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms or Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other states. We can also add the 16 former states. Also, because of the above, the Commonwealth of Nations flag, would also be unadvisable. The Union Jack would suffice at that article. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my oversight. Yes, that certainly would not do. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of all flags from the article, would solve part of the dispute. They're decorative, but I believe un-necessary if they're going to cause such commotion. This shouldn't be a huge move, as the flags were only added earlier this month. PS- Besides, country flags are better suited for sports articles, like the Olympics. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

1st statement by Neve-selbert[edit]

I have just attempted another effort at resolving this dispute—to some extent, at least. Neve-selbert (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

1st statement by Killuminator[edit]

The Commonwealth of Nations is an intergovernmental organization, not a state. The article in question deals with leaders of states (even defunct states). I think our first step should be to establish whether the discrimination exists at all before we approach proposing alternative models. The current and disputed formulation goes along this line United Kingdom and 15 other states. Is this a discriminatory formulation ? --Killuminator (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

1st statement by Qexigator (involved topic editor)[edit]

May I intervene with the comment made at Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders[7] "In my opinion, listing all the realms of which Elizabeth is queen is correct, in the way Mies. proposed. It is not undue. It is true to the uniqueness of her position. If there are others in a similar position in respect of one or more states, they too should have multiple entries. There is no established criteria for selecting one out of the many, and there is no need for Wikipedia to make some up. Its only a list! There is no good reason for leaving out the sublist for naming the other independent realms whose monarch is Elizabeth. Compare with the Timetable at Perth Agreement, which contains a sublist for all six states of Australia." Qexigator (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  •  Volunteer note: - Moved from Miesianiacal's comment section, unless there is a discrepancy here? Qexigator, are you planning on remaining in this discussion? I ask so that JQ777 may be aware of your involvement. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment : Please note that the word states can mean a) countries and b)federal units. The article in question deals with the first kind of states or countries if you will. --Killuminator (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The Perth Agreement Table is an example for including a sublist, not an illustration of sovereign states comparable with the 16 realms having the queen as reigning monarch. Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Please note that the revision[8] is not within the scope of this DRN. which is about listing all 15 "other" realms. Qexigator (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I can see there could possibly an issue with the wording '16 former states' if that is the end result, as that could imply that they are no longer states, rather than that they are now republics. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Please note further edit[9] and Talk[10]. Qexigator (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

+ The hidden flag lists [11] well illustrate the point that the flags as such have no informative value whatever for the article. They appear to have been introduced recently to make an otherwise dull list have some eye appeal for those who like colourful flags for their own sake. It would be better to have no flags hidden or not. Further, if the flags are retained, there is no point in naming the 16 former states (again recently introduced), whether flagged or not. The words and links in the second column of the previous version suffice : United Kingdom and 15 other independent states, each with its own national flag. Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

1st statement by Juan Riley (uninvolved topic editor)[edit]

I know this will be viewed as unhelpfull, but how about two lists: one actual heads of state the other symbolic heads of state? Juan Riley (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Juan Riley, will you be remaining in this discussion until the end? I ask for administrative purposes. JQTriple7 (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I am paying attention. And still question whether this article need exist. Seems like it belongs in Guinness World Records not on WP. Only my thoughts. For what they are worth Juan Riley (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Second round of statements[edit]

2nd statement by volunteer moderator[edit]

So at this point we have two main avenues which we can go down, with some smaller details to work out along the way. The first is to say 'United Kingdom and 15 other states' or something along those lines, and that could be seen as sensible, and listing all 15 and possibly all 16 former would get very long and possibly unnecessary. As for selection of the United Kingdom for the mention, perhaps it could be seen as biased, but not really as 'random'. In all honesty, if anyone thinks Queen Elizabeth they think Queen of England (incorrect, I know) or Queen of the UK. She predominately resides there and everything. If we were to randomly select one of her countries and it weren't the UK, casual readers may get confused. The other option we've discussed would be to list them all. That is consistent with the others, yes, but also very long. It may not look too ridiculous but in my honest opinion its a little excessive. I guess it all comes down to what the casual reader wants to find out from the page, which is about the oldest living state leaders. Do they just want to know who the oldest living state leaders are, or do they want to know all 16 countries they lead? Perhaps they do want to know that. Undoubtedly many won't. We'd need to work out how we are going to do that. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

2nd statement by Miesianiacal[edit]

It seems two matters are being forgotten: 1) Having "Queen (1952-present)" adjacent to "United Kingdom and 15 other countries" communicates a falsehood. 2) Listing the countries one person was simultaneously head of while clumping all but one of the countries another person is simultaneously head of into "other states" below and apart from the one named country is a double standard.

Using length as a justification appears random: where the list becomes too long has not been made clear, let alone the rationale for why the line between long enough and too long sits there. The list as a whole contains 101 countries. Why is that an okay number, but 16 is too many? Or 32? Or 117 or 133, taking the entire list into consideration? If length is of such concern, why not save space by applying the same logic to Giscard's line and there use "France and one other state" and the list is cut down to 100 countries?

The country column is there to impart what country or countries each person was or is leader of (not to put across some notion of what country a person lived or lives mostly in or even is or was most associated with). Thus, the list is simply as long as its number of relevant entries. In addition to what I've mentioned above, as well as the misleading impression the UK has some special importance above the "15 other states", cutting certain entries the way they have been is a disservice to readers simply because it hides information; any unfamiliar reader won't realise Jamaica is a country that has one of the world's oldest living state leaders as its queen or will see The Gambia has Dawda Jawara as a former president who's among the world's oldest living state leaders, but also had Elizabeth II, as well.

"It's too long" is a subjective statement that doesn't even hold up all that well. Even if it did, it wouldn't outweigh the fact listing the countries is the clearest and most neutral, accurate, and consistent way to present the information the list is intended to present. I initially thought "The Commonwealth realms" adjacent to Elizabeth II was the best solution; it is unbiased and concise. I now see it creates the same inconsistency and hides information pertinent to the list as much as "United Kingdom and 15 other states" does. -- MIESIANIACAL 21:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If the list were only about ranking the named persons in descending order of longevity, there would be no column for countries. Clearly countries are a key part of the list, whether with flags or not.

WP:UNDUE is not relevant; the list is not about what country the leader is most associated with, nor is Elizabeth II being monarch of Australia, Papua New Guinea, or any other Commonwealth realm a viewpoint, let alone a minority one. It is a fact and, given that, it cannot be argued a full list of realms gives undue prominence to any minority opinion. Regardless, a full list of Commonwealth realms does not make Elizabeth II appear any less associated with the United Kingdom (especially if the UK is first on that list). Those who continue to point to WP:UNDUE and say nothing else either refuse to or cannot contend with the matters of inaccuracy (Elizabeth II did not become queen of all 16 realms in 1952) and the line for Giscard (the international community views Giscard first & foremost as the French president; yet, Andorra's name appears next to his). -- MIESIANIACAL 04:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

To the first suggestion by Drcrazy102: "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", aside from the inherent bias, does not fit into the list as currently structured. The leader's name and the country/countries he or she heads or headed are in two separate columns. Additionally, the monarch of the UK is monarch only of the UK, not of 16 countries. One person acts as monarch of each country separately.

To the second suggestion by Drcrazy102 (or possibly a clarification of the first): the words "monarch of 16 Commonwealth countries" in the 'State' column would result in a repetition of "monarch" or essentially its synonym "Queen" in the 'Position' column. Removing the misplaced redundancy would leave "16 Commonwealth countries" in the 'State' column, which technically works and does not contain any bias favouring one country. It is akin to my aforementioned first change at the list to show "Commonwealth realms" in the 'State' column. However, it would still be an anomaly in the list. I may be willing to compromise by letting that particular matter go if this idea gains wide support. But, there still does exist the problem of what date(s) are shown in the 'Position' column. Perhaps simply "Queen" and the dates are in the footnote. I also wonder if there'd need to be some explanation for the inconsistent presentation. -- MIESIANIACAL 07:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

2nd statement by Qexigator[edit]

Agreed, it all comes down to what the casual reader wants to find out from the page, which is about the oldest living state leaders. This is only a list, with links for further information if any reader is that interested. It is not about a supposed competitive rivalry between countries to get into the list, raising questions of "bias" or "double standard", but simply to rank the named persons in descending order of longevity. There was little problem before the flags appeared, and the list extended to include "former". Qexigator (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

+ Agree with GoodDay, Drcrazy102's proposal is not the way to go. Qexigator (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

2nd statement by GoodDay[edit]

We must have the display as "United Kingdom and the 15 other...", per WP:Due and undue weight. The international community views Elizabeth II first & foremost as the British monarch. To display the list as "United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zeland..."? would be attempting to 'right perceived wrongs', which is discouraged by Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

One wonders, how will the next British monarch's coronation oath be worded. Will he (I say 'he', as the next 3 direct-in-line are male) have to mention all the Commonwealth realms by name? GoodDay (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102's proposal is unworkable. Anything less then "United Kingdom and the 15 other..." would (IMHO) go against Wikipedia's Due and undue weight, as we've rarely seen (if at all) news headlines or heard newsreports like "Queen of the Bahamas visits Russia", or "St. Lucian monarch addresses the UN". It's quite obvious, that the international community views/describes Elizabeth II as being mostly associated with the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

2nd statement by Killuminator[edit]

The 16 states no longer headed by the Queen are unnecessary. The criteria for including leaders in this articles is their age, not the the duration of their rule, the number of states they headed, both currently existing ones and defunct states. The reader is here to find out who are the oldest living statesmen and will be more familiar with currently existing states. Adding more historical info is excessive for purposes of this article. In regards to the existing states, the average reader will associate the Queen with the UK first. It looks more like a customary thing (Even the UN keeps it short and uses the formulation Queen of the UK etc.) , rather than bias. --Killuminator (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

1st statement by Drcrazy102[edit]

 To DRN volunteers: Making suggestion only
Would the line "| Queen Elizabeth II of England/UK | ruling monarch of 16 Commonwealth countries | ..." be a reasonable compromise instead of listing all 16 countries, or relegating 15 countries into an "other" line? This is a neutrally worded line, should satisfy NPOV's Due and Undue weight section, and allows for a Reference Note, i.e. [1], to be placed at the end of the statement which would also satisfy the desire of other editors that wish for a full list to be displayed ... simply move your mouse 2–3 centimetres (0.79–1.18 in) and you can see the list in a "pop-up" or click and see the reference note. I make this suggestion as a copy-editor that happens to like resolving disputes, not as a mediator or DRN Volunteer. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC); updated to a better formatting per JQ777's concerns of application. 06:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ The sixteen countries Elizabeth rules as monarch include: England, Australia, Canada, etc. ...
Thanks Drcrazy102. That does sound like a reasonable suggestion to me, although I'm not entirely sure how it would work with the columns. We'll see what the disputants have to say about this suggestion. Any suggestions/feedback/criticism? JQTriple7 (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the formatting of my suggestion above, the |'s represent cell division lines.
It would be possible to create a "16-cell" high 'cell' for Elizabeth, then list each country next to that 'cell' in 16 single-cells but I would consider that foolhardy because of the visual spacing Elizabeth would receive when it is possible to simply say "ruling monarch of 16 Commonwealth countries [ref note]List of countries placed here[/ref note]" which saves space and remains completely neutral in all regards, both textual and visual. Alternatively, simply listing each country in the same cell presents the same problem as the "16-cell" solution per visual weighting, though both solutions may be slightly more correct in a technical fashion. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Foundation for_Economic_Education#Oldest_free_market_organization[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.

Talk:OpenIndiana#Screenshots removed[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Huihermit on 03:28, 28 November 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

Originally, I added several screenshots of the OpenIndiana operating system running in console mode. User:ScrapIronIV deleted them saying they violate WP:NOTGUIDE, despite the fact that they were never meant as a guide and their thumbnail captions were clearly descriptive rather than instructional.

There was a discussion on the talking page, and User:ScrapIronIV continued to cite WP:NOTGUIDE with convoluted reasoning. He refused to discuss the matter further and suggested an RfC.

I opened an RfC and received opinions from a number of other editors, all of whom agreed that the thumbnails did not violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Since all other editors had agreed that there was no violation, it was sufficiently obvious that no such WP policy was being violated by simply adding a screenshot (I should also mention that many other pieces of software that run in console mode also have screenshots).

As a result of the RfC, I added one screenshot of the OS running in console mode, but User:ScrapIronIV again deleted it. This editor is not seeking dialogue and consensus, and even when other editors all disagree with him, he continues to delete this useful and appropriate content from Wikipedia. I think at this point, his editing has clearly become disruptive and is obstructing the editing process rather than constructively working with other editors toward a consensus.

I think there needs to be some arbitration or dispute resolution to address this issue, so other editors can work constructively without having their work deleted by one editor with an axe to grind. I have tried to reach some consensus or a compromise, but User:ScrapIronIV has been very belligerent and combative in his approach.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried discussion and also opened an RfC, in which all other editors agreed that the screenshots were not a violation of Wikipedia policy, which User:ScrapIronIV had claimed.

How do you think we can help?

I think some statement that the thumbnails do not violate Wikipedia policy and are appropriate for the article would be sufficient. We have already had an RfC in which all other editors agreed with me, but I think some other statement may be necessary for User:ScrapIronIV to actually "get it" and understand that he does not have ownership of this article.

Summary of dispute by ScrapIronIV[edit]


I have now added as much value to this conversation as the proposed images do to the article.

But because I do take Wikipedia seriously, and appreciate our processes, I will add this:

1) The result of the RfC was that no value was added to the article by the images.

2) The opening statement of this DRN is full of accusations and bad faith.

3) The WP:IDHT is strong with the editor who has opened this thread.

It is far too early to even consider wasting the limited resources of the DRN with so minor an issue. ScrpIronIV 15:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:OpenIndiana#Screenshots removed discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  •  Volunteer note:  Verified All participants have been notified on their talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note:  Verified that the matter has been discussed and is not the subject of ongoing dispute resolution elsewhere that I can identify. While the RfC mentioned has not been formally closed, it has proceeded for longer than the standard one month, with no new input being made into it for over two weeks, and closing it formally would be probably be routine (though it is not required that all such processes have formal closure, anyway.) Still awaiting input from the other party, ScrapIronIV.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - I recommend that this case be closed after the RFC is formally closed. Since the closure of the RFC will probably be that the screen shots can stay, the removal of the screen shots is editing against consensus. Either the RFC is still open, in which case we should defer to letting the RFC run its course, or the RFC has been completed, in which case the RFC establishes consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - I've closed the RFC. I am recusing from accepting or declining this case because I am now involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: @ScrapIronIV: Now that the RFC is closed against your reasoning, do you intend to continue reverting the addition of the content? @Huihermit: Can you take to heart the suggestion of putting an illustration of something besides console window (which is not unique to OpenIndiana) or man pages (which is also not unique to OpenIndiana) so as to help relieve ScrapIronIV's complaints? Hasteur (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hasteur: A generic console window is not what is being illustrated by the thumbnail. It is the console window and its contents which are illustrative. This is also true for other software running in a text terminal, many of which have thumbnails on Wikipedia precisely because they are illustrative of the software itself. This includes many pieces of Unix and Linux software, as well as other operating systems. User:ScrapIronIV seems to be claiming that anything that appears in a text terminal is no different from anything else that appears in a text terminal. This is neglecting the fact that a normal terminal has 1920 cells for displaying text and other symbols (80x24), which may be displayed in 16 possible colors. If we look at the article for virtual console, we see a colored terminal running for Linux running in a framebuffer, which is completely different from the virtual console in OpenIndiana. A perusal of thumbnails in command-line interface also shows a number of different windows which are all quite different from one another. There is also the matter of the contents of that console window. The thumbnail that I added shows a listing from "ls -l" of the root directory, which illustrates the most basic structure and organization of OpenIndiana's root filesystem. I have previously compromised by adding one thumbnail following the RfC (rather than three or four), but even that one thumbnail was deleted by User:ScrapIronIV (editing against consensus). I have tried to develop a consensus and make compromises where necessary. The result of the RfC is that the thumbnails were found to clearly not violate WP policy. Given the prevalence of thumbnails for software running on console mode throughout Wikipedia already, it is clearly not unusual or inappropriate to have at least one such thumbnail for OpenIndiana. Best regards. Huihermit (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad#Aisha .22reaching_age_of_puberty.22[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Trinacrialucente on 04:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC).

Talk:Lewis's trilemma#.22Largely_ignored_by_theologians_and_biblical_scholars.2C_who_do_not_view_Jesus_as_having_claimed_to_be_God..22[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Cpflieger on 16:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC).

Talk:List of highest-grossing animated films#Spongebob movies[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Paleocemoski on 16:19, 30 November 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

We are discussing that Spongebob movies (The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie and The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water) are animation/live-action hybrid movies or animated movies with live-action scenes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to explain the movie(s) as my evidence.

How do you think we can help?

I recently realized that this discussion is going nowhere. So my solution is to categorize both movies at both styles because both movies are combination of animated style and hybrid style. They can be included in animated movies and also in animation/live-action hybrid movies. This solution can make both sides happy.

Summary of dispute by DCF94[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by[edit]

We talk about it before it's rales and decide then to not inculd and class it as a hybrid film we try to creted a highest grossing hybrid page but failed.

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

Talk:List of highest-grossing animated films#Spongebob movies discussion[edit]

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

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. I also note that the talk page discussion in this case appears to be sufficient, if minimally so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Indo-Pakistani War_of_1971#RFC.2C_Should_.22Decisive_victory_of_Provisional_Banlgladesh_Government.22_be_written_in_result.3F[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.