Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 187

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 180←Archive 185Archive 186Archive 187Archive 188Archive 189Archive 190

In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida (album)

– Discussion in progress.

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

Simply put, the article has stated for some years that this album has sold over 30 million copies worldwide. At the time there were 5 Reliable Sources. Recently, a user chose to blank this, stating that it's a "HUGE inflation, and "completely made up figure". I reinstated the fact, and also added two more Reliable Sources. At this point, this editor, along with another editor, have REPEATEDLY blanked the section. I tried bringing the issue up on the discussion page, and even provided more RS on the discussion page, that are not in the article as of yet. The basic response was "Well, the RIAA doesn't say so". The two editors now appear to have dropped that, but persist with the blanking, including now blanking a "citation needed" tag for a sentence that is totally unsourced. Thus, in the eyes of these 2 editors, a statement with seven Reliable Sources can be easily blanked, along with all seven sources, but a statement with NO Reliable Sources doesn't require a 'citation needed' tag. One of the two editors suggested I post this request here. So, I have.


How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida_(album)#User_blanking_reliably_sourced_information._Why?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Basically, are the seven Reliable Sources valid? Or even one of them? If even one of them is declared to be a Valid Source, then there's no reason this blanking should continue.

Summary of dispute by Muso805

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

The reliable sources cited seem to relate to local newspapers reporting the death of a former member. The references do not contain any confirmation of 30 million sales. This has to be a grossly inflated figure as the Wiki RIAA figures show. In looking online at several 'best-selling albums of all time' this album does not appear. My gut feeling is that this figure has been banded about with no official source and has been passed around and repeated. The references quoted by the user 197.87.101.28 merely quote a sales figure. The RIAA figure seems the reliable source. User 88marcus and user Isaacsorry (on 28th December) have both disputed and reverted the revisions made by user 197.87.101.28. In support of 88marcus I also reverted the additions that user 197.87.101.28 keeps putting back. This seems pointless so this must be resolved. I maintain that it is nonsense that this album could have sold more than 30 million copies - and this is supported by User 88marcus and user Isaacsorry. If this can be proved otherwise then the removal of these additions must stand. From what I can see the real total would be no more than 5 million copies.Muso805 (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 88marcus

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

The first person who erase the inflated sales was @Isaacsorry: link and I reverted since then because this album didn't charted in almost any country and its certifications counted are around 4,5 million copies. An album like Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band peaked in a lot of countries since the first release in 1967 and the claim is that it sold 32 million copies. How In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida sold almost the same with such bad chart performance and not even 5 million certified copies. This seems completely promotional. Those sites the user used as sources are not reliable at all and we could consider use them if they say this album sold 7 or 8 million because would be very accurate but not 30 million copies like albums with great chart performance and many certifications worldwide.--88marcus (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida (album) discussion

1st volunteer statement

I have reviewed the case and deem that there has been sufficient discussion of this issue to proceed and I volunteer to mediate it. Before proceeding I would like to make sure all parties involved are willing to conduct a civilized discussion. @Muso805:, @88marcus:, and @197.87.101.28:, are you willing to participate? --MrTiger0307 (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to participate and add what I canMuso805 (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@197.87.101.28: where are you?--88marcus (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought this was underway?.197.87.101.28 (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone reading this? Basically, the following Reliable Sources were posted(some are actually only on the discussion page at this point..)

Four Reliable Sources stating that the album In-A-Gadda-DA-Vida had sold eight million copies within one year of its release..

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Now, to the actual article.

A Reliable Sources saying that the album In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida was the biggest-selling album in the USA for the calendar year 1969. (It was released on June 14, 1968.)

[5]

Seven Reliable Sources all stating thatthe album In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida has sold more than 30 million copies worldwide.

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

So, to summarize. The album In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida was released on June 14, 1968. Within one year of its initital release it sold over eight million copies. For the calendar year January 1 1969 - December 31 1969 it was the biggest-selling album of all in the United States of America. And, over thirty-four years after its original release, its worldwide sales were 30 million. And ALL of that is Reliably Sourced, according to Wikipedia Rules and Guidelines.

The "problem" is that some people personally believe that that number "has to be" "inflated". And their sole 'reasoning' is that the RIAA has only 'certified' In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida as quadruple platinum...in 1993.

[13]

Note the details. Certified Gold on December 3 1968. But then only certified both Platinum and Quadruple-Platinum on the same day...January 26 1993.

As stated elsewhere on Wikipedia(with Reliable Sources), the "Platinum" Award was only introduced in 1976. And "Multi-Platinum" even later.. [14]

How then would something released before 1976 be certified 'Platinum'? And would it even. As I've mentioned, look at perhaps the biggest-selling solo artist of all time's "RIAA Certifications"

[15]

That really says it all.

What we have is MULTIPLE RELIABLE SOURCES all verifying the exact same thing, and then ONE source from the RIAA simply not "certifying" something that didn't even exist until several years after the album in question had been released and sold the majority of its 30 million units sold. Does Wikipedia go with Multiple Reliable Sources, or one source(RIAA) that, in fact, requires WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH to come to the "conclusion" that In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida "didn't sell 30 million copies"? 197.87.101.28 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

2nd Volunteer Statement

I'm not sure what happened to the original volunteer @MrTiger0307: but until they return, I'm going to go ahead and step in. I have reviewed the discussion and what has been stated so far. @197.87.101.28: has listed several sources, and after reviewing WP:RS I have to admit, I'm confused as to why they are being dismissed. @88marcus: and @Muso805: Could you please explain? I understand the RIAA has only certified 4 million copies, but again- that was over 25 years ago, with no updates since then. Please explain to me why that, long un-updated source should be considered over other sources that otherwise meet WP:RS? Nightenbelle (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

RIAA certified in 1993 and cover all sales since 1968. Yes, it was 25 years ago but this album didn't appeared in Billboard charts since then and so couldn't sell millions and millions copies more. Again, those sources are not reliable for music, they don'y work with that like IFPI and RIAA. Inflated sales figures are frequently practiced by record companies for promotional purposes. Those sales are from the band itself and they are Woozle effect, there's nothin reliable that indicate it sold that amount of copies, I showed the case of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band an album that was released a year before In-A-Gadda-DA-Vida and has 20 million certified copies, and appeared in charts till 2017 when it was re-released, the claim is that this album sold 32 million worldwide almost the same as In-A-Gadda-DA-Vida, that has less than 5 million certified sales, and barely performed in charts around the world. The info of the 30 million copies appeared in a website means nothing when those sites doesn't work with sales score. See the case of Thriller (album) there are a lot of sites claiming it sold 100 million, 120 million, 150 million and so on, including sites that @197.87.101.28: would consider reliable, it's another case of the Woozle effect, Thriller is listed in Wikipedia as having sold 66 million because its more accurate according to its certifications (around 45 million copies) and chart performance. RIAA is reliable because it works with US sales, the sites that @197.87.101.28: don't.--88marcus (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't like the way you "sites that [I] would consider reliable.." etc. And, as noted, the RIAA does not "cover all sales since 1968". Again, the Platinum award was only instituted in 1976. And to "certify" sales in 1993, it would be obvious that all sales since 1968 could not be verified a quarter of a century after the event. Your sole case against multiple WP:RS appears to be that the RIAA only certifies 4xPlatinum. Yet, a) your "deduction" that 30 million worldwide is "inflated" is entirely WP:OR, and b) the two statements "the album has sold 30 million copies worldwide" and "the RIAA has certified it 4xplatinum" are not mutually exclusive. As the RIAA does not have access to total sales figures from June 1968, not by a very long shot. 197.87.101.28 (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@88marcus: does have a point about the Woozle effect. Most of those articles either specifically state they are citing the band's own website for number of records sold, or they do not state where they got their information. I would recommend the compromise of saying the number sold as of 1993 and follow up with the number the band claims "As of 1993, the RIAA has certified In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida as having sold at least xx million, but the band's website claims as many as xx million have been sold world-wide." This would get both numbers in while staying accurate. Would you both agree to this? Nightenbelle (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Nightenbelle: If there's no other way to solve that it's ok to me. The claim of 30 million worldwide came from the band's website so it's a primary source, the others sources only copy what their website stated there. Maybe you can include: According to the band's website the album sold 30 million copies worldwide even though it has 4,630,000 copies certified since 1968.--88marcus (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I would have to say 'No' to that one. That is giving preference to one source, ahead of multiple others As noted, earlier, there were (at least) 4 Reliable Sources stating that the album had sold EIGHT million copies within a year of its release. So, to go from 8 million in 1969 to 4 million in 1993 is clearly not true. But, going from 8 million in 1969 to 30 million worldwide in 2012 makes more sense, especially when there are multiple Reliable Sources to back that up. How about simply stating 'The album has sold over 30 million copies worldwide, and is certified 4xplatinum by the RIAA'? Anything else would require WP:POV and/pr WP:OR. And, it's not "the band's website" that "claims". Reliable Sites state outright. 197.87.101.28 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Me again. As one example the exact quote from the Rolling Stone article is [16] "Dorman was born in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1942. He joined the Southern California-based Iron Butterfly for its second and best-known album, In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida, which was released in 1968. The 17-minute title track helped the album sell more than 30 million copies..". Where does it say "according to the band's website", or words to that effect? The London Free Press site [17] states "The musician joined the psychedelic rock band in 1967 and their second album, In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida, sold over 30 million copies worldwide." Again, NO "According to the band's website". Just fact. etc. In fact only Fox News [18] states "Its second album, "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida," sold more than 30 million copies, according to the band's website". The other six RS all state the "30 million sold" as a simple statement of fact, with no mention of "According too the band's website", or words to that effect. By saying "the band claims" or "according to the band's website" makes it seem like a lot of hot air, rather than Multiple RS stating it as plain fact. 197.87.101.28 (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@197.87.101.28: Where those reliable sites you included take the 30 million claim?? IFPI says that? No. RIAA says that? No. The chart performance give the idea it sold millions and millions of copies over the years like many albums of Pink Floid and Beatles did (that appeared in charts around the world and have 20 or 25 million copies certified by RIAA, IFPI and so on)? No. All are promotional sales and came from the band's record company. Where do you think Rolling Stones take that information? did they count the sales?--88marcus (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Could you please restate the first sentence "Where those reliable sites you included take the 30 million claim??" Do you mean 'Where do they make the claim?' Well, in the articles. Just click on the links and read them. If you mean something else, I apologise, but it seems you made a bad typo there.Now, as repeatedly noted, multiple albums by eg. Elvis Presleyand The Rolling Stones were "only" 'certified Gold'by RIAA. But, so what? You are basing your entire case on the fact that a standard that didn't even exist until nearly a decade after In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida' was released didn't "certify" it as anything. But, what do the MULTIPLE RELIABLE SOURCES ALL state as plain fact? And, to put it on you, where exactly do YOU come with the information that "All are promotional sales and came from the band's record company."? Do you work for the record company? Then, what do we go with? Multiple WP:RS all stating the exact same thing, or your personal beliefs about "promotional sales"? Why would a record company even be trying to do such promotion for an album released in 1968 anyway? 197.87.101.28 (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't care anymore. Do in the article what you want. Those 30 million copies is inflated and fake, everyone who follow sites and forums about /charts/sales/certifications knows that. Promotional sales made for commercial purposes. Maybe someone can reverted that amount of copies again, the sources you give don't work with record sales, they're not reliable and only repeted what the band says to them, to me is enough. Good bye and good work.--88marcus (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Again, that is entirely your WP:POV, which requires WP:OR. You have no WP:RS to state that "Those 30 million copies is inflated and fake". And the RIAA "4 million" 'certification' has been well=explained, and it is well-known

why that RIAA number is so low. But, anyway, there still isn't any actual contradiction between citing multiple WP:RS that state the '30 million' figure AND citing the RIAA 'certification'. 197.87.101.28 (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

3rd volunteer statement

My input here was requested on my talk page. From a very cursory glance at the discussion here, the album article talk page and the linked sources provided here, my feeling is that we have to acknowledge the 8 million sales figure over the album's first year of release and the 30 million worldwide sales total. That is what the majority of third party reliable sources say about the album, and that's what Wikipedia aims to reflect in its articles. Having said that, I also see the 30 million total as somewhat suspect; my personal view means absolutely nothing, of course, but the comparison made above between the Iron Butterfly album and the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper is valid. We've got Sgt. Pepper listed with 32 million estimated sales at List of best-selling albums, I don't know where (or if) In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida ranks there. Having worked on Beatles articles for several years, I'm used to coming across extraordinary and/or contradictory claims. Whereas the Beatles are so well established as the "best" and the "biggest" during the 1960s, to the extent that present-day media coverage takes that for granted and can afford to indulge in questioning that reality in the interest of creating newsworthy content, coverage of Iron Butterfly might be seeking to remind readers of that band's popularity; eg, as one of the listed sources says: "Iron who?" Meaning, even though we consider them reliable, these sources are approaching the subject from the aspect of how overlooked the artist/album is – and how better to illustrate the point by repeating the claims that their album In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida sold 8 mill within a year and has worldwide sales of 30 mill?

As I say, I've not engaged at all heavily with the issue, but my approach would be to present the information in such a way that the certified sales are given precedent, and the 8 mill and 30 mill sales totals are provided following that. Point being that, unless something is utterly impossible or contradicted by the majority of reliable sources, it's not for us to decide what's wrong or right; but we can (and should) present it in, if not a "responsible" way, then a way that satisfies good-faith accusations that the statement is dubious. JG66 (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

PS: please ping me if anyone wants a further response from me. I'm not watching the page. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic comment

My apologies, there were some unforeseen circumstances that required my immediate attention, this is my first chance to come back, I'll just go ahead and step out here, many apologies. --MrTiger0307 (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I have made contact request with two senior music Editors at WIKI. I hope that they can resolve this nonsense in a calm wayMuso805 (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

4th volunteer statement

If that album really has sold more than 30 million copies, I'm very surprised it has never been added to List of best-selling albums. Furthermore it doesn't appear at:

The sources currently used at the article for that album, to support the claim "achieved worldwide sales of over 30 million copies" all seem pretty weak. None of them seem to quote any reliable industry source(s). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It used to be on that article, but was removed. The reason: The RIAA 'certification'. Note too that all these "Best-selling albums of all time" use the RIAA 'certifications'.
But the actual figures were very closely monitored. Here's another WP:RS...[19]
And more {{WP:RS]], stating another fact..
[20]
[21]
(both stating, as many more would, that it spent 81 weeks in the Top 10, and 140 weeks "in the charts" overall. The latter also states that the album sold more than eight million copies in its first year, and that it had sold more than 25 million copies worldwide(at the time of the book)).
So, we now have a very clear set of WP:RS.
  • Released June 14, 1968.
  • Achieved Gold (500 000 sales) certification within a few months of release.
  • Had sold over eight million copies within its first year of release(ie. bu June 14 1969).
  • Was the biggest-selling album in the USA for the calendar year January 1 1969 - December 31 1969.
  • Spent 81 weeks in the Top 10, and 140 weeks in the charts.
  • Had sold more than 25 million copies worldwide by 1993
  • Had sold more than 30 million copies worldwide by 2012.
  • Has 'everlasting appeal'
We also have WP:RS telling us that
  • Until 1976, the RIAA only had 'Gold' certification.
  • Any album released before 1976 had to have the record company specifically request that the RIAA 'certify it'
  • Many albums released before 1976 are 'only' Gold, as no attempt was made to get them 'certified' by the RIAA(ok, that one requires some WP:OR.
  • In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida was released in 1968, was certified 'Gold' in 1968...but was only 'certified' both 'Platinum' AND 'Quadruple-Platinum' by the RIAA on the same day...in 1993.
So, what happened in the 25 years between the 'Gold' and 'Platinum'/'Quadruple-Platinum' certifications? Why, if the 'Platinum' standard was introduced in 1976, did it take until 1993 for an album that was Gold within its first few months of release in 1968, and went on to be the biggest-selling album of the calendar year 1969(and was well-known for having sold more than eight million copies within its first year of release), to achieve those 'Platinum' and 'Quadruple-Platinum' certifications? Numerous WP:RS all state the exact same thing, the sales verified in those multiple WP:RS. 197.87.101.28 (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Please indent your replies. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
What was removed? As you can see, all I'm challenging is the claim of "over 30 million sold". How do you explain the absence of the album from all those lists (and many more besides) of best sellers (which have comparable figures)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
You said that the album is not on Wikipedia's List of best-selling albums article. Well, it was.
What of "those lists" you linked to?Let's see..
  • businessinsider..."We compiled the RIAA's data for the best-selling albums in U.S. history..."
  • mentalfloss..."According to the RIAA, these are the best-selling albums in American history..."
  • pastemagazine..." This is as accurate as we could count as of Aug. 21, 2018, just after the latest RIAA reporting period."
  • thisdayinmusic.. No direct mention of RIAA. But where did thisdayinmusic get their figures? Is it even a WP:RS?
  • independent.."We compiled the RIAA's data for the best-selling albums in U.S. history " (hmm, seems the same as businessinsider..)
  • bbc.. Not disputing this, but this very clearly refers to only in the United Kingdom.
  • digitalmusicnews.. "Breaking down the RIAA’s list of Gold and Platinum artists..."
What are we left with then? People using the RIAA as the one and only source(ahem), a UK-only list, and ONE source that is different, but has to be said to be of dubious Reliability. 197.87.101.28 (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Why was it removed? I've struck the UK-only list. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
"Why was it removed?".. who knows? Some over-eager editor? 197.87.101.28 (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I thought you might know. Did it have any source at all to support it? So you're saying that RIAA, the basis for most of those charts, is not reliable and should mot be used? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
As a good example of the problems with the RIAA certification, here's a good article..
[22] [23] [24] etc.
Take note of the facts that, according to the RIAA, the biggest-selling albums in the USA for the years 1956, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1971 and 1973 were all 'certified' as no more than 0.5 million copies each!
Remembering, of course, as just one example, that the biggest-selling album of the year in the USA for the calendar year 1973 is/was The World Is A Ghetto by War, with total RIAA certified sales of 500 000 copies. Yet, that same year Dark Side of the Moon was released(on March 1). Yet Dark Side of the Moon is today certified as 15xPlatinum in the USA(ie. over 15 million copies sold), whereas The World IS A Ghetto has never even been 'certified' as 1xPlatinum!. Of course, Dark Side of the Moon was certified 1xPlatinum, Platinum and 11xPlatinum on the same day...February 16 1990! [25]. And yet, the Platinum certification was introduced by the RIAA in 1976. And, of coure, just looking at those RIAA certifications, The World IS A Ghetto has 'certifications' of 500 000 [26], compared to Dark Side of the Moon's 15 000 000. Now, no doubt, Dark Side of the Moon has continued to sell at a good rate over the years, but those two numbers...half a million to 15 million, and the enormous difference is preposterous.
Again, RIAA can only certify what they can visibly see before them. That in no way guarantees that that is total sales at all, or even a significant percentage of total sales. 197.87.101.28 (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not totally sure I understand the argument you are trying to make here. You seem to be arguing that RIAA sales numbers are all underestimates. Is that correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: It's his opinion that the album In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida was not certified enough till 1993. It was said that the album sold 8 million copies worldwide not only in US, which seems very promotional too, it didn't appear in charts in Europe or Japan and the fact that the album was the best selling album of 1968 in US doesn't confirm anything, it was in the 1960s albums didn't sold millions and millions like in the end of the 1980 when the CDs begun to increase the sales because it costs less than LPs. He constantly says that the album's 1993 certification (4x platinum) are underestimated, but the album was out of the charts after 1971. Again, where those sites get the 30 million copies? They counted? Of course not, the band give to them those numbers, the use of inflated sales to promote group is not unusual.--88marcus (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I'm awaiting clarification of the argument above. But it looks like pure WP:OR. I then want to move onto the quality of the 7 sources currently used to support the 30 million copies claim. What exactly are they based on? I tend to agree, it looks like baseless promotional hype. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It was simple. Clearly, the biggest selling albums of the year were being monitored, with exact figures(such as by Billboard). Otherwise, having weekly charts, and "Best-selling albums of the year" could not possibly have existed. Thus, the exact sales figures would have been closely followed, and known, such as the 'eight million'.

BUT...RIAA at the time only certified albums as "Gold". Meaning that once an album sold half a million copies, and RIAA certified it as such...it was Gold. And there RIAA lost interest, as there was only a Gold certification at the time. Whether it was 500 000 or 5 000 000 was irrelevant. It sold half a million? it's Gold. It didn't? Then it's not. Again, RIAA was only interested in monitoring whether or not an album went Gold or not. Period. The TOTAL sales numbers were monitored by the record companies, and by other bodies, who all confirmed the '8 million in 1969', something the RIAA would have had no reason at all to 'certify' at the time. The RIAA only introduced the 'Platinum' award(1 000 000 sold) in 1976. And, as explained, records released before 1976 could only be 'certified' Platinum by the RIAA from 1976 on. And, as demonstrated with albums such as those by War, many record labels felt no need to 'certify' those records as such. Which is why so many albums, including 'multiple best-selling records of the year were only ever 'certified' as Gold(half a million copies sold). Others, however, were 'certified' as "Platinum", creating the problem we have today. (And of course, the multi-Platinum award was only introduced in the 1980's. Same problem. Again.) When Atlantic(after Ertegun stood down in 1992) decided to get In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida 'certified' by the RIAA, you think the RIAA had kept meticulous records of every copy of every LP, cassette, 8-track, CD etc. sold since 1968? No, it was up to the record company to provide those exact details. But the RIAA did not consider every source of sales to be 'Reliable'. Thus, the "four million sold" is clearly NOT total sales. It's not even the recorded sales that existed in 1993. It's the recorded sales that existed in 19993 that the RIAA considered to be acceptable. It's a laughably low number. Especially, as groups that were actually monitoring total sales, all agreed that the album had sold 8 million copies by 1969. This is well-known. But even it doesn't really matter. Because there are multiple WP:RS stating "8 million copies sold by mid-1969", "biggest-selling album in the USA of the year 1969", "25 million copies sold by 1993", and "30 million copies sold(today)". That is all that matters YOU think that's "hugely inflated"? That's YOUR WP:POV, and you have nothing to verify that belief. Nothing at all. In the end, Wikipedia relies on WP:RS, and there are endless WP:RS which state the actual facts, not to mention people who were actually monitoring the sales at the time are the ones who state those facts. You want to add the RIAA certifications? Fine. But there is no reason why that should take precedence in the article, and why numerous WP:RS should be declared "dubious", or even repeatedly deleted as a couple of people have done, just because of the RIAA. 197.87.101.28 (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as another claim, let's look at just two examples.

First, the aforementioned Dark Side of the Moon. [27] Again, released March 1 1973, certified Gold on April 17, 1973(!), but then both Platinum and 11xPlatinum only on February 16, 1990. And, ultimately 15xPlatinum on June 4 1998. Meaning that it wsold four million copies in the USA in the period 1991-1998. Where was it on the album charts at that time? (And it never reached 16xPlatinum, in the next twenty-two years?)

Now, Led Zeppelin IV...[28]. Released November 8, 1971.. Gold on November 16 1971. But then, Platinum and 10xPlatinum on December 11 1990. We then see it rising all the time. Of particular note is the fact that it was certified 17xPlatinum on November 25 1997, but then 21xPlatinum on May 3 1999. So, did it sell 4 million copies in the USA in those 18 months? Was it on the album charts in those 18 months? 197.87.101.28 (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Album's chart-run:

20/07/1968 117-97-77-65-63-58-41-22-21-19-15- 10-6-5-5-5-13-16-15-15- 7-6-9-8- (24 wsf)
04/01/1969 9-10-12- 7-7-6-7-7-10-11-11-12- 6-5-6-6-8-7-7-7-7-8-6-7-6-5-6-10-9-9-6-*4*-8-10-9-8-9-6-10-8-8-5-6-9-12-12-12-11-12-12-16-16- (76 wsf)
03/01/1970:11-14-13-11-13-13-27-29-21-23-29-32-35-35-36-28-38-38-49-50-51-62-67-65-66-66-73-73-75-73- 73-93-96-90-91-99-104-118-113-121-118-115-149-153-155-149-152-158-162-162-153-156- (128 wsf)
02/01/1971 152-150-150-152-152-149-154-165-167-174-170-168 (Total: 140 wks)

  • Yes, what? I have no idea what these album chart runs are supposed to show. Presumably this is for the album under discussion?
  • I see that the album was removed from List of best-selling albums on 29 May 2013 here by User:Mauri96 with this edit summary: "While the album may have sold over 10 million copies in the US and WAS the year-end No. 1 album in that country, the few certifications the album has are not enough to support that sales claim or a 30 million worldwide one." Maybe they would like to offer an opinion here also?
  • What is the source for the figures in the 7 sources currently used to support the 30 million copies claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
How would I know? I don't work for Rolling Stone, Associated Press, or any of the other five RS either. But I'm sure they have fact-checkers, and wouldn't put out something based on hearsay. That's how journalists work. Maybe you should contact say Rolling Stone? But all seven easily pass Wikipedia's WP:RS. 197.87.101.28 (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
The sources are these: Otago Daily Times (2012), Orange County Register (2012), Rolling Stone (2012), Associated Press (2015), Today (2012), The Saturday Evening Post (2018), The London Free Press (2012). I don't work for Rolling Stone, Associated Press, or any of the others, either. So I have no idea if they would fact-check this. Journalists often copy from other journalists, without giving their sources. There are certainly no sources for that number claimed in any of those articles. I would have expected an official industry source, or a specialist record source such as Guinness World Records, to be more reliable. But it seems they say nothing. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Should every RS on every wiki article have to say that? Because, if multiple RS all state the same fact, then it's vetified according to Wikipedia.
And, not that there was anything to back it up (because there could never possibly be), did someone actually say 'There were no big selling albums until the late 80's when CD's took off, because CD's were cheaper than LP's' above? Because if THAT is the crux of this 'argument', then this should end right here. There is so much wrong with that one statement. And, to be blunt, it shows complete and utter ignorance of the topic at hand by the person who could even conceive of making such a statement. 197.87.101.28 (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I have no idea what you mean here. You seem to be straying towards personal attack territory now. Perhaps somebody else would care to have a go. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Is this actually serious now? People have repeatedly attempted to move the goalposts. The original "problem" was that the number "had to be" 'hugely inflated'. Multiple RS were shown, including the '8 million in first year', 'biggest-selling album of all time within 1 year', 'biggest selling album for Atlantic Records for years', '25 million by 1993', '30 million [by present]'. Then, everything hinged on the RIAA. When the History, and unreliability, of RIAA was shown, it then became 'But where did those people who are respected journalists who work in the music business get their information from?' Now, it's "but albums didn't sell in large quantities until CD's took off in the late 80's...because CD's were cheaper than LP's."
Which is plain wrong. It is well-known that the mid-70's sales of albums rapidly dropped off until about 1982. And that had nothing to do with CD's. Because CD's were originally significantly more expensive than LP's. But only people who were actually there in the 70's/80's would know that, not people only working with modern websites, and the fact that LP"s cost more money TODAY, as they're rare collector's items, rather than the standard music format, as they were in the 60's-80's.
And, anyone who was around in the 80's remembers the 'Home Taping is Killing Music' campaign. Because more and more people were simply making copies of albums, rather than buying new LP's(and hardly anyone was buying CD's). In fact, the thing that supplanted the seemingly ever-growing home-taping was illegal downloading. Which is also why record companies stopped making things like music videos, as there simply wasn't enough money coming in from legal sales. And the great Drop off in Music sales is well-known too. What's more an interesting point was made on a television show called 'Come Together:The Rise of the Festival". In the 60's-80's, the real money was made through record sales. Playing live(often with free festivals) was a way to promote the record sales. Whereas today, the real money is made through the live concerts and merchandise. The new music is basically a way to promote the sales of concert tickets, and the sales of merchandise. It's preposterous, with the multiple albums of Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Carole King, The Eagles, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, soundtracks like Sound of Music, My Fair Lady, and many many more such albums, for anyone to state(as a fact) that "There were no big-selling records before the late 80's when CD's took over, because CD's were cheaper than LP's". Especially since CD's were more expensive than LP's. And the really big-selling albums of the 80's decade ,like 'Thriller'(biggest-selling album of all time), 'Born in the USA', 'Back in Black', 'Brothers in Arms', 'Legend', 'Queen's Greatest Hits', 'Like A Virgin', 'Flashdance', 'Purple Rain' etc. were all early-to-mid 80's. Or maybe people waited for them to come out on the 'cheaper' CD's in the late 80's before buying them? And maybe people only started really buying albums by Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin etc. in the late 80's when they were released on "cheaper" CD's? After all, according to the RIAA, those albums were released in the 60's/70's, went Gold very quickly, but were only 'certified' "Platinum" in the early 90's?
Or maybe, just maybe, we should just agree to put both the certified statements, that the In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida album has sold more than 30 million copies worldwide, AND that is has been certified 4xPlatinum by the RIAA? 197.87.101.28 (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Steak and Blowjob Day

– 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.

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

Steak and Blowjob Day is listed as a "satirical" holiday & the dispute is if the term "satirical" should be removed. I reviewed the two references. One is silent on any satire & the other lists "satirical tweets". but don't seem to address the holiday itself. Therefore, I removed the "satirical" term. The editor User:Meters stated the burden was on me to show otherwise. While I do not believe that to be true in view of WP:POV, in view of WP:FAITH I cited other references in the article (there are 34), did some of my own research, & reviewed the deletion log history & other history (this is somewhat analogous to the logic used under Talk:Steak and Blowjob Day#"with little or no observance in reality" that actual practice is difficult to determine). In view of my research, I recreated the edit explaining the logic. This was reverted without addressing the content of the references I cited & instead stating that this has been listed in the article since 2005 (a somewhat questionable standard as the article has been under constant deletion & only was fully established with references around 2018). Also notable that many references have dates in the last 5 years, making the 2005-2015 window less relevant. I again removed & it was again reverted (causing a WP:3RR) situation). The argument then cites the article itself, but no sources. So here 3 reverts have taken place citing no references, ignoring references cited & other logic/arguments to the counter, & seems at an standoff. A third editor did add that this is not practiced, but again no citations to references are provided to that rationale. So the issue is should the term "satirical" without any reference stating that the holiday is "satirical" remain in the article with other references already in the article & logic about counterarguments not usually applying to satire stating otherwise. To be clear, its not who is right, its that the "satirical" nature is unsupported & countered.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Discussed on the article talk page at Talk:Steak and Blowjob Day#Why "satirical" holiday

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The first is establishing burden - does WP:POV in of itself place the burden on the party adding a qualifier such as "satirical/non-satirical." The second is irregardless of the party with the burden, how to handle where references & citations show the counterargument & the only rationale given is a conclusory "its not practiced" without any reference cited. The third, and probably hardest, is guidance on how to handle something that is hard to determine - here, actual holiday practice.

Summary of dispute by Meters

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

Summary of dispute by Serial Number 54129

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

Summary of dispute by Audigex

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

Steak and Blowjob Day discussion

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

Gun (staff) and Jian

– 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.

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

I am not Vietnamese nor Chinese but I do know that the Vietnamese have the same weapons as the Chinese but with different names due to influence from China. Simeon didn't believed the sources that I have added to these articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jian&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_(staff)&action=history

I am not sure if Simeon lived nor studied in Asia.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Not yet other than to add sources which are reliable to the subjects in question.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please take a look at the sources I added and see if they are fit for these articles. I am not sure if they are different or not but they had similarities to each other. I need someone who is an expert in martial arts and Chinese and Vietnamese culture and history.

As I keep telling you multiple times, if you want to create articles for Vietnamese weapons, create separate respective articles signifying the Vietnamese weapons. No one is stopping you from creating them. What I object to is that you stop inserting content and haphazardly renaming articles related to Vietnamese related weapons into articles related to Chinese weapons. SimeonManier (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Yet, you do not answer the latter regarding if you ever lived in Asia nor studied in Asia. If so lived nor studied in Asia, then I can find an expert. What I wanted is too look for an expert on these subjects. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SimeonManier

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


Gun (staff) and Jian discussion

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

Monosodium Glutamate

– 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.

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

User Alexbrn doesn't believe my content should go into the article. He is acting on his own without seeking the approval of other editors.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monosodium_glutamate#Continued_edit-warring

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe the content belongs in the article however, Alexbrn does not agree. I just want to see other editor's thoughts on the matter, and see if Alexbrn would like to cooperate, seeing as he has avoided cooperation.

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

Doc James needs to be added. Alexbrn (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

As I already said on Talk, the proposed edits are unclear with their repeat invocation of "a study", and try to pass off rat research as though it applies to humans. I can't see any additional value in what is being added. That the complainant has started being personally insulting makes me uninterested in pursuing this seemingly worthless avenue. Alexbrn (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Doc James

Monosodium Glutamate discussion

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

The content MJV479 is trying to add is already covered by "Specifically MSG in the diet does not increase glutamate in the brain or affect brain function." We do not need all the rest of what they are proposing such as "The claim that MSG is an excitotoxin is not necessarily true." MJV479 can try a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The sentence "Specifically MSG in the diet does not increase glutamate in the brain or affect brain function" does not specify why. Also that is not completely true because MSG has the potential to affect brain function if it gets past the blood-brain barrier, of course this is not usual and is only possible when the blood-brain barrier is damaged or otherwise bypassed by non physiologic means, but it is still possible nonetheless. MJV479 (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Note to participants: Please keep discussion here to a minimum until you have been assigned a volunteer. I have added Doc James to the list of involved users and have given him his own section to add a summary of the dispute. --MrClog (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2020 (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.

Race and intelligence

– 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.

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

For most of the past ten years, the "race and intelligence" article has included a section ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&type=revision&diff=942674047&oldid=942656716&diffmode=source ) about how average IQ scores vary between various regions of the world. This section was boldly removed last month by Dlthewave, with the argument that the section was not relevant to the article. This resulted in an edit war between Dlthewave and two other users, Peregrine Fisher and Jweiss11, who felt that the section was relevant or that longstanding material should not be removed without consensus.

In a discussion in his user talk, Sirfurboy suggested that I propose a new version of this section on the article talk page, modifying it to address the reasons it was removed. Several people are opposed to my current proposal for how to modify this section, but very few are offering any specific suggestions about what must be changed about the section to make it acceptable. Some of the objections raised to my current proposal seem literally impossible to satisfy, given the limitation of what viewpoints exist in reliable sources about international IQ comparisons. Since this section is a longstanding part of the article, it should not be removed in the absence of a consensus to remove it, but there also must be some level of agreement about how to modify the section before it can be restored.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We need help determining how this section must be modified before it can be restored to the article.

Summary of dispute by Dlthewave

I agree with K.e.coffman's comment that this filing is premature due to the ongoing discussion; at the very least we would need to add a half-dozen or so involved editors since the four mentioned here do not speak for everyone.

Multiple editors have raised concerns that the proposed rewrite of the Global variation of IQ scores section focuses heavily on Hunt and Rindermann, two sources which must be treated as fringe per the RSN discussion linked by the filer. The filer has identified these as the best available sources on the topic.

Rewriting the section is a necessary step towards potential inclusion, however some editors are putting the cart before the horse by taking the position that this section must be included and then insisting that either "the best available sources" must be used or other editors must provide better sources. If the objections are "impossible to satisfy" due to limited viewpoints covered by reliable sources, this may be a sign that the content does not meet our due weight requirements.

I feel that the current discussion regarding the rewrite contains the constructive criticism requested by the IP, even if it is not what they were hoping to hear, and that we should continue to discuss this on the article talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 17:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hunt and Rinderman are not fringe sources per the RSN discussion. Please reference the discussion on the RSN noticeboard for more info. 99.48.35.129 (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

My mistake, RSN discussion was brought up at article talk, not here. Here's the permalink. –dlthewave ☎ 17:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sirfurboy

Although my edits to this article have been minimal and not touched this section, I have been following the debate, and did indeed suggest a rewrite of material might find a way through the deletion/reinsertion impasse. I understand why editors removed the material, but did not entirely agree with it. Problems with the material removed are (1) the section appears to confuse race with nationality (2) it contained a back and forth between those for and against strong hereditarian positions. (3) there was a leap from IQ testing to intelligence despite known problems with that. However it did contain information about systematic reviews and analysis that did draw attention to the problems - including that confusion of race and nationality. I also did not entirely agree with the deletion because the attempts by Lynn and Vanhanen to extend an observation that was hitherto based very largely on US focussed studies with a US centric notion of race is, in my opinion, notable inasmuch as it describes the nature of the controversy, and is also illustrative of the methodological problems of Vanhanen and Lynn. Thus I think a neutral point of view demands some coverage of this subject as long as we understand the article to be about the notable race and intelligence controversy (and that is my understanding as to what the article is about). I think the section, rewritten in a mainstream, NPOV manner is notable and I think the IP editor's suggestion went some way towards achieving that. I would probably wish to edit the proposed material, but that is allowed. The question here is only whether the matter should be covered at all, and I think it should. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is definitively not about the "Race and Intelligence Controversy" as has been discussed and as consensus has concluded. In fact, there is already an existing article on this particular subject: History of the race and intelligence controversy 99.48.35.129 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jweiss11

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

Comment by K.e.coffman

This filing is premature. There's a proposal on the Talk page where the matter is being addressed: Global variation of IQ scores: proposal. The proposal was opened by the OP and the thread has not yet closed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The dispute over this section's removal has been ongoing on the talk page for a month, and has yet to resolve anything. Based on the general lack of support for my latest proposal, it's unlikely the current discussion will resolve it either. Isn't a month of unproductive discussion adequate for dispute resolution? 2600:1004:B166:536E:8800:9BF8:FCBA:FABB (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Based on the general lack of support for my latest proposal... -- the answer appears to be right there. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
This request for dispute resolution isn't about the particular proposal that I made two days ago. My proposal is only the latest in a series of unsuccessful attempts at resolving the month-long dispute over this section's being removed without consensus, which has been discussed in two other talk page threads as well as at Arbitration Enforcement. That's what needs resolving. 2600:1004:B166:536E:8800:9BF8:FCBA:FABB (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment By Another IP editor

I disagree that this filing is premature. Well-sourced, long-standing material added via consensus was removed without any discussion and without consensus. Several involved editors including K.e.coffman are stonewalling any efforts to include a discussion of the “hereditarian” position (unless that position is labeled fringe or racist) in the article, regardless of what reliable sources say. The same behavior has been happening at human genetic variation where user:sirfurboy is removing (without discussion) long-standing material added via consensus, and then reverting efforts to restore the material (again without discussion). IP above has been tremendously patient and acting in good faith. The same cannot be said for some editors with an environmentalist viewpoint. The only solution that will satisfy them is to label any accounting for genetic differences between groups of people as “white supremacist”. The irony is evidence points to NON-white populations having the highest genetic predisposition for what is commonly defined as intelligence. So tell me, how is this position white-supremacist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B042:1ED6:89E2:C68C:38B:3A8 (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The reversion of material at human genetic variation was material repeatedly reinserted by the sock puppet Sprayitchyo, and examination of the edits reverted will show that every "editor" asserting that material has been banned or blocked as a Sprayitchyo sock. So very curious, then that an IP editor's first and only contribution to Wikipedia is to complain about that matter in an obscure location such as this one, no?  Looks like a duck to me. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The material should not have been removed in the first place. It was long-standing and had consensus. It was then removed without discussion or consensus. The question is why was material removed (again) without discussion or consensus to remove? 99.48.35.129 (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Are you talking about the material at R&I or the material at Human genetic variation? If the former, then read the above again. I have never touched that material. If the latter then it is off topic here, was not longstanding, and you are defending the edits of a sock puppet. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Race and intelligence discussion

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

Trauma trigger

– 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.

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

Disagreement about how to best summarize the article with regard to costs and benefits of trigger warnings. One editor thinks several relevant scientists being critical of trigger warnings should be included in the lead. Another editor thinks criticism should only be included after more peer reviewed research is conducted.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[29]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Some clarity on wikipedia standards as applies to this particular situation. We seem to have reached an impasse and a skilled wikipedia editor would be helpful for some broader perspective.

Summary of dispute by Bilorv

Disagreement is over the proposed lead text: While research on the effects of trigger warnings is limited, several scientists with knowledge in this area have suggested that trigger warnings may be counterproductive and actually increase anxiety and PTSD symptoms. This is a medical claim so WP:MEDRS applies. Initially, we had no MEDRS-appropriate sources for this text, but after some discussion and compromise we found sourcing for the text: Research on the effects of trigger warnings is limited.

The rest of the text is non-neutrally written ("several scientists with knowledge in this area" is peacocking), personal opinion and misleading to readers. We have had a suggestion to include something to the effect of: Limited research suggests that trigger warnings may be helpful to people with PTSD and provide no medical benefit to those without it. But the sourcing is not yet there (so more sources would be good). — Bilorv (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing

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

I think this should be closed. The person who started it apparently decided that not getting an answer within 24 hours (over the weekend, too) was proof that it was ripe for DRN. I've posted a reply at Talk:Trauma trigger#Trigger warning - medical consensus, complete with a source that says that trigger warnings are useful for some people with PTSD. I suggest closing this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Trauma trigger discussion

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

Rodney Reed

– This request has been placed on hold.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

A certain user seeks to remove all mention of a convicted rapist and murderer's past criminal history despite it being documented in a Supreme Court document and serving as the basis for his death penalty conviction. He claims this individual is not a public figure despite him being interviewed willingly by Dr. Phil on his tv show and hanging out with celebrities like Kim Kardashian. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to dispute resolution. I agree that Reed's criminal past should be covered because he is a public figure who has received substantial national media coverage, and--importantly--because he thrust himself into the spotlight as a last ditch effort to avoid execution by getting the public to petition his death sentence. One of the petitions to save him has 3 million signatures: [30] He is a "public figure" because he tried to make himself famous and succeeded. There is substantial coverage--in numerous reliable secondary sources--of the additional crimes that this individual has been charged with. In addition, these other charges are directly relevant to Reed's notability, because they are what led to his being charged for murder in the first place, and they are what caused him to be sentenced to death. This material on additional crimes should be admissible as long as the article clearly say "alleged". It is impossible to tell this story in an unbiased manner if the material on his additional charges (especially the alleged rape of the 12-year-old girl for which he was also a DNA match and which was used against him at sentencing resulting in him being sentenced to death) continues to be removed.
I also agree that--although I haven't looked at the page for a while now--there is one obstinate editor who refuses to listen to reason to any argument and just reverts any addition of this material at his/her whim. He/she appears to be wilfully misrepresenting WP:BLPCRIME. The argument is tantamount to saying that the page for Nikolas Cruz should not mention that he has been accused of the shooting because he has not been convicted yet. NO. We are allowed to mention it, as long as we say "alleged", and we have to mention it in order to properly tell the story of how this individual became notable.
However, the Supreme Court documents will generally be inadmissible as sources because they are primary sources. In addition, all of the Supreme Court documents I have seen represent the claims of the prosecution and/or the defense; they do not represent the findings of the Court. The Supreme Court documents should not be used as references in the article. In any case, they are not needed because there has been substantial coverage of this material in reliable secondary sources. To give just one example: [31] Bueller 007 (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The issue is well-outlined on the article talk page. Fundamentally, there is a clear consensus that the previous accusations against Reed should be included. Further, Reed is a public figure as a result of the case for which he was convicted alone, if not for the many other reasons cited. Lastly, even if he were not a public figure, that would mean only that "editors must seriously consider" whether such information should be mentioned or not. Reed's conviction is the subject of a lot of media and public debate. Omission of these other incidents would deprive readers of available information that they may, or may not, consider significant in weight his guilt or innocence in the case in which he was convicted. WP should err on the side of giving its readers available information, and let them find the truth for themselves. John2510 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
It should also be noted that--in order to make it appear that there is less consensus against him than there actually is--Wally repeatedly struck comments from an anonymous IP that was later blocked for being an open proxy. As justification, Wally claimed (without reference) that this was standard practice for banned users. Wally claimed that this individual was banned for being a sockpuppet (false), failed to acknowledge the difference between a ban and a block, and failed to acknowledge a Wikipedia policy document that explicitly says that legitimate users are permitted to use open proxies until the proxy happens to be blocked: WP:PROXY. There are a number of users who believe the material about Reed's additional crimes should be added, and only one who continues to obstinately remove this information. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rodney_Reed

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide guidance on whether this information should be included or not.

Summary of dispute by Wallyfromdilbert

MrTiger0307, this issue should be raised again at BLPN rather than a selective choice of editors at DRN. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Rodney Reed discussion

1st volunteer statement

I have reviewed the case and deem that there has been sufficient discussion of this issue to proceed and I volunteer to mediate it. Before proceeding I would like to make sure all parties involved are willing to conduct a civilized discussion. @CaptainPrimo:, @Wallyfromdilbert:, @John2510:, and @Bueller 007:, are you willing to participate? --MrTiger0307 (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm willing to participate. And the issue that was raised at BLPN now that I've tracked it down, seems to be moot because there's other sources besides the court document that highlight the same details as noted by Bueller. Wally is not even using the argument that was reached at that discussion as his primary argument. He is instead claiming Reed is not a public figure and should be shielded. CaptainPrimo (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, me also, although everything I need to say has already been said a few times on the Rodney Reed Talk page. As has been mentioned on the Talk page, and has CaptainPrimo has described, the original BLPN has often been (mis-)cited to say that the material about Reed's additional crimes cannot be included. However, the BLPN discussion was only about using primary sources. Reed's crimes are discussed in a number of reliable secondary sources. Wally has removed statements from these secondary sources vigorously while citing the irrelevant BLPN discussion. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


2nd volunteer statement

I am placing this request on hold and suggesting that this be taken up again on BLPN. Based on the result of the case there, I will then decide whether or not to continue this case, or, should it be successfully resolved there, I will close this request and mark it either Resolved or Failed depending on the decision there. --MrTiger0307 (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rodney_Reed Discussion started here. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The Hunt (2020 film)

– 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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The genre of this film was changed many times from thriller to horror and back again, since both are well-sourced for this film. The obvious solution would be to mention both, as leaving out either of these primary genres would leave the article lacking. It seems to me that common sense dictates, that where more than one statement is true, both must be mentioned on Wikipedia, and such has been my experience here for over a decade. Several objections have been raised: WP:SEAOFBLUE, which was resolved after these edits; WP:FILMLEAD, which seems to be based on a overly rigid interpretation of that guideline, as though under no circumstance can there be more than one genre in the lead of a film article; WP:SYNTH, which seems a misunderstanding and not applicable. To explain, the proposed edit does not combine "horror" and "thriller" into "horror thriller", rather says clearly that the film has "alternative been described as a horror or thriller film".

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:The_Hunt_(2020_film)#Genre:_horror

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

1. State a neutral opinion on the question in how far does good encyclopedia writing mean we should have both the "thriller" and "horror" genre in this case. 2. State a neutral opinion on whether the relevant guidelines are satisfied by the proposed addition of more than one genre. 3. Remove the personal factor by convincing me that You've gone incognito's opposition to the proposed edit is based on guidelines, rather than on WP:IDONTLIKETHIS, which is the conclusion I have come to based on repeated reverts despite what I consider to be good arguments. Debresser (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by You've gone incognito

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

Contrary to OP's statement, the "horror thriller" genre claim is unsourced, lacks consensus, and violates WP:SYNTH: i.e., "If some sources say it's a horror movie and others call it a thriller, then it must be a horror thriller." Truth is sources are not really sure as to the exact genre, which is why I had to put up that note on Feb 14 to prevent more edit wars from occurring (diff). OP may have attempted to discuss the edit in the talk but there was no consensus at all, just a bunch of subjective opinions tossed in. (He must think that babbling in the talk is equivalent to building consensus when it's not.) You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The Hunt (2020 film) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Third opinion is not relevant, since there are more than two parties who took part in the discussion on the talkpage. Naaman Brown agrees with my edit, while Erik seems to be opposing it, at least mildly. Kailash29792 also expressed his disagreement on his talkpage. Neither are edit warring about it, though. If you please, they can be asked to comment here as well. Debresser (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Comment - Is there any question about whether a film can be listed as having two genres? I don't see a policy or guideline against that. I have not reviewed whether either or both genres are substantiated from the sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Some, not me, seem to disagree with what you say regarding listing two genres for a film in the lead section. That is something that mediation should address, perhaps. Debresser (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: The inclusion of two genres is fine as long as the vast majority of reliable sources classify the movie under that. In the article's case, sources disagree with the "horror thriller" genre since many have called it differently: "action thriller", "political thriller", "satirical thriller", et cetera; hence the note in the opening sentence. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:31, 17 March 2020 (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.

Template:2020 coronavirus_quarantines

– 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.

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 was a template called "2020 coronavirus quarantines".

It previously had information only on Chineses cities.

I've improved the template so it can include worldwide information about every country.

But CaradhrasAiguo would rather prefer a new template to be created. He says that this template is for Hubei only.

I disagree, there's no need to remove information on every country but China, since this is used in multiple pages such as:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_responses_to_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic

The template is also named "2020 coronavirus quarantines" and not "2020 coronavirus quarantines in Hubei"

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2020_coronavirus_quarantines&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:2020_coronavirus_quarantines#Remove_Population%2FCases%2FDeaths%3F

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Leave this template for worldwide quarantines, and create a new template such as Template:2020 coronavirus quarantines in Hubei for use in 2020 Hubei lockdowns.

Summary of dispute by CaradhrasAiguo

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

Summary of dispute by ApprenticeFan

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

Template:2020 coronavirus_quarantines discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note Hello @ApprenticeFan: @JMKaisar: @CaradhrasAiguo: I’m looking at your case and I am not seeing much discussion on the talk page? And I don’t see any discussion with ApprenticeFan, so I don’t see why you brought him here without talking on the talk page. Let me see what other volunteers think. Thanks. The4lines (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)The4lines
@The4lines: I gave a refutation of JMKaisar's incorrect timeline around half an hour ago. Again, I reiterate that I am open to a full-scale WP:TfD, but what JMKaisar has done unilaterally amounts to forcing a cut-and-paste move and is in poor taste. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:20, 20 March 2020 (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.

List of Italian inventions and discoveries

– 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.

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 are three types of content disputed:

1)Sourced content that is not present in other pages. This seems highly restrictive, preventing new material to be added on Wikipedia by single Users. A lot of sourced material is being removed from the list, the reason being that there isn't a corresponding article on Wikipedia yet. Obviously, the articles creation needs more time and people contributing constructively, which unfortunately is not the case here. 2)Sourced content that allegedly doesn't meet the criteria of an invention or innovation. This is highly subjective. 3)Sources whose textual comprehension is disputed.

Currently, per the literal introduction of the page, all the entries removed starting from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Italian_inventions_and_discoveries&diff=939992605&oldid=939507237 are sourced and I ask for them to be restored. The alphabetical list of Italian inventions could be transformed in a timeline with the help of the community, but not by myself alone. Also, innovations that are not inventions, such as the Galileo's telescope, are either to be restored in a separate alphabetical list or in the same list, whose title "Alphabetical list of Italian Inventions" should then be changed with "Alphabetical list of Inventions or Innovations". Please note that the introduction to the list never claims Italian exclusivity of the items, but, instead, they are objects, processes or techniques invented, "innovated" or discovered, "partially" or entirely, by Italians.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Italian_inventions_and_discoveries#Factual_accuracy_and_adherence_to_WP:SAL_/_WP:LSC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Italian_inventions_and_discoveries#Galileo_Telescope

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

It would be helpful to work with someone willing to have a constructive approach to the page, so that dubious statements can be fixed and the items restored, with a timeline if it is deemed necessary. Further discussion on the talk page is hindered by the aforementioned rationale behind the removal of the material. Also, if a statement is not objective, that statement could be perfected instead of being removed along with the sources and the listed item.


Summary of dispute by Fountains of Bryn Mawr

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

I continually explain to TriangoloDiTartaglia that the edits fall within WP:YESPOV and WP:SAL / WP:LSC re: Selection criteria is obvious, don't add items and make claims about them in Wikipedia's voice that are not supported by reliable sources, don't make claims that fork with the item's linked Wikipedia article[32][33].

The WP:LSC seems to be obvious and has not been disputed[34].

It should be noted TriangoloDiTartaglia's edits have been a continuation of a line of contiguous WP:SPA accounts: User:Altes2009, User:In Ratio Veritas, all "Italian centric", sometimes aggressively PUSHing, and even deleting talk they don't like diffdiff.

It should also be noted that removal of dubious claims from this list has been pursued by other editors so this is not just a dispute with me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by

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

List of Italian inventions and discoveries discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - User:TriangoloDiTartaglia, User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr - Is there a continuing interest in moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Regarding me, there is. If anything else, we can discern original inclusion in the list from factual inaccuracy, so that content that is factually accurate, but is contrasting with other pages, can be included in them too. Some items were corrected, those corrections are fine. I am concerned about the deleted ones.TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Since User:TriangoloDiTartaglia appears to be editing from a POV (manifesto here), and considers any opposing point of view "censorship" or "vandalism"[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43], the user seems to have a dispute with WP:COPO. I am not sure what DRN is going to accomplish. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - If one editor wants moderated discussion and the other editor doesn't think moderated discussion will be helpful, then moderated discussion probably isn't feasible, and the best route is probably Request for Comments. If the parties want assistance in formulating the RFC, I will assist them in formulating the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I share the concern of User:Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr about the inability of DRN to proceed to a constructive resolution of the dispute, since DNR exists for content debate, not user behaviour polemics. However, in closing the case and moving to a more appropriate place for the dispute, the reasons and the specific party hindering the resolution shall be outlined in the summary. If User:Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr has any other argument apart from pitful argumentum ad hominem, I kindly invite him once more to a moderated debate. In both scenarios, volunteer's assistance would be appreciated.TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2020 (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.

Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum

– 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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. There was also a previous report at WP:AN3, which ended with nothing.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The article's subject was convicted in court in a civil case. It has been ruled by a civil court that the subject of this article has abducted daughters and threatened his wife.As per comments here and on my talkpage, he was not convicted, there was a declarative ruling. Doesn't change my argument a bit though. Which in all countries I am aware of implies that the conviction ruling was based on a balance of probabilities (>50%) and not above a reasonable doubt (which is far higher, some say >95%, for example). A certain editor decided that nevertheless the words "on the balance of probabilities" should be added.[44] I have repeatedly undone this, as 1. this sounds apologetic = POV and 2. we do not use this formula on other articles which mention civil convictions rulings.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Mohammed_bin_Rashid_Al_Maktoum#Probabilities

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Judge by the arguments if this addition is needed and wanted, or had better be left out.

Summary of dispute by Johnbod

Unbelievable! He just doesn't get it! It was a civil law case, to do with his treatment of his wife (or one of them), who was suing him, so he wasn't "convicted" of anything, nor could he or anyone else have been convicted - yet he uses the word 3 times above. The judge found ("ruled" in legal terms) that he had done this, but importantly, this was on the civil law standard of the "balance of probabilities", not the criminal law one of "beyond reasonable doubt". He keeps insisting this is unimportant, or so obvious that everyone will get it, but his own language shows that he has still failed to grasp what happened at all. So how likely is it that the general reader will understand this? He already raised this at ANI (he should add a link above), & just got his knuckles rapped for it - they are getting rather fed up with his regular appearances there I think. WP:FORUMSHOP applies. Four editors have now commented on the other side of the argument on the article talk, and just been met with various disparaging dismissals. There were further comments when he raised it at ANI, but I'll let him dig that up from the archives. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok (see below) for "ANI" read WP:ANEW (the edit-warring noticeboard), but he still needs to dig up the link, as relevant comments were made there. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Pigsonthewing

I am unimpressed to find myself listed here as an involved party, having received no notification of the matter being raised on this page; and not having edited the article concerned, or its talk page, for over a week.

That said, Debresser's conduct has been highly disruptive, and has shown a very weak understanding of the circumstances under discussion. Their attempt at raising a WP:3RRN case failed spectacularly, when it transpired that they were the only editor with more than three reverts, gaming the 24-hour limit, and had not been honest about how many reverts I had made.

I asked them on the article's talk page, on 11 March, "what... do you think Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum has been convicted of?" They failed to answer then yet repeat the allegation here, that The article's subject was convicted in court - an egregious violation of our BLP policy; and a fallacy, as there is no such thing (other than in an unrelated military sense) as a "civil conviction" in English law, and the subject - whatever we may think of their actions - has in fact not been convicted of any crime. A boomerang block and topic ban would be in order. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I note that Debresser has now made major revisions to the OP here, to which I responded, not all of which are marked as such. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I also note that despite the diff in my previous comment, Debresser is now denying this, with further false claim about what they changed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexandermcnabb

I see nothing here offered up that changes or adds a counterpoint to the perfectly valid and sensible arguments of the editors who disagree with Debresser. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ohsin

I don't have much to say here, while in lead section it appears enough to suggest the fact finding ruling was from a civil court but the section about Haya's departure and ensuing child custody battle needs expansion with proper context, it should be noted there that ruling was based on 'Preponderance of the evidence' and that Sheikh Mohammed willingly didn't participate in the process to counter allegations and ruling also notes in past criminal investigation in Shamsa's case could not proceed due to denial of access to her in Dubai. At the moment this is just edit war over three words with personal attacks thrown in.  Ohsin  18:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Debresser after filing request

@Pigsonthewing You noted incorrectly. The only revision is conviction -> ruling, and all instances are clearly marked. Debresser (talk) 12:50, 22 March

Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. Two of the other editors have commented, but the other two need to be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - There has not been any discussion of this dispute at WP:ANI. (If there were, it would have to be resolved before a case could be considered here.) There was a report at the edit-warring noticeboard, which has been closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Debresser, Johnbod, Pigsonthewing, Ohsin, and Alexandermcnabb: If the requested assistance is "Judge by the arguments if this addition is needed and wanted, or had better be left out", is there any particular reason why a RFC has not been initiated, considering it would allow for many users to weigh in on the issue? --MrClog (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Obviously a question only Debresser can answer; no one else wanted this. Perhaps he is saving that for a third go. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
    • An RfC about what? To reiterate what I said in the WP:3RRN discussion; "The solution is for the correct, cited wording to be restored, in line with our BLP policy, and Debresser to stop - or to be stopped from - edit warring to remove it, based on his fundamentally flawed misunderstanding of the basic nature of the judgement to which it refers. The latter is not an issue on which there can be compromise, any more than we can compromise by saying that the Earth is half flat, or that the moon landings only half happened." Several others have already commented; not one of whom has agreed with Debresser. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
      @Pigsonthewing: With an RfC, all these different inputs can be combined in one place to officially determine consensus on the issue, to avoid any misunderstanding or willful blindness as to what is the current consensus. --MrClog (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
      • We are up to four opposed to Debresser at the talk page, plus the two very experienced admins on WP:ANEW, neither of whom expressed any sympathy with his position. Under all normal circumstances this would represent a stronger "official" consensus than most things on WP attain, but this is Debresser. You have put your finger on it with "willful blindness as to what is the current consensus". Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with an Rfc. I came here because I was hoping for a simple policies and guidelines-based decision, since I think the issue is straightforward enough to not need broad discussion. For the record, I strongly condemn Johnbod's persistent personal attacks. Debresser (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Debresser: We don't issue decisions as to who is correct here. Rather, we mediate discussions between willing editors to reach a non-binding compromises when it comes to a content dispute. So unless all involved editors want to have a mediated discussion here hoping to reach a compromise everyone can agree with, there isn't much DRN can help you with. --MrClog (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay. Have opened an Rfc. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2020 (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.

Trauma trigger

– 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.

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

Disagreement about how to best summarize the article with regard to costs and benefits of trigger warnings. One editor thinks several relevant scientists being critical of trigger warnings should be included in the lead. Another editor thinks criticism should only be included after more peer reviewed research is conducted. This was listed ~10 days ago and closed in the hopes of more discussion happening on the talk page. There has not been any discussion since 3/16.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[45]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Some clarity on wikipedia standards as applies to this particular situation. We seem to have reached an impasse and a skilled wikipedia editor would be helpful for some broader perspective.

Summary of dispute by Bilorv

This discussion should be closed; further discussion is a waste of time at present as we have as much consensus as we're going to get for the lead's current content. WhatamIdoing has provided routes for the article's body to be expanded in a sensible manner, which is the real solution here. If Pengortm wishes to improve the article then they should begin by adding this source to the body and finding similar sources to use (but not cherry-picking sources to support their own opinion).

Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing

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

I think this should be closed. Pengortm appears to be using this noticeboard in an effort to embarrass other editors into spending their time talking to him. This editor could have {{ping}}ed one of us if he really thought that it was urgent to have yet another reply on that talk page on his schedule. It's not even clear what Pengortm thinks should be done in that article (beyond him apparently wanting other people to keep spending their time talking to him). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Trauma trigger discussion

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

Just to reply a bit to the other editors who appear bothered that I have listed this here. I did not mean this as an embarrassing, punitive, or derogatory step, but to broaden the discussion since we seem to be at an impasse. The issue summary as I see it is that I feel that it is appropriate summarize the views of multiple scientists quoted in the body of the article in the lead. Bilorv has objected to this on the grounds that this goes against WP:MEDRS and that more peer reviewed information needs to be found to back this up first. While I disagree with Bilorv, I think this is an honest disagreement and different interpretation of wikipedia standards and practices. We have tried to discuss our varying interpretations but seem to be speaking past each other. As I understand it WhatamIdoing has not objected to the summary I suggest on WP:MEDRS grounds like Bilorv, but on the grounds that they feel that there is missing content in the body of the article. I am open to adding well sourced content to the body of the article of course, and adjusting the lead accordingly. However, it is not clear to me what content is specifically missing which other editors feel should be added (simply referencing an entire book and saying add stuff from that is not productive)? Unless and until the body of the article is changed, I think it is standard practice for the lead to summarize the body as it exists now. I do hope another editor can weigh in here. If I am offbase, do please explain why, but I think we are having some honest disagreements and could use some additional perspective. If I should have waited longer for discussion to accumulate on the talk page to list this, please let me know--I thought 10+ days was reasonable, but could be offbase of course.-Pengortm (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2020 (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.

James Bradley (former slave)

Dispute resolved successfully. 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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The issue has to do with only one specific question: the value of recent (since 1950) newspaper articles on the man the article is about. My position is:

a) there is no source for information on this man's biography before he arrived in Cincinnati, other than his autobiographical statement and reports from contemporaries about what he said to them;

b) no recent article makes a reference to any new source of information; therefore,

c) these articles used by Carole Henson, while secondary, are not to be relied on when they make unsupported statements about this man's life, such as his having spent time in northern Kentucky (this from a source promoting travel in Kentucky), and

d) using the nineteenth-century primary sources, his own statement and direct reports by persons present about what he said, makes for a better, more accurate article.

I'll let CaroleHenson say for herself what her position is.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Bradley_(former_slave)#Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Bradley_(former_slave)#Newspapers_have_to_come_out

Note that on the article's talk page there is talk between myself and CaroleHenson about other issues; this request is for comment on the issue of sources only.


How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Make a recommendation about whether the primary sources used by me in the article before Carole Henson got involved with it in February (as seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Bradley_(former_slave)&oldid=939446245) should be preferred, as more accurate or reliable, than the magazine articles she has replaced them with.

Summary of dispute by CaroleHenson

The article was nominated for a GA and I summarized this Key points for a second opinion as part of the review (now failed):

I am trying to sort out your key points for a second opinion:

  • You believe, especially for the period before he goes to Lane, that "the only source is his own statement".
  • If a source provides any information that is not in Bradley's statement, you find that to be false information.
  • Regardless of whether a source would be considered a reliable source (newspapers, books) in other instances, if you find that they published something you don't agree with, they are not a reliable source.
  • You question even his own statement about being admitted to Lane, because you don't think it's likely that it happened... although I have mentioned above that there are tons of sources including Bradley that say he enrolled there. (I would agree, though, that he wouldn't have been ready to attend the literary or theological departments.)
  • The means to me that you think that Bradley's statement is always the right and true source, unless something does not make sense to you. Then, it (and all the other sources that state the same thing) should be ignored.

What you have not said, but I interpret: You removed anything from the lede/intro that did not come directly from Bradley... well, and also information that came from Bradley about his life before Lane.

There was a clarification by Deisenbe about this list: I do not believe that the only source is his own statement. However, before he arrived at Lane, his statement and the comments of his contemporaries (presumably repeating what he told them) are the only sources I know of. Something like his spending time in northern Kentucky on the way to Cincinnati, I don't believe there is a reliable source for that. deisenbe (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC) (reply)

Please also see this discussion about removing all newspaper sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: is right in that I made a regrettable and embarrassing mistake regarding Bradley's admission to Lane. She was right and I was wrong on that point. deisenbe (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Per Deisenbe's comment, I struck out one of the items.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

James Bradley (former slave) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Comment I just realized that the version that Deisenbe provided under the "How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?" section was after I had started working on the article. The version of the article before I got involved is this version.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Note to participants: @Deisenbe and CaroleHenson: If you're seeking a third opinion, filing a request for one at WP:3O is your best bet. DRN is meant for situations where an independent mediator is needed to help guide a consensus-building conversation. If you're interested in that, feel free to shoot me a message on my talk page. --MrClog (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I opened a third opinion request here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - On hold waiting for a response from the Third Opinion. If the parties are satisfied with the third opinion, this request will be closed. Keeping this request open only in case the third opinion results in a desire for moderated discussion aftewards. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, Deisenbe has said here that they do not want to be involved any longer regarding this article. I added back primary sources to the slave narrative (which was his main concern) and am leaving all secondary sources (yeah!). So, we should be able to close this now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2020 (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.

Canvas fingerprinting

– 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.

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

At the time of discussion, two users voiced their skepticism about the proposed merger, but they never engaged nor conclusively opposed the merger. After months, one of them is back reverting the work that has been done in the meantime. Clearly I would be open to renew the discussion, but on the ground that it was previously closed with consensus.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Device_fingerprint#Overlap_with_Browser_fingerprint_and_Canvas_fingerprinting

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By determining whether the discussion should have been considered closed at the 5th of February with consensus (counting two people in favor, the proposer and me, and two people neither conclusively in opposition nor in favor).

Summary of dispute by MrX

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

Canvas fingerprinting discussion

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

Avantika Vandanapu

– 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.

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

If you look at her page from six months ago to now, it has been pulled down to bare bones with practically all of her accomplishments thrown out even when there are several references and videos online. It is almost looking like some editors are maliciously removing content from the page. All requests for suggested edits or questions on their talk pages are resulting in more cuts to the page. This is totally punitive.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GSS#Avantika_Vandanapu's_edits_reverted

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Review the content on Avantika's page six months ago. Help us in identifying accomplishments that seem uncorroborated and how we can resolve. Not all content may appear in a newspaper but we can provide screenshots from movies or TV shows where her name appeared. Or you can watch these shows online as independent reviewers. Give us a viable option on proving the content reliability instead of just shooting down.

Summary of dispute by GSS

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

Avantika Vandanapu discussion

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

Insilico Medicine

– 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.

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’s a situation between me and User:David_Gerard. I’m a science communicator and published an article about a biotech company in accordance with WP:PAID. David_Gerard reverted my edit without any reasoning. On the talk page he acted in a rude manner and ignored WP:DR. My request for advice to improve the submission was left without an answer. I’m also concerned that he may be biased on the matter, because he had a strong professional disagreement with the CEO of the said biotech company.

As David_Gerard refused to discuss contribution and focused on the contributor, it’s impossible to reach a consensus. I don’t want to reverse his edits and start an WP:EDITWAR. This situation requires both a mediator and an unbiased opinion and recommendation. I’m acting in good faith and I want to improve the article.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Insilico_Medicine

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By evaluating the attempts to find consensus by both sides. And by giving advice on how can I improve the draft, as the other wikipedian denied me any constructive recommendation.

Summary of dispute by David_Gerard

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

This is a paid promotional editor, trying to play Wikipedia rules to get the promotion she's being paid for into the encyclopedia.

The promotional editor in question added a long slab of ill-referenced promotional text; I reverted it, on the grounds that Wikipedia isn't here to further her business promoting other businesses. Another editor in talk concurred. WP:BOGOF applies - Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to allow the encyclopedia to be biased by paid interests, and the edits can be reasonably assumed bad. Yamla endorsed my edit as a correct editorial decision.

I wasn't aware who the CEO was, and I think the paid promotional editor is stretching by calling the tweet a conflict; it was me trying to get detail on a promotional thing the company had emailed me three years ago. This is an attempt to impeach an editor reverting her paid spam, to get her paid spam in.

I would suggest the ideal resolution is that a paid promotional editor trying to rules-lawyer to get spam into the encyclopedia would be blocked forthwith for not being here to write an encyclopedia. Because this content is being added entirely as paid promotion, and not for encyclopedic purpose. Paid commercial editing is inherently bad faith editing, as this current action demonstrates - David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll correct myself, in reaction to Robert McClenon's note - I'll say that I'm of the view that paid commercial editing inherently tends bad faith editing. I do think this is an example. The promotional editor's motivation is entirely to get paid, and nothing to do with making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Insilico Medicine discussion

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


Interim Volunteer Comments

I will provide some long comments without changing the status of this request.

First, the filing editor, who is a paid editor, is asking the other editor for assistance or advice. No editor is required to give assistance or advice to another editor. There is a guideline, Do not bite the newcomers, which states not to be unpleasant, rude, or hostile to new editors. There is no guideline against ignoring new editors. There is also a pillar of Wikipedia that says not to be unpleasant, rude, or hostile to any editors. The BITE guideline simply amplifies it with regard to new editors. The other editor is choosing not to interact with the paid editor.

Second, the requirement for paid editors to disclose is meant to limit or minimize paid editing. It is not meant to encourage them, or to provide them with any special rights other than the right of every editor to be created with civility.

Third, advice to the filing editor could be to seek a Third Opinion, except that there has already been a third opinion from User:Yamla, who agrees with User:David Gerard. It appears that User:Birulik has ignored the comment from Yamla, because she has chosen not to list Yamla or notify them. At this point, asking for another mediator could be construed as cherry picking.

Fourth, advice to any filing editor who wishes to improve an article can always be to ask for advice at the Teahouse. Some of the Teahouse volunteers are more willing to assist compliant paid editors than most of the volunteers at this noticeboard. So Birulik can still seek advice at the Teahouse.

Fifth, I will observe that, while Birulik is trying to "improve" the article, it is more accurate to say that she is trying to expand and rewrite it. A question can be raised as to whether it needs to be expanded, based on the size and notability of the company.

Sixth, if Birulik thinks that David Gerard is biased against the company or its CEO, why is she asking David Gerard for assistance or advice? David Gerard has reasonably (regardless of whether they are biased) chosen to stay out of the way except to revert a large-scale rewrite and expansion.

Seventh, I personally disagree with David Gerard when he says that paid editing is inherently bad faith editing. However, he has no obligation to assist other good-faith or bad-faith editors.

Eighth, I will leave this request open to see if a volunteer is willing to mediate it. It may be closed if it is not responded to within a week. However, as noted, Birulik is more likely to get friendly advice at the Teahouse.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

  • @Robert McClenon: I didn’t ignore Yamla’s opinion. The said editor decided no to participate in the discussion on the talk page. Moreover, he took no part in the discussion even though I politely asked him to do so. As of the discussion with David Gerard (he wasn’t that much into it), I followed the logic of WP:DR, as it requires all editors to be polite and respectful regardless of odds. Finally, I applied here to have a content discussion, not the pointless “bad fair promotional paid bias editing”. The Teahouse isn’t suited for content disputes as they will distract the volunteers from helping new editors.--Birulik (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Interim Questions

User:David Gerard - Are you willing to engage in a moderated discussion here with User:Birulik and a volunteer moderator, or should I close this request as declined by you? (You are not required to engage in moderated discussion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll decline this one - I think it would be pointless, as this isn't a content discussion, but dealing with financially-motivated promotional editing - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Birulik - You say here that you wish to engage in a content discussion. On the talk page, what you had requested did not seem to be a content discussion so much as assistance in expanding the article, because you asked have your proposed text marked up. Do you want a discussion of whether to replace the article with your version, or do you want assistance in rewriting the article? It appeared to me that you were requesting assistance, and you can ask for that at the Teahouse. If you want other editors to choose between your version and the existing version, that could be a Request for Comments. What sort of discussion do you want (knowing that there is no obligation to discuss, only an obligation to be civil)? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2020 (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.

Malta2019 and Draft:Malta Society of the Arts

– 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.

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

An article on Joseph Cassar, Phd was rejected because all of the sources provided are from Malta. He is a Malta figure and in 11/2019 was given a medal by the president for his contrigutions. 1) many other Malta figures only have Malta press 2) I don't think the editor who rejected the article looked at other Maltese figures 3) I don't think the prominence of the person rejected was taken into account I would respectfully like others to review this situation - all Maltese personalities should be treated the same and if someone from a specific country is important it is no reason to reject if they are not in the NYTimes or other paper. Thank you

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Malta2019, Draft Malta Society of the Arts

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Have another editor or editors review the situation.

Summary of dispute by only self

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

Malta2019 and Draft:Malta Society of the Arts discussion

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

John Merrill (American politician)

– 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.

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

Content that I added was removed. I understand the one edit since it was verbatim from the article I cited. However, all of the other content was removed and it was fully valid. Specifically, I added the correct date of John and Cindy's wedding. The date they reverted the article to is off by two years. Why in the world, when I included a valid newspaper citation of the wedding, would they revert to an incorrect date?

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I have tried to go on his talk page, but it isn't very accessible.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please revert to the content that I added that includes the correct wedding date!!

Summary of dispute by Seraphimblade

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

John Merrill (American Policitian) discussion

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

USA

– 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.

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

Covid 19 stats are totally wrong are far as recovered cases

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Covid 19 recovered cases are totally wrong every state has recovered cases are you sight reports 0 I’m 90% of the state’s

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

List accurately covid 19 recovered cases in each state

Summary of dispute by Covid 19

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

USA discussion

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

Pickup artist

– 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.

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

MrOllie has accused me (A new user) of making edits to articles in exchange of someone paying me. This is absurd and completely false, and just an excuse for him to revert EVERY single change I make to the PICKUP ARTIST article because he is very sensitive over a source that he wants to remain on the article. This source is an unreliable and biased source that promotes some kind of Texan coaching company. I removed it and added it with a page that lists groups worldwide for the 'lairs'.

He has not only reverted this change, but reverted every single minor edit I have ever made. Including a note that female pickup artists also exist. This user is quite clearly deliberately editing the content of this article to suit his own agenda, and he immediately undoes my changes within minutes or even seconds.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

User talk:MrOllie

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

All I wanted to do was add some unbiased information to this article. He has prevented me from including that female pickup artists exist. I added absolutely no sources for this, just the statement. This person is obsessively getting in the way of making progress on the article, and it seems like he is reverting other people's changes too.

If he could be removed from editing this particular article, that would solve this entirely. You can see on his page that others have complained a lot.

Summary of dispute by MrOllie

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

Pickup artist discussion

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

Ambigram

– 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.

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

I have been trying to update the ambigrams page as per new information that was lacking. Most notable is a list of ambigram generators and their history. But also tried to clean up the page, merge some tiny sections and remove some [citation needed] marks here and there. I will fully admit that I am not a wikipedia veteran and not versed in all the rules, and that mistakes were made. However, Basile Morin decided to use this as a reason to revert all my changes, based on some of the mistakes, after which he proceeded to tell me to stop editing.

I've asked questions and tried to defend my actions, conceding where he was clearly right. The response was him digging up more mistakes that I was not talking about, dodging questions and removing more content in a section where apparently he refute that I had a point.

I feel like this is personal and not about the article. Again, I do not disagree with the fact that I have made mistakes, and I am doing my best to improve on that front. I just don't think that that will happen if I am not allowed to make any changes.

edit: he refuses to address my questions of why sections should not exist and decided that I can only suggest edits in the talk page for approval. Is this even allowed?

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ambigram#Rewrite

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

It would help if someone could look at the edits I made yesterday,what was reverted and the talk page and let us know how to proceed here. e.g. why would merging the section 'other names' with the introduction be wrong? Almost every other article has this in the first line. Why have a section on ambigram generators, and not mention the mechanics or history? (even if it was up for a long time, although that might not be the best reason) etc. Are all my edits invalid, because I make mistakes?

Summary of dispute by Basile Morin

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

User Synethos is currently building a personal website called "makeambigrams.com" and expects Wikipedia will link directly to it. Action reverted per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Other wrong edits cancelled here, always with discernment and rationale. -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Ambigram discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • I would like to request you read the discussion. I felt like it would be useful for users to have links to existing generators, including my own. When Basile pointed out that that is not the point of Wikipedia, I conceded, apologize and never brought the subject up again. Meanwhile Basile keeps dodging any other point that I bring up and refuses to accept any of my edits, no matter how small. I keep suggesting to merge the 'other names' section into the introduction, and add historical information about ambigram generators. He has not once directly replied to that, except to tell me that I am ignorant of the topic when I copied the wrong list. (That was unfortunate..but this is stressful) Additionally he keeps trying to dig up stuff on me that he then uses as a reason to not respond to anything else. e.g. denying terminology defined on the page, seemingly because I say it and therefore it is wrong. (The Trump/Clinton image) We clearly got off on the wrong foot here, and I feel like I am trying to be civil, to the point and work with his feedback. I will be the first to admit that I am not extremely well versed in wikipedia doctrine, but I do try to get better. It is very hard this way. Also the fact that he did not address any of the points in this dispute resolution request, but put up the advertising strawman again illustrates the points above. Thanks for looking into this. --Synethos (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: @Synethos: It seems like this is mostly a behavioural dispute. Do you and Basile Morin still disagree on whether to add specific content to the article or is it solely about behaviour? --MrClog (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • He told me I should not edit and reverted all my edits, so I am would think so. I'm not saying that everything I do should be law, but I think that I suggested changes and information that was relevant.

Most notably the generator history and types, which has been a sizable section for a long time and now got changed into a single sentence. Things like, when was the first generator made, what technology did it use, what technology does flipscript use. He added a sentence about John langdon making part of a font, but removed the information about fonts in general. Someone might have to look over my section for link density and take out what is not needed, but mentioning the websites is unavoidable I think. Perhaps you could take a look at that section? Also thanks for helping! Synethos (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Synethos, if you want a third opinion, WP:3O is your best bet. --MrClog (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@MrClog: I honestly lost all belief in Basile being fair. I made some more edits, he reverted them all and then made up fake reasons for why. He deleted a sentence he added, but forgot, as non encyclopedic, after I moved it and it looked like being mine. And he put up another strawman about content I added by deleting the longest sensible ambigram sentence, conveniently removing the word sensible so that he could suggest longer sentences. I'm really trying to be constructive here, and the guy wants it to be 'his' article. Synethos (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Same point about Gustave Verbeek, he is now doubting his own content, since I never wrote that section. Sure, people can later revise their own work after reading it a while later, but that is not the impression that I am getting here. Anyway I have the actual comics of Verbeek so I could add to the section, but this behavior has to stop really. Synethos (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2020 (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.

Media blackout

– 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.


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 paragraph up under "Contemporary" that refers to the current Tara Reade story as a media blackout. By the definition of media blackout, that is false, since news organizations are reporting on it. Also, none of the sources provided for the claim explicitly call the situation a media blackout, and as such, I believe it is a leap in logic to consider it as such.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Media_blackout#Biden

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'd like a third party to consider whether or not the story 1. fits the definition presented in the article and 2. if the sources are explicit enough about calling it a media blackout.

Summary of dispute by Guy Macon

I choose to not participate in any dispute resolution until AvatarQX acknowledges that WP:EW says: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: 'But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense" and commits to no longer edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC) (Removed per comment below.) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Media blackout discussion

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

I am happy to acknowledge that my behavior on the article was not perfect, and hence that is why I chose to open this dispute resolution, as I care about the content of the article. I have not edited the page since and will not until a third party has decided what is correct in this situation. --AvatarQX (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2020 (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.

John Merrill (American politician)

– 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.

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

I have updated his page with cited material. Yet, the editor chose to revert back to INCORRECT information. John Merrill was the first married SGA President at The University of Alabama. Yet, the wikipedia article has the date of his marriage wrong by two years. Is this what wikipedia desires? False information about living people? I am a research librarian and I am sick of these ignorant admins removing material that I cite from valid sources.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I have commented on the talk page fro both Seraphimblade and for the page itself.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Revert back to the date that I listed, which is the CORRECT date!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Summary of dispute by Seraphimblade

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

John Merrill (American politician) discussion

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

Biographies of Medieval people (mostly popes)

– Closed as failed. 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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

  • Biographies of Medieval people (mostly popes)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Surtsicna has removed images from numerous biographies of Medieval figures, most of them popes. They have made other changes, some of which I agree with, some of which I have not. The basis for this was that these portraits were imagined portraits made centuries after these people lived and therefore could not reflect what they looked like, in addition to claiming that they were not included in scholarly sources, even though at least one of them, a body image on the article for Pope Eugene III, was. I responded saying that imagined or apocryphal portraits were acceptable on Wikipedia even if there is no exact way of knowing that the person being depicted looked quite like how they are depicted in a particular work of art. I said that a preferred that any image purported to be of a particular person should be used provided it exists. Surtsicna disagreed.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[46]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please help us decide whether imagined or apocryphal portraits are acceptable for use in Wikipedia articles. This specific dispute portains to less than a dozen articles, but it could have ramifications affecting hundreds if not thousands.

Summary of dispute by Surtsicna

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

Biographies of Medieval people (mostly popes) discussion

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

I do not quite see the point of this dispute question. Nobody is disputing that imagined or apocryphal images are acceptable for use in Wikipedia articles. The only condition they have to meet, like any other content, is that they are found in academic biographies of the article subject or in scholarly works of reference. That means that not every and any drawing, by any random, anonymous individual, should be included just because it's available. That is precisely what MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE is about. Surtsicna (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Interim Note by Volunteer

This appears to be a dispute about the inclusion or removal of drawings used to represent people for whom no contemporary image is known. The use of such drawings has been common with various historical figures such as kings (in countries when there was no tradition of representational art). (Another such person is Christopher Columbus, of whom no contemporary portrait exists.)

There appears to have been some discussion on the talk page of the other editor. The guidance would be the Manual of Style on images, but it appears to be silent on the specific issue. Discussion on whether to provide guidance about such drawings can continue at the MOS talk page for images.

I am willing to facilitate discussion here if the parties want moderated discussion, at least to see how to proceed further. Will the editors please indicate below whether they want to discuss here or somewhere else? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


Interim Statements by Editors
Perhaps a post there or even an RfC would help. I would consent to it if Surtsicna thinks it the best course. The point of the inquiry is that we have been unable to consent to a course of action by ourselves, which therefore necessitates outside intervention. Display name 99 (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance, Robert McClenon. That is not what the dispute is about, however. Non-contemporary depictions are not problematic. The problem are obscure fictionalized portrayals, particularly if misleading. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE states that images must be significant, not primarily decorative, and have encyclopedic nature. While the portrait of Columbus (painted a decade after his death) appears on the cover of nearly every biography of him ever published (thus being significant and encyclopedic), the anonymous drawings of popes produced ten centuries after their deaths are not found in any scholarly work about the popes (thus being neither significant nor encyclopedic). The question here is whether any image is better than no image, and the answer is at MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Surtsicna (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
My question then is, why do we not remove all images of Jesus? It wasn't until centuries after the crucifixion that religious artwork depicting Him began to appear. Primary sources leave us with no description of what He actually looked like,, so presumably all images of Him should be removed according to what you have said. My position remains the same. Based on long-standing Wikipedia practice, artistic depictions purporting to portray a particular person and which depict them with clothing and facial features something like what they actually had, even if we don't know how exact they are, should continue to be used in articles. Display name 99 (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The answer to your question is in my preceding comment and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. "Purporting to portray" is not good enough. Anyone can purport to portray anything. It is not our job to judge art. Surtsicna (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Second Statement by Volunteer

I see two issues to be addressed. The first issue (or class of issues) is any specific drawings. Any question about any specific drawing should be discussed at the talk page for that article. If discussion is unsuccessful, I am willing to provide a Third Opinion, or other dispute resolution options can be used. The second issue is that my reading of the image relevance guideline is that it does not specifically discuss the case of non-contemporary drawings or representations of historical figures for whom there is no contemporary image. My own thinking is that the guideline should be clarified to provide that the images are considered encyclopedic if they have been significantly used by secondary and tertiary sources, or if they are notable as works of art. The images of Columbus and of Jesus are works that are considered notable.

Please read the ground rules. Please respond to whether you want to discuss clarifying the guidelines on image relevance, and to what specific articles on popes or other historical figures are the subjects of dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


Second Statements by Editors

Thank you Robert McClenon. I think that the issue is too consequential to be addressed with a third opinion but that there might need to be a broader consensus-seaking measure taken to decide whether non-contemporary images may be used. Surtsicna, I found an image here of Pope Urban II that was used in the 1911 book "Lives and Times of the Popes." It actually used to be the lead image in the article before being replaced with the image that you removed. If you agree that non-contemporary images can be used in articles provided that they appear in authoritative academic works, I suppose you would not object to me adding this as the lead image for the article. Display name 99 (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-contemporary images may be used. They are used in many cases. As I have said several times already, that itself is not the issue. The image you found, and the book, dates from 1842. The book was reprinted in 1911. Such illustrations were common in the 19th century. They are never used in modern reference works. They do not even appear in early 20th-century publications such as Mann's 1902 book. For the reasons already stated, I am opposed to the usage of depictions which do not appear in modern, academic biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
That seems like real hair-splitting. Also, while you had argued that the images of Urban II were fanciful because they depicted him with a beard, when he actually would have been clean-shaven, I have found a source confirming that Urban II was bearded. Steven Runciman, in Volume 1 of his mid-20th century three-volume history of the Crusades, identifies Urban as a bearded man. See page 101 [47]. At least for Urban II, I think that there is very good reason to readding the image that I proposed. It has been used in academic works, if not modern ones, and while you originally argued that it could not have looked like Urban because it depicted him with a beard, we have a source within the last century that confirms that this is an accurate depiction. I can't really see how you could reasonably be against this. Display name 99 (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The image that you removed from the article for Pope Eugene III is included in a 1921 work [48]. Display name 99 (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Third Statement by Volunteer

User:Display name 99, User:Surtsicna - Did you read the ground rules? Read them again. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Comment in the space for your comments, not in the space for my comments. I will give you a separate space for back-and-forth discussion, but you should reply to my questions. I was proposing that a Third Opinion be used for whether each image can be used. Are you willing to have a third opinion for that purpose? If not, the decision on each image for each person must wait until the general principles are clarified. Please each of you state, in one paragraph, what you think should be the guidelines for when non-contemporary images may be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly by "until the general principles are clarified?" How will this decision come about? I have briefly stated my position below. Thank you for your assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, a third editor has weighed in on Surtsicna's talk page to support the removal of the images. A third opinion might have been the best way of resolving this, but that is no longer an option, so I suppose that the dispute is now over. Surtsicna, congratulations, you've managed to debase these articles. Display name 99 (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Third Statements by Editors

Non-contemporary images should be used when they are common in modern, academic literature specializing in the subject of the article - per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and WP:PROPORTION. Wikipedia articles should be modeled after modern scholarly works, not after superseded, antique texts. Surtsicna (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-contemporary images should be used when they are shown to be an accurate representation of what someone might have looked like and especially when they are included in academic texts. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Back-and-Forth Discussion

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.

Prostitution in_New_Zealand

– 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.

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

Other user(John B123) are intentionally deleting source from New Zealand's government agencies.

[[49]]

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[[50]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

New Zealand government source is reliable. but User John B123 continues to delete the source, saying it is substandard. He forces his ideas to others in other article too. He is confusing the sample with the whole number.

Summary of dispute by John B123

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

Prostitution in_New_Zealand discussion

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

Hard science_fiction

– 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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The lines between fantasy, soft science fiction, and hard science fiction are magic, impossible technology, and possible technology. Other users repeatedly try to add soft science fiction (impossible technology like FTL) to Representative works, which should at least not contain controversial let alone blatant breaking of known laws of phisics. This is the maybe the 3rd user this edit war has happened with.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Hard_science_fiction#Interstellar? Talk:Hard_science_fiction#What_hard_SF_is

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The intro to the page indicates no FTL but people keep ignoring it, if we can have a mod or dispute resolution to direct people to, anytime this happens again we can just point the users to the page that states "yes we like your favorite work to but it belongs in a different category. And yes we know some publications contradict the consensus but not everything is true"

Summary of dispute by Trovatore

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

Hard science_fiction discussion

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

Traditional Chinese Medicine

– 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.


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

I am a new Wikipedia user and am not familiar with every technical aspect yet. I do however have a Masters degree in Health Sciences. I have been making additions to this page based on current scientific reporting standards. I have cited reputable articles and journals and noted their grade of evidence with reference to other Wikipedia pages. Somebody regularly removes my additions. Whoever is doing this is making medical claims based on inferior evidence, ie removing articles from the Journal of the American Medical Association and rather citing personal opinion in editorials. The TCM page makes regular mention of scientific processes and evidence but then when I try to input current and broader search based high quality evidence my additions are deleted. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienceLogic40

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

1. Please reinstate all my additions and freeze the page from further editing for a period of time. 2. In the interest of Wikipedia's quality and relevance as a resource I would like to see any page that relates to medicine having qualified adjudicators. These editors could judge the standard of any alternations and decide on the level of evidence provided and eligibility for inclusion.

Traditional Chinese Medicine discussion

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

1987 Icelandic parliamentary election

Dispute resolved successfully. 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.

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

I am updating the results table for the Icelandic elections to include the following:

  • Images of the seats
  • Links to other previous/subsequent elections where there is no infobox for easy navigation by readers (the navigation bar at the bottom of the page doesn’t appear on mobiles so navigation can be difficult and infoboxes are not always appropriate for small articles).
  • Retained (or added where none existed before) a column of the leaders and a column to show the percentage changes of the results compared to the last election.

User:Number 57 removed the last two points from the tables I edited (they were previously templates). The issue was discussed extensively between us on my talk page.

The user agreed the percentage change column could be added as it can be useful info. He did not want the leader column added. I tried to concede that if the leaders were mentioned elsewhere in the article, the column could be excluded from the table.

However there was no resolution so I ended the discussion there and referred it to the WikiProject Iceland talk page, where another user agreed with my proposed format of table for all Icelandic elections.

The issue was also referred to the WikiProject Election and Referendums talk page where a user thought the leaders column was sometimes useful and another thought it shouldn’t be an issue unless the leaders column in the 2019 UK election results table was also removed.

I therefore proceeded to modify the remaining election pages however the user is reverting both the leaders & percentage change column and the links to other election pages.

I think the user is abusing wiki’s BRD and is not referring to the discussions in the other talk pages.

Please advise on how to proceed.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[51] [52] [53]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am looking on how to proceed with these sort of issues?

If a proposed edit has got agreement from other users, please clarify how users should respond to that, so edit wars etc can be avoided and any proposed changes implemented?

Please advise how this issue can be resolved so I can improve Icelandic Election pages without edits being reverted.

Summary of dispute by Number 57

I doubt this is DRN-worthy, but FWIW this is effectively a dispute over whether results tables should look like this (which is probably the most common format over Wikipedia) or this (a style just created by Humungous).

I've repeatedly offered a compromise position where the colours, diagram and seat swing are included but the leader column is not.[54][55][56] I've also tried pointing out that a leaders column is not standard practice for results tables and is used only in a tiny minority of cases.

If the compromise was accepted, we'd end with something like this. However, Humongous125 insists on getting every column they want included in the table. As someone who has several thousand election articles on their watchlist and is attempting to maintain some basic form of consistency between most of them, this sort of thing doesn't really help.

Given the lack of responses so far at WT:E&R, I don't think there is yet any conclusive outcome (and the single response at WT:ICELAND isn't really relevant as the columns issue was not being discussed there). Cheers, Number 57 17:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Response by Humongous

This will be my last response before a volunteer opens this thread. Firstly, the table contains the same information, including leaders column, that the previous templates have contained for the past 8 years. Template:Icelandic parliamentary election, 2003. I am not making up a new format it is similar to other election pages, [57] [58] [59].

My proposed format in WT:ICELAND is relevent as it does mention the leaders column within my explanation of the table. Humongous125 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

1987 Icelandic parliamentary election discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - There has not been any discussion on the article talk page, at Talk:1987 Icelandic parliamentary election. The discussion prior to filing here was via edit summaries, which are not talk pages, and on WikiProject talk pages. While WikiProjects are a useful way to draw attention to discussion on article talk pages, they supplement article talk page rather than replacing them. I am not closing this discussion at this time, since the editors are here and are being civil, but I would strongly suggest that they go to the article talk page and discuss before coming back here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Happy to take it the article talk page. I will also invite a few editors who are regular results table makers to get wider input as it is likely that few editors watch the page and will notice a discussion starting. Cheers, Number 57 18:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
      • The discussions took place in this link [60], User talk:Humongous. I appreciate that its not an article talk page and will discuss further there in the next few hours to try and find a resolution. Humongous125 (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_187&oldid=952228854"