User:Drcrazy102/DRN transclusion demonstration 1

Please note that the following is a demonstration of full sub-page transclusion; partial sub-page transclusion demonstration can be found at User:Drcrazy102/DRN transclusion demonstration 2. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Each of the below transclusions are sub-pages of User:Drcrazy102/DRN transclusion demonstration (current page). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

DO NOT EDIT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING TEXT OR SUB-PAGES

Current disputes

Talk:Shah Rukh_Khan#perhaps_the_world.27s_biggest_movie_star.3F

As of November 2015^[update]

– 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

Talk:Shah Rukh Khan#perhaps the world.27s biggest movie star.3F (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

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

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

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

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". --Human3015^TALK 12:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Vensatry

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

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

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. --Human3015^TALK 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. --Human3015^TALK 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.--Human3015^TALK 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.--Human3015^TALK 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. --Human3015^TALK 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 (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/11/shah-rukh-khan-ra-one-bollywood.html) 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)

Talk:Health care in the United States

– 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

Talk:Health care in the United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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 [5] 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

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

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

Summary of dispute by Escape Orbit

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

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

Summary of dispute by Ozzie10aaaa

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

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

Keep discussion to a minimum before being opened. JQTriple7 (talk)

Once again, CFCF is attacking me for my efforts to improve Wikipedia, even if some appear to not adhere to the editing protocols. We need a constructive way to resolve this problem, not just simply demanding this discussion to be closed and disregarded without any user input from others and let the issue prevail with possibly even more negative consequences. I agree that I have deleted too much without giving an appropriate edit summary but since the changes have been undone before this dispute occurred, I think we should move on to resolving the dispute and the quality of the articles itself. 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer note: Verified There has been sufficient prior discussion on the talk page. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep discussion to a mimimum before being opened. JQTriple7 (talk)

FWIW - Thank you *very much* for inviting me to comment on the issue - yes - *entirely* agree with *all* the recent related comments above (as well as on the talk-page) made by "User:CFCF" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You just copied and pasted what you wrote from the Talk Page. Not needed for this discussion. Also, going back to what CFCF said about all the editors opposing this, not all of the users listed are actively opposed against my good faith intentions, some actually want this discussion to occur, not the other way around. 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 (talk) 22:27, 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 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)

Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias

– 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

Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by Killuminator

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

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

Statement by volunteer moderator

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)

Statement by Miesianiacal

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)

Statement by GoodDay

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)

Statement by Neve-selbert

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

Statement by Killuminator

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)

Statement by Qexigator (involved topic editor)

May I intervene with the comment made at Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders[6] "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[7] 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[8] and Talk[9]. Qexigator (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

+ The hidden flag lists [10] 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)

Statement by Juan Riley (uninvolved topic editor)

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

Statement by volunteer moderator

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)

Statement by Miesianiacal

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)

Statement by Qexigator

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)

Statement by GoodDay

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)

Statement by Killuminator

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)

Suggestion by Drcrazy102

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)

References

^ The sixteen countries Elizabeth rules as monarch include: England, Australia, Canada, etc. ...

Talk:Foundation for_Economic_Education#Oldest_free_market_organization

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Filed by Id4abel on 04:18, 25 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

Talk:Foundation for Economic Education#Oldest free market organization (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Id4abel (talk · contribs)
107.107.61.57 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Unregistered user seem to think that only plagiarism is valid text in a Wikipedia article: "In 'History' it says FEE is the oldest free market org." 107.107.61.73 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

"The Clash of Economic Ideas by Lawrence H. White 'The oldest free-market American think tank is the foundation for Economic Education, founded in 1946, which as noted was ...' The Making of Modern Economics by Mark Skousen 'In his eighties, he continued to lecture at the Foundation for Economic Education in IrvingtononHudson, New York (the oldest free market think tank, founded in 1946 by Leonard Read), and ...'" Abel (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

"These refs do not say 'oldest org' just thinktank ..." 107.107.61.57 (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Foundation_for_Economic_Education#History

How do you think we can help?

By having someone explain what plagiarism is and explain how demanding plagiarism in no way shape or form helps Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by 107.107.61.57

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

Talk:Foundation for_Economic_Education#Oldest_free_market_organization discussion

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

Volunteer note: Declined The last case on this subject did not go well, as the IP user mentioned failed to respond to reasonable questions. This all seems a little far fetched. I'm not taking another case on this subject. I suggest instead that disruptive editing by anonymous users may be dealt with at WP:ANEW or WP:ANI, or the simplest method is just to request page semi-protection. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] The sixteen countries Elizabeth rules as monarch include: England, Australia, Canada, etc. ...

[1]