The other party in the dispute has expressed no desire to participate in the DRN case, and it is unlikely that he will in the future. Feel free to open a new DRN case if that changes.SGCM(talk)23:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
An going edit war is brewing over the nationality of Andy Scott. At his death, dozens of credible media sources were describing him as a British-born director. So on his page, he was edited as a 'British director' in the introduction section. Yet the use of a wide range of media sources to back up an edit is, according to some users, irrelevant. Thus one or two users have taken it upon themselves to change 'British director' to 'English director'.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Request further discussion regarding the repeated edits on the talk page. Offered a whole array of sources to back up my editing.
How do you think we can help?
Edit the article, using the media reports as sources, to 'British-born director'. Protect it from further editing, until the issue is solved on the talk page.
Opening comments by 82.209.185.111
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I am from the UK. For what it is worth this British/English controversy is absurd. Either description could be equally valid. The only person who could adjuducate on whether he considered his indentity to be primarily English or British is Tony Scott himself and sadly he is no longer with us so we will never know. --Corbynz (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
In the absence of a personal preference a default position clearly favours British as it is a more inclusive term internationally. We all have British passports - there is no English passport. We are all citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - we are not English citizens. We all vote in British elections - there are no national English elections or an English legislative assembly. The Queen) is Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - not England. We have a British government - there is no English government and the chief executive of our government is Prime Minister of the UK of GB and NI just like the Queen. English mainly tends to be used within Britain as one of the four distinctive ethnic groups that make up our state alongside the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish. --Corbynz (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Please do not start the discussion before I or another DRN volunteer has opened up this thread. This thread will not be opened until we receive opening statements from the IP editor. ElectricCatfish00:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't look like the IP address is interested in participating in the DRN case. The case will be closed within 24 hours.--SGCM(talk)13:59, 6 September 2012 (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.
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.
Apparent filibustering by some users to prevent content going into the page. Content was a statement about public reaction to the subject's VP nomination speech. Several editors worked to word it as neutrally as possible (relative to actual public response). Other editors continually reverted this work claiming NPOV and “take it to the talk page”, then started making personal attacks on the talk page, then took it to the NPOV noticeboard and have now gone off into personal attacks there as well.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
The “opposition” has moved this through two talk boards already. I feel like the consensus was pretty well balanced in favor of including the text on WP:NPOVN, especially from new voices not involved in the original dispute at Talk:Paul_Ryan. However, the “opposition” keeps filibustering and citing “no consensus”.
Good question. Wish I knew. Even if I just walk away, this is going to continue to rage, so I would appreciate some calmer heads stepping in, reviewing the discussion, and advising how to proceed.
Opening comments by SPECIFICO
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Rtmcrrctr
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
There was an attempt to add a certain sentence after a discription of Ryan's speech, - a sentence which said, in effect that while his speech was received well in the crowd present, it was criticised as dishonest by the commentariat. I objected to this sentence:
The inclusion of the positive reaction was a dishonest attempt to make this attempt to seem neutral, and thus to allow the opposite criticism to be presented under the guise of "neutrality". The latter - the criticism, rather than the praise - was the motive. This is an attempt of POV-pushing.
NEVER, in spite of very extensive discussion, has the alleged dishonesty been exposed for what it allegedly is. Therefore, the whole sentence has only one intention: not to inform, but rather to tarnish the reputation of Paul Ryan.
It is uninformative and presents a partisan-opinion as fact.
I believe it should be excluded from the article about Ryan (though it could be considered for inclusion in the Article about the Republican 2012 convention). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtmcrrctr (talk • contribs) 08:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by StillStanding-247
I'm not actually sure what the issue is. It's not as if we have any shortage of reliable sources, or that we haven't come up with a neutral wording. There seems to be consensus for it, and now there's an RfC on the talk page that shows consensus more formally. At this point, I'm not clear on what dispute resolution would add to this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by Azrel
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Homunq
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I believe this is an open-and-shut case on the merits. My own political leanings are no secret, but throughout my WP career, I believe I've sought reasonable compromise, and indeed I've helped successfully find it in many cases. In my memory, I've seen no clearer case of editors simply removing well-sourced content on the flimsiest of justifications.
Certainly, in a case like this, WP:AGF still applies to any individual editor. For instance, I remember User:Collect from the Sarah Palin article 4 years ago, and while I might often disagree with them, I have no doubt that they're a good-faith wikipedian. But that shouldn't blind us to the obvious and undeniable fact that there are people out there with bad-faith reasons to want this info out of this article. It is still important to be even-headed and resolve this RFC in as fair a manner as possible, but I believe that there is no reason to be overly "patient". Every hour which this info remains out of the article is, in my considered opinion, a defeat for true Wikipedian norms and spirit. Thus, while I'll be careful with WP:3RR, I do plan to take the unusual step of continuing to make (consensus-seeking) edits to the article itself even before this RFC (or whatever it is — I've lost track) is resolved.
Opening comments by Collect
[1] shows the actual problem clearly - the OP believes in BATTLEGROUND and edit war on this silly season edit. The consensus is clear - that balance is required in BLPs even during political silly season. Further that use of multiple noticeboardfs and RfCs verges on forumshopping when the OP has not been supported by Consensus elsewhere - just start another venue. [2] shows what some appear to regard as "neutrally worded". [3] is a current noticeboard discussion - in which one editor avers " we cannot give equal weight when our sources lean so heavily to one side" which is a perverse view of NPOV entirely. It suggests thta only those who say "liar" about a person would get to be heard during political silly season - as those who dop not say "liar" or who say "good speech" are thus ignored. Wikipedia does not say "NPOV means only using the loudest voices" that I can find. In short - this is "an extra added venue for an ongoing discussion" which is not how this board is supposed to operate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by Belchfire
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Evidently, the editor who initiated this DRN failed to read the guidelines:
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by George Orwell III
An analysis of the acceptance speech for Vice-President nominee Paul Ryan of the Republican party was opened in its own section.
Attempts to add a properly sourced NPOV summation of the reaction to his speech have gone through several incarnations for removal citing primarily UNDUE & NPOV violations.
Recently,the argument has shifted once again (i.e. moving target over a course of several days to make it less obvious) that while the speech was significant enough to have its own section breaking down some of the highlights of the speech, - and no other Ryan speech made during the campaign appears on the page - any addition summarizing the reported reaction and counter-analysis to the speech is not worthy of inclusion or the speech is not all that important given the short history since it was made. Reliable sources of the day beg otherwise for all the usual reasons any such speech made regardless of the ultimate victory or defeat that may take place in early November.
Either the entire mention of the speech should be removed if no reaction to it is allowed or the reaction to the speech, a one line summation, should be included. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by IRWolfie-
I'm not involved in this dispute. I edit the article as part of it's good article review but have no opinion on this issue (mainly because I haven't really looked at it in much detail). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by Avanu
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by John D. Rockerduck
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Roscelese
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Trishm
The issue, as I see it, is that some editors seem to think that an impartial description of the sources amounts to NPOV, since the reaction to Ryan's speech was unfavourable.Trishm (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by Cwobeel
We have WP:NPOV to guide us; just report what reliable sources say without talking sides in the debate and without bias. Many attempts have been made to clarify and simplify the statement for inclusion, to no avail. Some are very keen in keeping this bio as clean from controversy as possible, pushing any such materials to other articles or forks claiming "undue weight". Undue weight is one of the policies less understood and most misused. I suggest a re-read and application of WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.Cwobeel (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by MastCell
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
There's an ongoing RfC that began today, and also a WP:NPOVN noticeboard discussion. Generally, the discussion should be centered on one location and not spread out. This case should be closed and the dispute should be deferred back to the RfC. Consider opening a new DRN case if consensus is unlikely to be established on the RfC.--SGCM(talk)17:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I disagree strongly, in that part of my original complaint is precisely that some users have been forum shopping, and that needs to be addressed. But since you immediately closed discussion, this comment is likely futile. Kerfuffler (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
That complaint is about the editor, so has been ignored. The resolution of the Forum Shopping problem is to close this. ~~Ebe123~~ → report00:27, 8 September 2012 (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.
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.
I have a serious problem with an editor named Lone boatman. He is determined to push his political vies against me. He has visited my blog (http://ofthehighest.wordpress.com) and has written to me saying that he disapproves of my views. Apparently, this is why he is determined to stop me from writing on Wikipedia about the eternity clause. He continually tries to claim the political view that German's Basic Law is a "constitution" and takes the word "democracy" out of referenced material, replacing it with "constitution". Now, he is trying to add all the material in the Wikipedia's article on "entrenched clause" into the eternity clause article, only to vandalize the eternity clause article. The "entrenched clause" article is where his new material belongs, not in the eternity clause article which has a Deutsch.de article on the same. The entrenched clauses of other countries are already in the "entrenched clause" article. The problem is that Lone boatman is just wanting to cause trouble so as to censor what I have been writing. He apparently thinks he is the chief controller of the article and can accuse me of this and that because he knows all the rules. I have done all I can to please this person, but now I see that his intent is not to help, but to vandalize the article.--Ofthehighest (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2012 (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.
Onibaba
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
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.
User JoshuSasori not only repeatedly reverts infos I've added to the film which I gave sources for (up to five inone instance), but also other already given info. The argument is aways the same: Denouncing the source as "unreliable", even going so far that he (deliberately or mistakenly) misquotes the source(s) to prove they're faulty and unreliable. These infos include cultural inflences on the film or the use of narrative styles. It's all documented on the film's talk page; while I accept JoshuSasori's point in #7 "Name of Buddhist legend" unless I can give sources which prove him wrong, his other reverts and deletions discussed in #8-10 on the talk page are not acceptable in my eyes.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Asking another user Betty Logan to moderate, without effect.
How do you think we can help?
To convince user JoshuSasori that it is not up to him alone to decide which source is reliable, and accept that he cannot revert info found in (sometimes multiple) sources only because he doesn't share their view.
Opening comments by JoshuSasori
Robert Kerber wants to place undue prominence on a theory that the film "Onibaba" is based on the Japanese "Noh" theatre form. I have suggested that he should put this into the critical reception or analysis part of the article rather than the lead section, since it is only a theory of a minority of critics. The references he has provided to support the theory are extremely dubious. For example, one reference contains the claim that the film contains Noh music, and another one claims it uses Noh acting and Noh plotline. I viewed the film to check these claims. It is extremely clear that the music in the film is dissonant jazz played on brass instruments over taiko drums. This is not Noh theatre music. I added reputable sources to the article that it is jazz music. Many more online sources can be found simply using an internet search engine and added if this claim is in dispute. The claim of Noh acting and Noh plotline is extremely dubious, since Noh is a form of highly ritualized acting using masks and special movements and voices, whereas this film is filmed in modern narrative style with no such voices, or movements, and the plotline of the film is not at all similar to that of a Noh play. The film director's books make no mention of Noh plays. Since a small minority of critics have made this claim, it would be a reasonable addition to the article, in a section on critical analysis or reception of the film, but certainly not stated as if undisputed fact in the lead section of the article. Robert Kerber also wishes to retain uncited information about the film containing slow motion and distorted or strange camera angles. The assertion seems to rely on original research of watching the film and claiming that, because some reeds are moving slowly, the film contains slow motion camera work. Without any source for the claim of slow motion or distorted camera angles, and since they are not visible in the film itself, I cannot see why this apparently false claim should be retained in the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
I'm happy to oblige but cannot see anything in my opening comment above which is about the conduct of the other person. I believe I have focused on the content dispute only. If there is some problem with my statement, please be more specific about what. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, comments like "I hope you will make some good edits to the article in future" or "not regular collaborator" are enough, aren't they? It's the same tactics which you use when you denounce every single of my arguments incl. my sources given which you call "unreliable", just all of them, even going so far to misquote them to make them appear unreliable. See the talk page.--Robert Kerber (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way, not regular collaborator refers to the edit where you removed a phrase about Hikaru Hayashi being a regular collaborator of Kaneto Shindo. I'm sure a brief glance through the Hikaru Hayashi article will demonstrate that he was a regular collaborator of Shindo's. I have no idea what your problem is with putting these words in the title of a discussion in the talk page. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can discern, the origin of the theory that this film is based on Noh is a book by Keiko I. McDonald (a deceased professor at Pittsburg University in the USA) called "Reading a Japanese film: Cinema in context". It contains a chapter on this film, where the author draws a number of comparisons between this film and Noh plays, and it claims that this resemblance is intentional on the part of the film makers. Keiko I. McDonald also wrote another book called "Japanese Classical Theatre in Films" claiming that various other Japanese film directors were influenced by Bunraku, Kabuki, and Noh. I have not seen this book but believe it does not mention Onibaba in particular. The references contradicting this claim are the works of the film's director and scriptwriter, Kaneto Shindo. He has written very extensively about his work. I have not read all his books, but in the works I have read, he does not mention Noh plays as a source of inspiration for this, or any other of his films. Furthermore, discussions of the film by critics such as Tadao Sato or Donald Richie do not mention the "Noh play" connection. For more references, please see the talk page of the article. My comments about the references: I don't see anything in any of the references so far to shake my belief that this is an opinion about the film, and thus doesn't belong in the lead section, but in a section on critical analysis, qualified with the name of the critic, as in "Japanese film scholar Keiko I. McDonald says that the film contains elements of Noh plays, such as ..." It's not well-referenced enough to be presented as an undisputed factual statement in the lead section. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
You know, I have a bad habit of rewriting the seriously flawed articles from scratch. When I do so, I always write the lede last, and only summarize the article there, trying hard to maintain the balance and the weight of each summary item. As far as I can tell, this is the idea behind WP:LEDE. Is there any reason not to follow it in case of this film? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 02:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Others agree with you: I think you are putting the cart before the horse though. Nothing should be in the lede that isn't already covered in the main body of the article, so personally what I would do is develop the analysis section first before trying to make alterations to the lede. - Betty Logan. Yet Robert Kerber has not made the slightest attempt to add this information to the critical reception section of the article. He just keeps on and on and on complaining and arguing, when an acceptable solution has been suggested by me, and you, and Betty Logan: put the information in the critical reception section of the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The point of this discussion is not about the mentioning of Noh in the lead section any more, but "should Noh be mentioned as an influence at all?". Please remember that I listed 5 (five) sources, not only McDonald. JoshuSasori, convinced that Noh is not an influence, made every attempt to prove these sources wrong just to have his point. See talk page. My guess is that the mentioning of Noh influences will vanish as quickly from the article's body section as the mentioning of (the next point) slow motion shots in the film which he has deleted. (I reverted the deletion, he deleted the sentence in question again.) J. denied any existing slow motion shots, ignored my source given (Alanna Donaldson) again as "unreliable" and even denied that the shots I listed with exact time were slow motion shots. (The only solution in this case is having somebody else take a look at the film.) Again, see talk page. So, please, I do not "keep on and on complaining and arguing" for the sake of it. Thx – Robert Kerber (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately the above contains a fair amount of misrepresentation, so I have added what I actually said on the talk page in bold below. I have broken this up into bullet points and please feel free to answer under each bullet point individually.
The point of this discussion is not about the mentioning of Noh in the lead section any more, but "should Noh be mentioned as an influence at all?". - this is quite frankly not true. Robert Kerber has not tried adding the notions in the critical reception section, and my first response to him, on 10:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC), was If it says in the lead section that it is based on Noh dramatics, without saying that statement is based on a critic's analysis of the film, I think it is misleading. The critic's analysis would be OK in the reception or analysis part of the article, but not at the top. I then went on to repeat this again at 00:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC): This seems to be merely a critical analysis. Without evidence that the film's creators intentionally used aspects of the Noh theatre, this should not be added in the lead section of the article as if it is an undisputed fact. It should be put into a reception or analysis section of the article, with the critics' names, such as "Keiko McDonald says that it incorporates aspects of the Noh theatre". Thus I repeatedly told him from the very beginning that this would be acceptable in the reception section but not in the lead section, without a clear labelling of it as an opinion. Betty Logan described what I said at 15:21, 1 September 2012 with His suggestion of adding it to the analysis section seems like a sensible one to me, would this be a reasonable compromise for you? Robert Kerber would not accept Betty Logan's opinion, and disingenuously claims that this was Asking another user Betty Logan to moderate, without effect., when in fact the other user twice told him that what I was saying was reasonable, and yet he chose to ignore her.
Not true. I said: "I am open to making compromises, but I still don't see why this aspect, which is consensus among many critics/film historians (I'm sure there are more out there apart from the ones I listed), shouldn't be included in the lead section when it helps to classify a film either in its genre or cultural context at first glance?"--Robert Kerber (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The notion that the film Onibaba has anything to do with Noh theatre is a fanciful speculation of a small minority of critics. It has no place being stated as unqualified fact in the lead section of the article. It not only does not help readers of the article, it misleads them with a crackpot theory. JoshuSasori (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Please remember that I listed 5 (five) sources, not only McDonald. - most of them don't look reliable. McDonald is probably the origin of the idea. From 07:28, 30 August 2012 I said: Five sources or three sources, and some of them are in German, and it's not clear they are notable film critics writing from authority, or just anonymous people blurting out imaginative notions. Why? Because it is made in Japan and Noh is from Japan, there is a connection? I actually do not think this film has any more elements of Noh in it than it has elements of morris dancing, but if some notable film critic could be provided who claims that, then it would be ok to add to the article, maybe in an analysis section. However, please don't put the critics' speculation into the lead section like it is a fact.
JoshuSasori, convinced that Noh is not an influence, made every attempt to prove these sources wrong just to have his point. - the sources actually were wrong on a number of points - Noh music, Noh acting, Noh plotline are all demonstrably incorrect. I sourced the statement that it is jazz not Noh music.
My guess is that the mentioning of Noh influences will vanish as quickly from the article's body section as the mentioning of (the next point) slow motion shots in the film which he has deleted. - Robert Kerber so far hasn't added the information to the article in the critical reception section yet, would it really be more effort for Robert Kerber to try that than to argue here? I have been asking Robert Kerber to add it there for a week, why would I remove it again?
J. denied any existing slow motion shots, - no, I said I could not see them and asked Robert Kerber to say where they were - At 21:22, 2 September 2012 I said I watched the film again yesterday and did not notice a significant amount of slow motion. Shindo undoubtedly did not have a slow motion camera. Where in the film are the distorted or strange camera angles?
ignored my source given (Alanna Donaldson) again as "unreliable" - no, I said Robert Kerber had misunderstood it. The source seemed to be Eureka Video not Alanna Donaldson. At 12:21, 5 September 2012, I said Thank you, but unfortunately you have misread the thing which you quote. The above says that the film's tempo shifts from ghostly slow motion to furious action and back in a matter of seconds. Tempo in this case means the pacing of the film and does not refer to camera work. The above does not say anything about the film using slow motion filming, or distorted or strange camera angles.
and even denied that the shots I listed with exact time were slow motion shots. - I don't see slow motion at the points Robert Kerber mentioned - at 09:53, 6 September 2012 I said In particular, the times where Robert Kerber says there is slow motion, in fact seem to be perfectly normal motion. One shows Jitsuko Yoshimura running out of the hut through the reeds at a normal speed, and the other shows the hole with reeds swaying rapidly just before the older woman climbs down it. . But I did provide Robert Kerber with a point in the film where there ARE slow motion shots, right at the end when the women jump over the pit.
(The only solution in this case is having somebody else take a look at the film.) - no, that would be original research. The only solution is to find a source which actually says that there are slow motion shots, not to mention the distorted camera angles and strange camera angles which Robert Kerber also included in that edit which Robert Kerber reverted, if Robert Kerber still says that they are there.
Since Robert Kerber will not do the obvious resolution of this problem, to include the critical analysis about Noh plays in the reception section, and since he has no source for the original research claim of slow motion at the points he mentions in this film, I suggest that this discussion should now be closed. Thank you to everyone for their time and apologies for any lack of patience on my behalf. JoshuSasori (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Not too much time, but here's a start, missing quotes will follow:
1. I. McDonald: Reading a Japanese Film: Cinema in Context, University of Hawai'i Press 2006, p. 108 ff. Eg: "Equally important are Shindo's borrowings from Noh conventions, especially the hannya demon mask" (p. 110) or "the conventions of Noh are powerfully used in the staging of the women's encounter" (p. 115) plus many more parallels drawn between Onibaba and Noh.
I am happy to let you finish, but the reason we are here is because you won't accept that this should be put in the critical analysis section of the article. You've even admitted this now, and I have even added the information myself to the critical analysis section. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It's actually this kind of quote which makes this theory so unlikely. The music in the film is quite categorically nothing to do with Noh music. You don't have to take my word for this, either - there are many sources, as I have pointed out on the talk page. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
3. Onibaba article in Ikonen magazin: "Die Filme [Onibaba and Kuroneku] folgen in ihrer Schauspielkunst, Erzählstruktur und Inhalt den klassischen japanischen Nô-Stücken." = "These Films [Onibaba and Kuroneku] follow classic Japanese No Plays in the ways of acting, narrative structure and content."
Again, this is clearly a false statement. The plotline of the film is not at all similar to a Noh play, and the acting is not at all similar to the stylized forms of a Noh play. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
4. German distributor's („neue filmform“) press map, Munich 1966
Out of all the sources, this (from 1966) is the only one which cannot be someone copying or riffing on McDonald's spiel, so it is the one source where I would be very interested to find what the quote is. If you have time, please translate and add it here. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
5. Onibaba article by Ms. Donaldson in John Berra's Directory of World Cinema: Japan p. 185: "[Onibaba] draws on the classical Noh theatre of the era that it evokes." She also mentions the slow motion sequences whose existence in the film Joshu denied until 2 days ago.
The fact that you have claimed there is slow motion in the film at points where there patently isn't, doesn't exactly strengthen your case. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, you have attributed the slow motion quote first to Eureka Video, then to Alanna Donaldson, and now you are attributing it to Keiko McDonald? I am getting very confused, but also amused, by this. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you please add your statements below this paragraph while I try to make my points? Unamused--Robert Kerber (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Btw do you have a PAL or NTSC copy? Of course then the film points are not in sync. Also, I only mentioned Eureka and Donaldson in this case.
Btw Some of these sources can be found on Google books.
Btw do you have a PAL or NTSC copy? - oh, please. Also, I only mentioned Eureka and Donaldson in this case - no, you also mentioned alanna donaldson, on this very page: J. denied any existing slow motion shots, ignored my source given (Alanna Donaldson) again as "unreliable" and even denied that the shots I listed with exact time were slow motion shots.JoshuSasori (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I stop right here until someone tells JoshuSasori to stop this constant mocking - I am not mocking you, I am disagreeing with you. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I may be getting something wrong, but it seems to me that you only contradict each other on the "slow motion" part. On the Noh you make unrelated statements: JoshuSasori says it is not Noh, and Robert Kerber says it is influenced by Noh. Given that "influenced" is something vague and requires professional competence to disclaim, the article may safely state that some see the influence from Noh. Given that this opinion doesn't seem to be dominating, this statement should be attributed as minor view. Now, may the parties elaborate on "slow motion"? Sources with English quotes would be helpful. JoshuSasori, I would appreciate sources saying that there is no "slow motion", though I'm not sure there is something to find. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience with this discussion. I have not claimed there is no slow motion, I merely asked where it is in the film. I removed it from the article because I cannot see it in the film and it was uncited. I also asked where there are strange or distorted camera angles. After this discussion and a repeated viewing, I noted there is slow motion at the end of the film where the women jump over the pit (see talk page), and I also note from reading Keiko McDonald's book just now that there appears to be slow motion at the points where the dead bodies are dropped in the pit. What is strange is that I don't see slow motion where RK says he does. So that is problematic if we cannot agree, isn't it? I also do not see the claimed distorted or strange angles, and RK hasn't supplied a reference or a time when they are visible. What I'll do is to add some notes on slow motion to the article now, and then if RK disagrees about that then he can discuss it again. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I think there's a very basic answer to the slow motion thing. User:JoshuSasori has a (presumed reliable) source. User:Robert Kerber has stated flat out that he was looking at the film himself—that's original research. By WP policy, it's very clear which one has precedent. But I truly wonder why either of you care so much about this. Kerfuffler (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I specifically insist on sources as the unsourced questioned claims should be dropped from the article. Regarding "distorted or strange angles": call me dumb, but I don't understand this phrase. Well, I could understand strange angle if there was some clarification (eg. "viewpoint is rotated 197° clockwise", but I can't imagine distorted angle. Or may be the word angle was supposed to mean something else? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand this about strange camera angles. I did not see anything distorted in the film. RK hasn't tried to defend this, although I keep asking. Also RK was upset about something about the "regular collaborator" part of that edit, but I don't understand that either. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Kerfuffler, it's not original research (although even the other user finally agreed after repeated - ? - viewing that there do some slow motion shots exist in the film), I gave this source for the slow motion shots as well: Onibaba article by Ms. Donaldson in John Berra's Directory of World Cinema: Japan p. 185. See section above, below D. Czarkoff's request to list my sources. This probably got lost because thanks to the other user's constant interruptions my points have become virtually unreadable. I'm a bit wondering that nobody here seems to care about this unpolite behaviour. D. Czarkoff, the disagreement concerns two points, 1. the influence of Noh on the film and 2. the use of slow motion shots.
It is very gracious of the other user to finally (after battling them before, documented on the film's talk page) include two short notes on the Noh influence and use of slow motion shots in the article. Why not include the other sources (Lowenstein, Donaldson/Directory of World Cinema, Ikonen magazine) as well? McDonald is not the only person who makes these claims, see my list above.
I would also appreciate it if the other user would post his answer below this paragraph instead of interrupting it again, thank you.
--Robert Kerber (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to request the page admins again to kill this debate. The article has been edited to include the information which Robert Kerber insists should be included, in a way which everyone except Robert Kerber agrees is the best way to do it. There is nothing else left to debate here and no conflict to resolve. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
After, as now has happened, the inclusion of information in the article which I think crucial (Noh influences and use of slow motion shots) and gave various sources for, which the other user rejected in the beginning but finally and graciously accepted, the only remaining objection – apart from his way of debating things – I have is the ongoing exclusion of the other sources: Lowenstein, Donaldson, Ikonen magazine. Maybe he will rethink this as well, as citing more than source makes certain statements look more serious.
I will add excerpts and translation of the German release press map (mentioned above) as soon as I find the time.
Maybe Kerfuffler and D. Czarkoff find the time to consider my answer above. I never endorsed original research. Thanks.
FWIW I'd support an inclusion of the sources, provided that either the link to the published text is given or the references come with translated quotes. At least that would allow other editors review the quotes and sources and jump in with their judgment, which is the way Wikipedia articles are supposed to be created. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:35, 8 September 2012 (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.
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.
My comments are being deleted from the Barack Obama talk page by "Seb az86556" and
"Tarc"
I have not made edits to the Barack Obama page. My position is that Al-awlawki's killing belongs in that page. My post, though long, was directly to the point, an argument in favor of its inclusion.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have posted to their talk pages.
How do you think we can help?
Please allow my talk page contribution to stand. These two editors claim it is "general discussion" and that I am "airing grievances." This is not true. I am trying to improve the Obama article, to make it more balanced.
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Tarc
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Barack Obama discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the 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.
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.
Seb az86556, Tarc, and Wikidemon seem hesitant to engage with the substance of my points, arguing instead over fora and procedural Wikipedia matters. They have been deleting and asking for deletion of my comments on talk pages. How can I debate then? Or contribute substantively?
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I did bring it up on Editor Assistance but was told Dispute Resolution was now necessary.
How do you think we can help?
I would like someone to ask Tarc and Seb and Wikidemon not to delete my edits to talk pages. I will try to be more concise. Brevity is the soul of wit, etc.
Opening comments by Seb az86556
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Tarc
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by and Wikidemon
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the 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.
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.
Discussion on talk page has been met with personal attacks and possibly legal threats. Editors do not have a neutral point of view and do not follow Wikipedia's guidelines.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I invited an expert on physics to join the discussion
How do you think we can help?
Maybe locking the page but I'm not sure
Opening comments by Msberman
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by MarceloBerman
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Marcelo Samuel Berman discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the 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.
RFC is under 10 days old and it's not certain of consensus is established yet. Please feel free to re-file once the RFC is closed with a consensus or the typical 30 day period has expired. Hasteur (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
Currently, a subsection of 'Controversies' is entitled 'Allegations of Conservative Bias.' A number of editors have expressed their opinion that the words 'Allegations of' should be removed. A number of other editors insist that the words should remain. There's something of a slow-speed edit war taking place over the issue.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I think there's an RFC out there. I've participated in the talk-page discussion.
How do you think we can help?
It would be keen to get additional input from uninvolved editors. It would also be nifty if someone uninvolved could close the RFC if/when it appears that a consensus has developed.
Opening comments by 24.177.125.104
I don't think those words serve a purpose in furtherance of Wikipedia. I'd thought it was a semantic dispute at first, but I'm begining to suspect that those in favor of maintaining the current language are attempting to lend undue weight to the position that the contention of bias is unfounded-- in other words, that the phrase "Allegations of" serves an analogous purpose to scare-quotes, and thus violates WP:UNDUE.
I'm also concerned with and disappointed about some recent comments made by Niteshift36 which I viewed as being condescending. I'd request that we focus on content, not contributors.
Opening comments by Niteshift36
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by InedibleHulk
The title of a controversy section should describe the controversy, not one side of it. The controversy here is about whether or not FOX News has a conservative bias in its reporting. The allegations and denials of such are actions taken by either side in the controversy, not the subject of the controversy. Giving the alleging side extra weight via bold section header is not neutral, no more than "Denial of conservative bias" or "Allegations of objectivity" would be. Whether these allegations are true or false is irrelevant. Wikipedia must be impartial in framing the argument. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Fox News discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
RFC is 10 days old. Let's give that a bit more time to work through. Consider advertising the RFC at appropriate wikiprojects (TV, Political Parties, etc.) Hasteur (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2012 (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.
Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
The consensus is that the source must explicitly state a claim if it is to be included in the article. Analysis of implications, if not directly mentioned in the source, is original research and should not be brought up in the article.SGCM(talk)03:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
Two reports on the Sri Lankan Civil War were produced following its end: a UN panel report on accountability (the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka) in April 2011 and the report by the Sri Lankan government's Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) in December 2011. Both reports made recommendations. In March 2012 the UNHRC passed a resolution which urged the Sri Lankan government to implement the LLRC's recommendations. The UNHRC did not consider the UN panel's report. Neither the draft resolution tabled by the USA nor the final resolution adopted by the UNHRC mentioned the UN panel's report. The two reports aren't mutually exclusive. They both contain similar, if not the same, recommendations.
Himesh84 has made additions to the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka article in which he claims that the UNHRC "accepted the LLRC over the Report of UN Secretary General". I asked him provide references to back up his claim but he has not provided any references, stating "It is very much clear UNHRC accepted LLRC over the other article [UN panel report]". Without reliable, neutral references Himesh84's claims are nothing more than personal analysis.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
This has been discussed on the article's talk page for the last two weeks but we have been unable to agree.
How do you think we can help?
Explain to Himesh84 that his additions are personal analysis.
Opening comments by Himesh84
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Secretary-General(SG) report was published in 2011 March and LLRC made published in December 2011 as an alternative to SG's report. Both report address the same issue but implementations are different. LLRC recommend to solve issues locally, but SG's panel found that the Sri Lankan justice system was incapable of providing accountability. So there is a clear difference in believing and implementing others recommendations. In 2012 UNHRC summit , UNHRC decided to proceed with LLRC. Since LLRC contains implementation part which is differ from SG's implementation methods, UNHRC has chosen LLRC implementation methods over SG's implementation methods(They may not mutually exclusive. But not Coherent. Sri Lankan government doesn't agree on SG's panel recommendations and SG's panel doesn't agree on LLRC recommendations. If recommendations are identical this can't be happened ). After UNHRC decision, implementers have to follow LLRC methods. When methods are differ they will chose LLRC methods over SG's methods.
When there are alternatives to address same thing and if one is chosen, others will be automatically deselected. This is a well known fact, not an personal analysis. I can give real world examples.
Obama is the US president. He can requests (order) to withdraw army from Iraq, allocate money to financial firms,... But someone who doesn't participated to the presidential election can give opposite requests. But officers are following Obamas requests (used the term 'orders') over others. No one asking references. Every one know Obama is the selected one others are deselected with or without participating to the election. So this is not personal analysis but it is a well known fact.
I wanted the answer from Sudar and Obi2canibe to the following question to clarify it. But they never answered this valid question. This is a valid situation that implementers definitely had to face in the future.
Lets say this report saying some thing should be achieved by process 'A' but LLRC says process 'B'. After the feedback from UNHRC summit, what should be the correct approach ? Process A or B ?
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
I'm afraid Himesh84's opening comments are a continuation of what he was doing on the article's talk pages. He avoids answering the issue at the heart of this dispute - Wikipedia is a place for facts backed up by reliable references, not personal analysis - and instead comes up with irrelevant analogies.--obi2canibetalkcontr15:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. WP:OR states "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves". Himesh84 has not provided any reliable, published sources to back up his assertion that UNHRC "accepted the LLRC over the Report of UN Secretary General".--obi2canibetalkcontr18:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I have answered to the issue. I have clearly mentioned the implementations are not coherent and have described how implementation methods are differ.Your claim "They both contain similar, if not the same, recommendations" is wrong. That's the only thing you can use to prove using over is wrong. As I described in initial comments, there is big differences in the believing and implementation methods. Also my question is not irrelevant. You can answer it without bothering relevant or irrelevant. I am not agree you saying it is irrelevant. So I expect either your answer or reliable references to confirm it is irrelevant. When Implementing the solution, implementers have to chose implementations of LLRC over SG's methods. How is that be irrelevant ? It is a must faced , unavoidable situation. It is a Scenario case. Also don't worry whether this is a continuation of the previous discussion or not when we hope to get best solution. I will answer to your all questions. Please answer to the my question without hiding behind rules and regulations. --Himesh84 (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Himesh84 I understand it can be frustrating at times but you must be able to have verifiable sources that confirms your edits. Please, review WP:OR. You may also wish to review Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:synthesis. Your edits constitute WP:OR and will continue to be challenged until you reference them with verifiable sources.
:I have referenced the UNHRC vote which they voted to implement LLRC. Can you Please specifically describe for what parts/ statements do you expect further references ? If it to using word "Over", it is not a WP:OR. It is a well know fact. I have described it in my previous example. At least can you Answer to my question ? --Himesh84 (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Himesh84, your are filibustering. You have been asked repeatedly to provide reliable references to show that the UNHRC chose the LLRC report over the UN panel report. The Colombo Telegraph reference you provided only states that the UNHRC resolution was passed. It does not state that the UNHRC chose the LLRC report over the UN panel report. The passing of the resolution is undisputed.--obi2canibetalkcontr20:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Only facts should be referenced. Not axioms. LLRC proposing a local solution. But UN SG's panel (Don't use the term UN report. UNHRC is the official UN committee about Human right violations ) proposing international solution. LLRC rejected international solution, UNSG's panel rejected local solution. When asking to implement LLRC by a resolution it is asking to solve problems locally. Local and international are completely opposite and are mutually exclusive choices. You must try to understand it without asking references every time. If you can understand that they are opposite, you has to accept UNHRC accepted LLRC over UNSG's panel report. You try to skip the conversation. You are the filibustering one. Without going into constructive conversation , you repeatedly asking reference to a well established axiom.--Himesh84 (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Obi2canibe, you have claimed "They both contain similar, if not the same, recommendations". I wanted to get clarify your own words. Are both recommended to resolve issue locally or internationally ? --Himesh84 (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
What I am asking are both report recommending local solution or international solution. Without knowing his answer (local or international implementation) I can't find references to the implementation differ from his assumed implementation method --Himesh84 (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Himesh84, Wikipedia isn't a forum to discuss the relative merits of the two reports. A simple request has been made of you: provide references for your additions. If you can't provide this, admit it and remove your additions.--obi2canibetalkcontr20:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I am just asking to clarify your initial comments. It is sense of using the word "over". According to the definition of "over" it can be used in here.
UNHRC have given preference to the LLRC from bunch of reports (see the main article of the UNSG's report) to address human right promotion activities in Sri Lanka. LLRC is a tabled/approved/accpeted report in UNHRC. I have linked it. But UNSG's report is not a considered/approved report in UNHRC. If you accept that the approved thing has more preference than unapproved things UNHRC has clear preference towards LLRC. So using the word "over" is correct.
Since I have given link to the definition of "over" you should keep my changes. Otherwise you should prove that un accepted things has equal or more preference than accepted things. --Himesh84 (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
"If you accept that the approved thing has more preference than unapproved things..." Therein is the problem. Being approved (as in an approved document, like in this context) is not synonymous with preference. The two have very different connotations. Implying that they are synonymous is original research, and you will have to find a reliable source that explicitly states the UNHRC has a preference over the other report. If there isn't a source that states it, then the Wikipedia article can't make that claim.--SGCM(talk)05:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with SGCM that "Implying that they are synonymous is original research, and you will have to find a reliable source that explicitly states the UNHRC has a preference over the other report. If there isn't a source that states it, then the Wikipedia article can't make that claim." Himesh84, please stop reverting the article to your version after this stage of opinion regarding the issue at hand at [[DRN}. Please don't drag things to no where, then we should consider its of WP:CIR.Sudar123 (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Lets wait until Obi2canibe reveal his opinion on this. He is the one who started to asking references to using word "over".He is the one who bought the issue to here. Now I have referenced it. --Himesh84 (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You haven't found or cited any references, you are just pushing your Original Research in a circle. If you want, please find a good blog and edit there.Sudar123 (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Himesh84, this is just more filibustering. Of course I agree with SGCM when he says "you will have to find a reliable source that explicitly states the UNHRC has a preference over the other report. If there isn't a source that states it, then the Wikipedia article can't make that claim". Are we done, you'll withdraw your additions?--obi2canibetalkcontr17:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I have been accused of some wrong doing but deadly enough for any external investigation. I was allowed for internal investigation by my own conscience by the law enforcing bodies doesn't mean - "Internal Investigation is accepted over External Investigation". Their choice doesn't validate they have rejected the other. Maybe at the later stage, they may go for the External Investigation.Sudar123 (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This request will be closed as resolved within 24 hours. The consensus here is that the source must explicitly state a claim if the statement is included in the article. Analysis of implications, if not mentioned in the source, should not be brought up in the article. This is especially germane, given that the subject, the Sri Lankan Civil War, is a controversial one.--SGCM(talk)23:16, 12 September 2012 (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.
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.
He also sockpuppeted me because I edited from work and home PCs but I use the same account on both PCs, so he is wrong blocking me.
I took the references to the papers from another wiki page on N-back. I believe that without these references the article on Fluid Intelligence is biased and one-sided.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I was trying to talk to User:Cresix on his user page
How do you think we can help?
I think that wikipedia must be unbiased and represent full spectrum of current research. If my phrasing of the papers does not confirm wikipedian standards, it must be marked as so, but reference to the papers must present at the article on Fluid Intelligence so somebody better than me could improve the article.
Opening comments by Cresix
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Fluid and crystallized intelligence discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the 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.
Substantial talk page discussion is required prior to filing a request here. Please feel free to re-file when this requirement has been satisfied Hasteur (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
My objective is to provide an article that meets your content guidelines and provides accurate information on Unified Software Technologies, an Orlando FL ISV. The article is a blend of information about the ISV and lock-free programming that cites academic and corporate references.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have commented in the Talk page on the three content bullets at the top of our article placed there by editors. I request re-consideration of the content bullets.
How do you think we can help?
The first two bullets are inaccurate. In terms of notability, the company is a start-up and is in the process of forging relationships in the academic and business communities on an ongoing basis; this will improve the content disposition relative to notability.
Opening comments by
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Unified Software Technologies discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the 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.
It takes two people to have a dispute - only one is listed. No evidence of any prior attempts to discuss this on a talk page. Filer did not follow instructions when filing (I would clean it up if that was the only issue). Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
An editor removed content from sub-article that has been in main article for over a year. Request 3rd opinion on legitimacy of content and recommendations for improvement.
Disputed text:
Mercury, a known neurotoxin has been found in high fructose corn syrup from plants that use older "mercury cell" technology, including 4 plants in Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio and West Virginia[1][2][3][4].
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Attempted to improve quality of references by removing weak references from Corn Growers Association, and kept peer reviewed study and news media coverage (same links that have long been in the main article).
How do you think we can help?
Provide an opinion on the validity of the content and suggestions for improvement if any.
Opening comments by WLU
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the 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.
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. It is as close to a dead-end as it can get. I've exhausted most other ways to seek wider input.
India is presently a long-standing featured article. But that's for another day. The thing is, many other FAs about countries (Japan, Germany, Canada, Australia et al.) have a city population template in the demographics section and with good reason. India doesn't have one. So I made a template (actually I made two because of the high variety of subsequent complaints about its "ugly looks"). I went to discuss. Got feedback along the lines of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.
"This was discussed [where?] in the past and the template was removed... I for one think that these city templates are nothing but an eyesore." - apparently the editors of other FAs that have the template, are unmindful. That's what it seems to me.
"No need for more clutter" - notice that the "demographics" section of other similar FAs (Germany, Japan, Australia) usually contain subsections like "religion", "language", "education", "health"; India, being an FA, has none of that, yet supposedly it is causing too much clutter as far as the inclusion of the template is concerned. And so forth.
After undergoing this highly perplexing and hazy discussion, I boldly inserted one of the templates in the demographics section, to see what happens afterwards, naturally it was reverted with the summary "consensus first, inclusion later". I continued the discussion, again replies were "Looks awful", "no to such ugliness", "India is preeminently (and in my view thankfully still) a rural country".
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Talked to some of them personally, tried to explain how it will be helpful in giving a rough sketch an Idea of India's urban agglomeration in the top most populous cities and so on. I told that we may squabble about the looks of the template all we want but that alone or WP:IDON'TLIKEITcannot serve as grounds for removal of the template altogether, especially when other FAs have these in demographics section. I had some support too. Thus, there is currently no consensus for or against it.
How do you think we can help?
By providing your neutral (by 'neutral' I mean taking into consideration the norm) perspective on the issue and guidance. I am frankly tired of listening to sophistries and downright asinine comments, now I don't wish to see them repeated here. Read this to get an even clearer view.
Opening comments by Saravask
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by RegentsPark
MilborneOne has expressed the issue accurately below. Noting to add except gentle advice to OP that consensus doesn't always go the way you want it to. --regentspark (comment) 14:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by MilborneOne
Not sure this is a really a dispute, Mrt3666 suggested adding a big cities template and has failed to gain a consensus to add it. Despite the comment above about grounds for removal of the template altogether is not the case of being removed = this was a request for addition of a template that didnt exist before and as it has been challenged it needs a discussion and clear consensus to add it. The discussion then moves on to what the template should look like ignoring the fact it hasnt got a clear consensus to add. Mrt3666 has made his case and other editors have commented but they have failed to get a consensus to add it. So really status quo is the answer, the template doesnt get added and we move on, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by Ashley thomas80
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Dwaipayan
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by CorrectKnowledge
Some of the editors like Ashley and regentspark have suggested improvements to Mrt3366's proposal or have come up with proposals of their own (addition of images rather than templates) on Talk:India. Other editors have dismissed the idea outright with comments that can be described as lazy at best. Addition of template to the article isn't a bad idea at all as other FA's prove. The problem here is that no consensus benefits the default position of no template in the article. So, some editors might be less inclined to work towards consensus than others. Hopefully, DRN will be more successful than other attempts that have been made to resolve this. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»09:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by Ratnakar.kulkarni
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:India discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hello, I'm a volunteer at DRN. I understand the problem here to be whether or not to include a chart in the article. My question to all is, all ascetics aside, will the chart improve the article and Wikipedia? Jobberone (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Forget consensus for a moment. If there were a clear consensus against or for it, I would not have been here.
So it's useless to ask other involved editors. You can easily know what they think by just visiting Talk:India. Stop asking please. I previously stated that you can help by providing your neutral (by 'neutral' I mean taking into consideration the norm) perspective on the issue and guidance. Besides, compare this with other FAs like (Japan, Germany, Australia). You still feel the need to ask whether or not this will add anything to the wikipedia/article? I am stunned! What does your common sense say? Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)18:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Many related articles include duplicated material. The inclusion of a small chart reflecting the population of the largest cities in India is not a problem whether redundant or not. A simple statement that the majority of the population is rural is sufficient. If someone wishes to include a pie chart etc or a table of the rural populations of the states/territories fine. The population of India in not a controversial subject to the overwhelming majority of readers. Jobberone (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
A small non-template list is already there. I disagree that a large 20 city template will not be UNDUE, especially with pictures. The other developing country FAs: Indonesia, Peru, Chad, Cameroon, Peru, all with large rural populations, do not have these charts. If the India page had an urbanization subsection, a smaller template chart could perhaps go into it, but that is a decision that needs to be made on that page. There is lots of information that can go into the India page. As the second most trafficked country page on Wikipedia, it gets non-stop requests from people to do just that. Tomorrow someone will want to put in another template on some other topic. We have to draw a line somewhere. There is a good reason why the India page is the longest standing country featured article. (It will complete 8 years on September 16.) Fowler&fowler«Talk»19:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
@Jobberone: Here is what the demographics section says:
I don't see what information this template will add. The "million-plus cities" link takes a reader straight to the page from which this template has been copied. Fowler&fowler«Talk»19:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree its not totally necessary. OTOH, it is really not burdensome for it to be there. Those wishing more information can visit the subarticle. Jobberone (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
@Jobberone: The burdensome part I think is the subjective part. Of those two choices, the majority of regular editors on the India page have preferred the prose (to the list). I don't just mean for this template, but for similar conundrums in the past. I personally do find a page-wide template somewhat intrusive, interrupting the flow of prose. If it were like an image, and offset to one side, it would be less so. One possibility would be to turn it into an image (and throw out the vanilla pictures), but I can see that people (including one half of me) will say that if an illustration is what is needed (for India's recent urbanization) then far better graphic displays are available (than a darned list). ... Fowler&fowler«Talk»20:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Mrt3666 failed to gain a consensus on the talk page that the chart will add any value to the article, not sure repeating the arguments here with the same players will really help. If Mrt3666 will not accept the consensus then perhaps the next logical step would have been for him to start a WP:RFC to see if others outside of the talk page support the addition. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not here to address conduct. If that is an issue for some it should be addressed per protocol. I have looked at several other countries and I see a largest city population chart in many and I see no problem with them. While consensus is important, it does not override the value of improving an article and Wikipedia. I need to see an appropriate reason to exclude information which improves the article other than a consensus doesn't 'like' it. Jobberone (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but WP:CONSENSUS is a fundamental policy in making editorial decisions you cant ignore it. If your read the talk page discussion you fill find that 'not liking' it was not the only response from editors and most gave a reasoned response and even a comprise where the article text was amended to include Ahmedabad. Still dont think this is the right place to carry on the talk page discussion here just because Mrt3366 doesnt accept the talk page comments. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Side-discussion ensuing allegations by fowler against Mrt33666 about canvassing, not really pertinent/helpful to the ongoing discussion.
@Fowler: Now you're trying to get me blocked by focusing on canvassing. WOOOOW! The issue apparently has shifted from template to canvassing.
Bravo fowler. Bravo! If this is how you want to win, then it's a shame. FYI, He got involved and only then I asked him to comment here. Isn't it what we do by notifying them in the first place. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)18:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
If the participants care to continue to argue the dispute then I will close it. I wish the principals to address me only. I will direct the dispute. And we are not going to discuss conduct at the DRN. Jobberone (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
In answer to the question, "will the chart improve the article and Wikipedia?" (which is of course the right and pertinent question) I believe that it will. My only real involvement in this dispute is that I stopped by on Talk:India to say so. There's more I could add, but I'll refrain for now, other than offering that the proposal does not seem to have received as fair a hearing there as it might have. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe adding the chart is the best course for Wikipedia and its readers. I don't see this as a controversial subject and it is innocuous. I can understand the frustrations dealing with some editors but that is not a good reason to reject contributions. Will the participants agree to this decision? Jobberone (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
No - as it clearly is a controversial subject and not an innocuous change per the comments here and the talk page particularly regarding undue weight. MilborneOne (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
No. As I've indicated above, there is already a graphical display of urbanization in that section (that I myself wasn't aware of). It's caption, clearly needs to be rewritten to show what is displays. It is a much better display of India's urbanization that a list. Adding a list would be doubly undue. Fowler&fowler«Talk»20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
No. Agree with the above. Moreover, at the top of the WP:DRN page, the word "informal" is emphasised. Also, "[i]t is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy." Not sure if this squares with Jobberone's ex-cathedra pronouncements of "I believe", "this decision", and so on. Saravask21:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I am new to Talk India page, and I too smell this article has WP:OWN issues. It is unpersuasive to suggest that India is mostly rural, and pictures of major cities may be misleading. It is unpersuasive because content should be driven by notability to the subject. Many countries such as Thailand, with rural % of population similar to India, have this template; cities/infrastructure are notable aspects of any country, and are worth including in respective country articles. If UNDUE is an issue, I urge the community to check if the article is silent or does not adequately address rural India, and take balancing measures if needed.ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
As an uninvolved DRN volunteer, I should point out that WP:N does not apply to the inclusion of templates, which are non-essential navigational tools. This is not an argument against or for the inclusion of the template, just an observation.--SGCM(talk)22:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Again this is not the vehicle to discuss matters of conduct. This does not really involve undue weight. This is not about burdening a lengthy article with one template.
Not trying to rule on high. It's merely unreasonable to object so strenuously about the inclusion of a template esp when it seems to be a prevalent feature in so many similar articles. There is no controversy surrounding the population of a few cities. What are the motivation(s) to exclude such innocuous data? As some have suggested is this about owning the article? Is it about winning? Must one side have its way no matter? Is the template really that important?
The template adds no value does not add value to the article. The only possible reason that I can see for adding it is that Mrt3366 wants it and that's really not a good reason. --regentspark (comment) 00:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@czarkoff, @Jobberone: I'm afraid not. It has nothing to do with ownership. It has everything to do with hard won standards maintained on the India page (the reason why it is Wikipedia's longest standing country featured article). There is already a much more complex graphical map of urban population centers in place in that same section (made by one of Wikipedia's oldest and better-known graphics artists, User:Planemad). Can someone tell me what is there in this graphically rudimentary list template that is not already there in the map as well as in the text of the section which explicitly states:
and provides a link to the "million-plus cities" page from which this template has been blatantly copied?? Ever heard of triple redundancy in an article, especially a featured article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@czarkoff: What I can suggest is that we ask user:Planemad or some other graphical designer to incorporate the population numbers from the list template into the map. How this can be done, I can't say yet, but I'm guessing it shouldn't be too hard. Also, the city names in the map are a little too small and their fontsize could be increased. User:Saravask, I think is the best person to ask. I believe he had requested Planemad to design the map. But going back to a rudimentary cities list with obviously photoshopped vanilla images is nothing but regression. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, while the list itself is unnecessary, as fowler points out the template contains many images. Images in the India article have been very carefully selected by a collaborative process (that is the antithesis of ownership) over a long period of time. Templates, on the other hand, transfer control outside the article and changes to them are less visible (they don't show up in article history). Featured articles come with a stamp of quality and we should be wary of adding hard to monitor and maintain templates. --regentspark (comment) 01:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The template may not be useful to those who know a country very well, but to outsiders it is useful. I do not know if wiki has link pass through data to verify general usage of equivalent templates that are there in many developed, developing country specific articles, but I, for one, have used many of wiki's country pages many times and referred to similar templates before my travels to numerous countries, including my recent trip through Norway, Sweden and Russia - each of which have an equivalent template that Mrt3366 is proposing. That map, Fowler&fowler is pretty. I like your idea, although uncertain if that map after update will be as intuitive as similar templates are on other country specific articles. I do not know, and offer my regrets in advance, if it is out of place for me to suggest this compromise to Fowler&fowler and Mrt3366: finalize+protect the template and after that include it; if the map can be updated per Fowler&fowler's suggestions to capture equivalent information; then it can replace the template. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I've left a post on User:Planemad's talk page; please read it. Also user:Saravask himself is a bit of a graphics whiz, having designed the other major map on the India page, India#Subdivisions, which is indeed clickable. I've also pinged Saravask. I think between them, a nice interactive map could be produced. As for AVC's compromise, I'm really not sure. It is still too intrusive. Perhaps sans-images and in a collapsed form it could be included, and serve as an eyesore for motivating the graphic designers to redouble their efforts. I would support such an inclusion only as a stop gap provided the graphical designers are on board. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
There are four images and a few lines which can be scrolled by easily. I'm sorry but I'm having trouble accepting the Sacred Cow argument. It certainly adds information. Looking at the table I also have trouble seeing it as a distraction much less an eyesore. There is no comparison between the template and this: complex graphical map of urban population centers.
I've reviewed this: File:Political map of India EN.svg and again there is no comparison with the template. Clicking on a state or territory brings up no population data.
Right now the only feasible compromise made so far is a collapsible template or another template. I find the collapsible idea a brilliant compromise if feasible. I still find it difficult to understand how such a small template with nothing but facts and four images can create this much entrenchment.
Well, Jobberone, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The only compromise I, personally, will agree to is a the collapsed template below (without images) as a stop gap until the heat map (per Planemad and Saravask) is ready. (Obviously, the Political map was only given as an example to illustrate that Saravask knows how to make clickable maps (no easy programming job, by the way); it doesn't bring up population numbers, but someone who can design it can also do a map with population numbers. Here is the collapsed template:
List of 20 largest urban agglomertions in India by population
Sorry if I misunderstood that. I looked at the collapsible template and see no reason why that should not be acceptable to the other party. Agreeing to disagree is totally acceptable. Jobberone (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm on board with the two provisos (1. no images 2. stop gap until the graphic artists deliver). However, there are some dozen other editors who opposed the template idea (in contrast to the 5 (including drive bys) who favored it). Good luck getting their assents. Fowler&fowler«Talk»03:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Just as infoboxes were deemed unnecessary in many top-notch featured biographies (e.g., Mary Shelley) because editors there felt they were visually disruptive and redundant, the templates above (collapsible or not) can be seen as equally unnecessary and disruptive (the retina-bombing electric purple, for one). It makes the page look like one of those children's reference books, with their goofy pez-dispenser colours.
With one click, all the city stats any reader could want (and more) are there in a list, which is handily linked to and readily noticed (by anyone who cares to). Scoping like this helps keep articles here neat, trim, and of manageable length—and hence more useful to readers.
I suppose Planemad or someone else can superimpose clickable internal links to the top ten or twenty cities over either the big geographic or the thumbed demographic map, maybe with popup mouseover pop stats appearing on hover—see Australia#States_and_territories. At least that would give the stats (excessive or redundant or not) while being gentle on our eyes. Saravask03:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I can certainly appreciate the opinions of others in this case ascetics. However, that particular article is full of visual imagery and templates. Is adding a template to one full of them sound unreasonable and can one really make the argument this one just makes it all too much? Certainly all of Wikipedia's articlea are not so jealously guarded nor constructed just so. I've heard one plea that this article is not owned. I argue vigorously that there is a cabal of editors seeking to own the article. It is concerning to hear that some will not approve of but 1 or 2 ways to alter the article. Having a group of editors who hold the article hostage is more concerning.
The purpose of the article is to enlighten readers. Being artistically pleasing to one group should be balanced with the needs of the many. Many learn in a more visual way than just reading a good book. Many have learning disabilities, autism, dyslexias and like disorders, etc. I throw that out there to balance the need to be ascetically pleasing to a certain audience. Having said that I personally have no problem with the approach Saravask is espousing and I see that as another compromise others should entertain.
I do have problems "with the approach Saravask is espousing". He didn't validate his views whatsoever. Again I don't like it is not an argument at all, especially in a dispute resolution process. He must be considerate of how the article looks to others. And others find it biased in favour of poverty-stricken, rural side of India and not reflecting the modern India at all. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)05:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
This is appearing, to me and others, as a shameless violation of WP:OWN.
The template is not causing clutter. It's the same criticism and mockery fowler and some others apply to anybody who is against their views. Everything about their behaviour here makes it seem as if he and a few others WP:OWN this article.
Templates containing population data in demographics section (with four images, why not?), however much "ugly" they may look like to someone, are indispensable, especially if we consider other FAs of its kind (similar/comparable countries).
Majority should not be able to swamp the (policy-wise) correct views. Wikipedia is not a vote. Like Steve summit said to fowler “you will suffer no edits to it by anyone else without forcing them to endure a gauntlet of "consensus building" here first, in which there will never be consensus because you will find fault forever with anything that you don't like.” (emphases are my own)
This is what is going on. Kerfuffler and others are right, this is an ownership issue. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)05:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
“I still find it difficult to understand how such a small template with nothing but facts and four images can create this much entrenchment.” - See, my frustration? Yes. that's the problem which steve was alluding to earlier on the Talk:India. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)06:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I would also like to point to the fact that “infoboxes were deemed unnecessary in many top-notch featured biographies (e.g., Mary Shelley) because editors there felt they were visually disruptive and redundant” - here editors are not unanimous or happy with the article's looks either way. That's the difference. I think what I wrote above, largest cities templates, however much of an "eyesore" they may appear to someone, are inextricable if we consider other FAs of its kind. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)05:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:OWN is a conduct issue and not something that DRN deals with. Stick to the discussion on the template. There are conduct dispute noticeboards that handle editor conduct.--SGCM(talk)05:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I get it. I said in "How do you think we can help you" section that you can help by providing your neutral (by 'neutral' I mean taking into consideration the norm) perspective on the issue and guidance. Please kindly do so on the topic. What's your perspective should we include the template or not? Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)06:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear, I asked you for your unambiguous, undiplomatic answer. Although I appreciate you're trying to be — what you consider — neutral, I want you to submit your unrefined opinion sans the veneer of diplomacy. Just tell us that will be more helpful. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)06:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm being honest. The issue of navigational templates is such a trivial issue, that no guidelines or policies will explicitly mention it. The closest you'll get is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Using infoboxes in articles. As it states, "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."--SGCM(talk)07:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
As a member of the "unreasonable" "cabal of editors" that is "jealously guard[ing]" the FA against "(policy-wise) correct views", I have a question: where is the policy page that mandates a cities template. And note that I said "mandates", not "suggests". Please leave off the monkey-see-monkey-do injunction to "follow the crowd": many or most country articles may have city tables, but most (that use non-Latin script(s)) also have that/those script(s) in the lede and the infobox. India doesn't, per country-specific consensus at formed at WP:IN some months back. And that's par for the course on WP.
Thus, regarding ultimately optional do-dads like this, there is no ultimate mandate whatsoever; we rely on page-specific consensuses for that. And, as has been pointed out many times but is distinctly failing to register with Mrt3366, if no consensus evolves, we stick with the status quo ante: no do-dad template.
Jobberone wants a non-mandatory and non-consensus template. His job here was to dispassionately cite binding policy (or lack thereof) and guide formation of a consensus based on it (or else leave it unresolved). Instead, he's teamed up with the OP to let us know about the jealous "cabal of editors" with ownership issues. We are all volunteers here, acting on our own, entitled to our opinions, "jealous" or not.
Jobberone should consider just taking a break from mediating this discussion. That would make room for a more disinterested volunteer who will leave off the gratuitous personal attacks. Repeatedly spinning WP:OWN, WP:CABAL, etc. into unhelpful innuendo distracts us from the template and its merits. Saravask06:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I fully fathom the redundancy of such grotesque platitudes and rude language in your first paragraph above. IMO, they are somewhat of a distraction. Your behaviour (like mine you can say) has been combative.
The content dispute is rather trivial (it's just a template, after all), but the sheer amount of vitriol (and the constant mentions of WP:OWN, WP:CANVASS, and WP:CABAL) shows that there is an ongoing and wider underlying dispute between the involved editors. Skimming through the editing histories of the main parties of the case reveals that they have clashed multiple times before, on a wide range of pages dealing with South Asia. My recommendation is to defer this to ANI or another appropriate noticeboard. The main participants of this case arrived with a considerable amount of baggage that predates the Talk:India dispute, and that's not something that DRN can resolve.--SGCM(talk)06:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
This comment (and this one) posted a few days ago makes it obvious that it's not just about the template. There's something else going on here, a larger dispute beyond the scope of a single DRN case.--SGCM(talk)07:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
"There's something else going on here." - Disagree. No. Nothing else is going here on this page. Should you not focus on this page to solve the dispute, rather than what some editor posted about an unrelated topic on other pages? That has been dealt with previously.
I asked you about your opinion and you simply shunned it, instead, you proposed taking this to ANI because you presumed based on other unrelated things, that something disingenuous (is that the right word?) is going on, I don't think you're doing your job as efficiently as you might have.
"if the parties of this case keep repeatedly bringing up conduct disputes" - No you are excessively focusing on the mentions of "conduct disputes" repeatedly. It's only natural that people will say something about conducts of each other. Nevertheless, only few times (my observation) it has been mentioned and nothing that can serve as a major hindrance. So please I implore you to stop gratuitously focusing on the allusions to conduct, as opposed to the raised issue here. Let's not muddy the water more.
P.S. Yes, I was ignoring all rules for the sake of betterment of Wikipedia and it was framed as canvassing (I concede, it was perilously similar to canvassing, but there was no malevolent intent involved as far as the inclusion of template is concerned, I had exhausted most other ways to seek wider input). Hence, let's not digress too far by focusing on conduct of anyone. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)07:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I've already offered my opinion. There is no explicit criteria, in any policy or guideline, for the inclusion or exclusion of templates. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, which is the closest you'll find, states that "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If there is no consensus, then there is no inclusion. It's either all the parties compromrise, and it is included, or no consensus is reached, and it isn't. I'm not going to take a side, I've been careful about being nice to all the parties, but accusations that I've been too "diplomatic" does nothing except to encourage a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.--SGCM(talk)07:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No. I was simply asking for a straight answer from you and that's not same as encouraging a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Come on dear! Do you or do you not think including a largest cities template will harm the article? I (and others) think it is going to enhance the quality. Am I displaying a battleground mentality by simply admitting that? Nope.
Being "diplomatic" is policy. I've already told you what the guideline states, and that's all that really matters. That is not a case of IDONTLIKEIT. Content disputes are determined, not by the subjective perception of harm, but by policies and guidelines, which are not "trivial, questionable, and subjective." Wikipedia is not a vote, so please stop badgering me to "vote" in your favour. Have you ever heard the English idiom about catching flies with honey, not vinegar? The more you badger the volunteers for support, the less likely they'll support you.--SGCM(talk)08:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
"If you don't have anything, other than trivial, questionable and subjective preferences, to back your claims, while opposing the inclusion of verifiable, pertinent information, then don't vote." DRN has never been a vote, and I do not intend on voting. Voting is not a substitute for consensus, not the other way around.--SGCM(talk)09:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think (I may be wrong) you're in whole other tangent brother. I, in fact, said the same thing. Why are you throwing that back at me?? It was a response to sarvask's comment. I meant, comments like it is "ugly", "looks awful", etc or simply asserting that the template (with verifiable info) doesn't add anything to the article, when other editors disagree, and especially when other FAs contain such template, are nothing close to a credible rationales against the inclusion of template. Reiterating I don't like it isn't going to do it for anybody. If these are the things we are going to base our opinions on then these must be accompanied by a wiki-policy or guideline.
Would I be misplaced in suggesting that the editors opposed to the template are more opposed to images of modern urban India than the template itself? Previous comments in the DRN illustrate my point. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»09:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Identifying the core issue will save us a lot of time and effort. Fowler&fowler (refer to comment above) has already accepted the addition of an equally large template with no images. Besides, some of his comments on Talk:India suggest that he has problems with excessive representation of urban India. The way I see it, images are at the heart of the debate. Let's discuss why editors are objecting to them first. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»09:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I've never made any of the arguments that you've listed, so why are you directing them at me? ;) Let's not mix up different editors here, if you're replying to someone else, please state so. I've made two consistent points throughout this discussion: 1) DRN only deals with content disputes, and 2) There is no explicit criteria, in any policy or guideline, for the inclusion or exclusion of templates. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, which is the closest guideline, states that inclusion "is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If there is no consensus, then there is no inclusion. It's either all the parties reach a compromise, and it is included, or no consensus is reached, and it isn't. The compromise seems to be heading towards a small chart without images.--SGCM(talk)09:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
"I've never made any of the arguments that you've listed" - hahaha...I am not talking about you. Am I not talking right? You're a volunteer why would I start a quarrel with you man? Why are you muddying the water? Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)09:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Would this work?: A captioned image of a basic chart on the side (without images of cities inside it!) in the article that conveys the same information as the template without the unnecessary visual embellishments or large size of a template.--SGCM(talk)10:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I find the chart, as it has currently been suggested by Folwer&fowler, aesthetically displeasing. However, I am willing to accept a compromise where lesser images are used in the template possibly 2 instead of 4 (like Australia#Demographics). I am also not going to delay a consensus here for a hypothetical map that might appear in the near future. If such a map is ever made, it should be inserted in to the article after appropriate discussion at the talk page at that point. Deferring compromise, consensus right now makes little sense. Please also note, if my head count is to be believed, only five editors were actually opposed to the idea of a template. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»10:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
By image, I meant the use of a captioned image instead of a large template, (perhaps interactive, as proposed by Saravask). Let's see how other parties feel about the proposal.--SGCM(talk)10:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem I see with that approach (it wasn't mine; I was just tweaking Fowler's idea), is that there are already a population density map and a consensus-backed image rotation in "Demographics". Per Fowler's request, we'd have to wait at least a month to modify a thumbnailed image, whose small size would likely preclude giving population details of more than a few cities at once. And readers and screen readers wouldn't be able to see or copy all the information at once or even at all. It would be cleaner just to have a small and neat table.
Instead of an image, to maintain visual consistency with the rest of the article, there could be a plain wikitable with ten or twenty cities (or whatever is decided here) inserted inline between paragraphs one and two. It could look like the one of the tables under India#Subdivisions or India#Government. Pure information, without baubles. RP has already started a section for proposing "modern India" images, so no need to shoehorn any into a table, IMO. Saravask10:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Can we conduct our discussions on Talk:India on a first in, first out basis? The discussion on the template came earlier and should be resolved before other discussions. The resolution here will have an impact on the images discussion and not vice versa. Again, there is no point deferring consensus, compromise here for a future consensus on Talk:India which might/might not happen. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»10:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I strongly object to the proposal of Saravask, as long as he doesn't justify his opposition to a template similar to those used in other FAs, I don't care what he would like or not. "baubles", "shoehorn" — don't accurately describe what we're doing here. Like Jobberone already stated above “Many learn in a more visual way than just reading a good book. Many have learning disabilities, autism, dyslexias and like disorders, etc.”
Hence this obduracy is against the norm and unreasonable, saravask. "visual consistency" - that's meaningless. What do you mean consistency? Which policy says what you're saying? Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)11:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Let me reiterate, the guidelines (for infoboxes, which are closest in function) explicitly mentions that it's entirely up to the editors, for each individual article, to decide if they want to include a template. There are no policies that require templates, and there are no policies that prohibit templates. The only criteria for a template's inclusion, is that most of the editors can agree to it. Do you have a guideline that suggests a template (and not a chart or image) must be used for articles on countries?--SGCM(talk)11:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed Fowler testing File:India Population Compromise Map September 2012.jpg, authored by Planemad. That's along the lines of what Fowler suggested (sans internal links), and would be another reasonable compromise for me, provided the all text (labels and numbers) was mouse selectable and copyable, since screen readers and others can't grab it from the images.
That could also be achieved through, as SGCM suggested, a list-like caption of city–population pairs, perhaps sortable if possible. Otherwise through superimposed hyperlink interactivity rather than an image of a table that readers can't click, select, sort, or interact with. Saravask11:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you suggesting a population density map with a separate table on the populations of urban agglomerates as a compromise? While inclusion of population density map merits a discussion of its own, a table without images is not acceptable, as has been pointed out above. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»11:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, that is the purpose of DRN. "We focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy."--SGCM(talk)11:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Well if you think something I have said contradicts any wikipedia guidelines, I encourage you to point it out. Asking me for a policy after every comment is a bit strange, sorry. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»11:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
CorrectKnowledge and Mrt, at Talk:India#Discussion_on_process there is a proposal/selection process underway for "Economy" images. Two of three images offered by Mrt there are cityscapes. I'm not sure it makes sense to duplicate that genre inside a template or table as well. Devote the template/table/map to data without distractions, and leave any cityscapes in thumbnail so that their detail is not wasted in miniature. Saravask11:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
If you want to complete the discussion on images first because you think it will help us reach a compromise on the template issue faster and because some images may end up getting duplicated, I have no objection to it. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»11:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
CorrectKnowledge (and Mrt3366), you perhaps mistook what I said. I never stated that we should do image selection before template discussion. Or vice versa. I'm not the one deciding that—I think RP has taken the lead in getting new/modern/etc images selected for "Economy".
I am now saying that we should leave cityscape images out of whatever compromise is reached (and people can propose/support them for inclusion among the page's regular images/rotations) because (1) serious formatting problems, with the extra width taken by the mini-images extending the template far off the right-hand page margin, no matter what browser I use (in Mac), and (2) The details of those cityscapes are largely lost in-template, and distract from the data. It's like stuffed-in visual noise, except it messes up the page formatting also, as said above. Saravask12:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@CorrectKnowledge. I've already pointed it out. The guideline states that in order to add a template, there must be consensus for its inclusion. Template are not considered necessary for articles. The burden of proof is on you to prove, using policies, that a template must be included, and that it must include images.--SGCM(talk)11:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Arguments using wikipedia guidelines have been given in the comments above, you can refer to them. I am more interested in improving the article and will argue from commonsense here, unless you have a problem with it. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»11:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Then please link to the policies that explicitly state that a template must be required for an article, and with pictures of Indian cities that you've argued for. That's how DRN works, you either compromise or cite policies and guidelines to support your arguments. If unable to do either, there's no way that the DRN can succeed.--SGCM(talk)12:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I too can go along with Saravask's compromise proposal. I also have a fourth compromise proposal of my own. I have incorporated info from the "populous cities page" into the map itself in a new map: File:India Population Compromise Map September 2012.jpg. It has more information than the template: it shows the population growth between 2001 and 2011. The advantage of a map (a figure instead of a template) is that it doesn't dam up the prose from left to right. This is what it looks like on the India page. (Someone, such as Saravask, will need to make more user-friendly and Wiki-appropriate, of course.) So, now there are 4 compromise proposals:
Collapsed template without images.
Clickable heat map with cities population numbers (to be developed by Planemad)
Please do not add proposals which are under development. I've expressed my reservations abut them above. The new compromise map includes a table within the image. Apart from the fact that the numbers are hard to read, as Saravask has already pointed out, screen readers can't grab text from images. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»11:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Or we can just Include the template and go about our business.
Why should we consider a compromise in the first place that's my question. There is not one irrefutable reason which mandates that India cannot have the template (which, not to mention, will solve multiple issues at once). Why are we asked to compromise??? You have not yet deposited the link to that much touted protocol. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)11:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Why are we asked to compromise? Because that's an established guideline on Wikipedia. In the absence of consensus for the inclusion of new navigational tools, there needs to be compromise.--SGCM(talk)11:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I've linked and quoted from the guideline (for infoboxes, but can be broadly applied to this template) multiple times now. "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If there is no consensus, then there is no inclusion. It's either all the parties compromrise, and it is included, or no consensus is reached, and it isn't.--SGCM(talk)11:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@Saravask. As long as the involved editors can agree to a single proposal, then any of the proposals would work (even the original template). The only criteria for using a template, table, etc is that there is consensus for its inclusion.--SGCM(talk)11:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@Jobberone. As I had suspected, Mrt3366 is not amenable to any compromise. It is either his way or the highway. I feel it is time to close this DRN. I don't see it going anywhere, when one party to it is completely inflexible. Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@Jobberone: I am now leaving this DRN. I made a huge effort. I contacted Planemad and Saravask, I spent more time on this DRN than likely any other participant. This has been one of the worst experiences I've had in my 6 years on Wikipedia. I know that we are all supposed to assume good faith, but by hypo-manically forum shopping, accepting no consensus, and brooking no compromise, Mrt3366 has created abiding resentment for his antics on the India page. It takes a long time and effort to build a page. But a cantankerous editor with little or no writing skills or graphics programming skills, can destroy the page in short order. Good luck in this DRN to all. Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@Mrt3366 But there is a difference. You're the one who arguing for inclusion, so the burden of proof is on you to prove that, in the absence of consensus, Wikipedia's guidelines and policies require that an article on India needs a template that includes pictures of Indian cities, which has been your argument.--SGCM(talk)
But if the incusion is an improvement, it could equally well be argued that the burden of proof is on those who would claim that including it would cause some problem. This argument cuts both ways; it's really not clear to me who the burden of proof is actually on. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily for templates. As WP:IBX (which is the closest applicable guideline) mentions, "the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article." Templates are not considered "essential" in the same way that sources and neutrality are. The burden of proof, therefor, is on the editor who proposes the inclusion to either find policies that support his argument, or compromise with other editors.--SGCM(talk)12:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It will provide information on urban agglomerations in India.
It will help users with learning disabilities, autism, dyslexias and like disorders, etc. as well as
those who learn in a more visual way than just by reading.
It will be particularly useful to foreigners who do not know the country (i.e. city locations) very well.
It might be used as a platform to display 2-3 images (willing to compromise on the number of images, 2 would suffice) of Modern India (of which currently there is none).
I think the way forward from this point on would be to discuss Sarsvask's comments on the images: "(1) serious formatting problems, with the extra width taken by the mini-images extending the template far off the right-hand page margin, no matter what browser I use (in Mac), and (2) The details of those cityscapes are largely lost in-template, and distract from the data." Correct Knowledge«৳alk»12:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@Mrt3366 All of these could be addressed with one of the compromises offered by the other editors. None of these require a template (instead of a table or image or chart) or the use of images of Indian cities, as previously stipulated by you. The inclusion of templates are judged individually by article. Arguments that it's WP:USEFUL, or that it contains WP:VALINFO, or that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, are considered arguments to avoid. You must prove that the template is necessary, via Wikipedia's policies and core principles, or compromise with other editors. This is how cases on DRN are resolved, either through compromise or references to policy, usually both.--SGCM(talk)12:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@CK, Only the 1st one merits concern although I don't have that problem. Does this occur when he tries to view other templates of similar kind? If no, I could help him. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)12:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@SGCM, "All of these could be addressed with one of the compromises offered by the other editors. None of these require a template (instead of a table or image or chart)" - what's wrong with the template? You are forgetting to focus on that question. A template is far more easier and efficient way to solve these issues. Don't kid yourself. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)12:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
"A template is far more easier and efficient way to solve these issues. Don't kid yourself." Do you have any proof of this? Do you have any proof that a template is better than a table or chart or image or the other compromises offered?--SGCM(talk)12:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Three reasons I can offer to continue consensus building process. I feel you folks are closer to an agreement than you think!
Both sides agree on need for balance and inclusion of useful information. Both sides also agree that a template or some modified image might get you there.
This is just one content dispute. The core reasons behind this specific dispute will continue, and lead to more edit wars/DRNs/anger on India#Talk page. Instead consider making people feel welcome, and the article better.
Frankly, from someone who has limited interest in editing country pages (I have made few changes to Sweden, and zero to India page), here is what I see: India page is coatracked to a rural-bias, with stale data (your economy section uses stale World Bank reports, and when I find time I will update it; or better still, I hope someone else will save me the trouble). Yes, India is 68% rural per last reported data I am aware of, but some 380 million Indians live in urban environment - that is more than the United States. Shutting out any and all images of any city or urban life or something that visually presents urban India, is like saying 380 million people do not matter. That is bias. If you really want balance and completeness of coverage, the page should try to acknowledge and visually include the experience/life of 380 million people in India. The template proposed by Mrt3366 is one way to do this. Fowler&fowler side has some ideas (rotating urban life images?, combined with revised map+pop data chart?). There are a zillion others. Yes, template or something is necessary for balance.
In summary, if we focus on the shared goal of how to improve balance and completeness in this article, rather than the individual means of template versus rural/urban side must win - a compromise may be possible.
Your comment does offer an interesting perspective on dispute. Perhaps if the broader content dispute is solved, this smaller, technical one will as well. But does that mean solving it here? Or deferring it to mediation or back to the talk page?--SGCM(talk)12:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, each of the content disputes will have to be solved individually. The compromise here however, might have a bearing on the image discussion going on at Talk:India. This is where we have to do the heavy lifing, I guess. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»12:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@SGCM, "Perhaps if the broader content dispute is solved, this smaller, technical one will as well. But does that mean solving it here?" - You don't have to worry about whatever the broader dispute there may be. I accept what CK, AVC are saying. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)12:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like this case will have to be closed as no consensus, with the participants unable to reach a compromise, and deferred back to Talk:India. As AVC has elaborated upon, there is a much broader discussion at issue here, and the template is only one aspect of it. If further dispute resolution is needed, I suggest WP:MEDCOM. And not just to deal with the template, but the pictures and the entire India article as well.--SGCM(talk)12:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion above, I believe this DR is a failure. Mrt3366, the OP, appears to believe that the only resolution is that his edits be incorporated in the article. Despite being against the inclusion of a list in any form, and despite clear consensus on the article talk page against that inclusion, several editors have tried to come up with a compromise that may partly satisfy that (one!) editor's wishes. The above discussion shows that Mrt3366 does not wish to see any compromise. No sense in wasting everyone's time. --regentspark (comment) 12:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
"Mrt3366, the OP, appears to believe that the only resolution is that his edits be incorporated in the article." - Clarification, I don't believe that. OTOH you, the one who reverted me, appear to believe that the only resolution is that my edits be not incorporated in the article. I am willing to compromise if there is a good reason for that. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)13:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Fowler said this — "Well, Jobberone, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The only compromise I, personally, will agree to is a the collapsed template below (without images) as a stop gap until the heat map (per Planemad and Saravask) is ready. (Obviously, the Political map was only given as an example to illustrate that Saravask knows how to make clickable maps (no easy programming job, by the way); it doesn't bring up population numbers, but someone who can design it can also do a map with population numbers."
@AVC Stop peddling untruths about the rural bias in the images. A full 75% of the images are urban images. They are images of urban people. Yet, why is it that they appear to you and the other apologists for the Shining India to be rural? It is because they are images of the not so wealthy. The Shining India crowd would like distant vanilla cityscapes, cleansed of people, grime, and filth, creating the illusion that Indian cities are like their Western counterparts. They get nervous when they see an image like File:Delhi Metro and CNG Buses in Azadpur Neighborhood.jpg, which I just uploaded, and which is much much closer to the true reality of urban India, its successes and its challenges. The India page has only two images in the economy section. Last year, we couldn't add a rotation template because it took two months to finalize the templates in Demographics and Culture. There is no effort to wall out urban images. There is an effort to keep out the crap. Compare my image above with the abysmally unencyclopedic schlock Mrt3366 has added to his template. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
"The Shining India crowd" - Yeah. Like I don't know where you're from.
This is not a forum to post your lofty and whimsical beliefs. I have been to Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi, Kolkata ...You certainly cherry-pick the most congested, polluted, unplanned part of an Indian city while depicting them. That's an inherent bias. "which is much much closer to the true reality of urban India" - your opinions are not the reality mind it. You're free to imagine and dream but don't peddle them as truth for all. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)13:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
We are getting closer to heart of dispute, and closer to reaching the consensus!
India page has some 22 images. I like the quality of these images, and congratulate those who helped select and include it. Of these 22, 1 is of rural life, 19 cultural/politics/history/etc, 1 airforce jet and 1 stock exchange building. You can call a picture of prime minister sitting with a president or some political building or a sports team as representative of urban life - but not to me. Nor, are others for the same reason, to me (I acknowledge, it may be to you). Including a farmer ploughing a farm, but not including city skyline, is showing only one aspect of India.
Urban life and bird's eye view type photo(s) of city are a different dimension of information - just like an image of Manhattan/London/Buenos Aires/Rio/Cairo/Kuala Lumpur skyline.
Street shots, traffic chaos, slums, etc. are indeed another dimension of information about urban life. Having been to over 100 countries, and every continent, I can assure you Fowler&fowler that vast majority of countries have the same stuff/chaos/poverty/hope/brilliance/love as India. Cairo, Kuala Lumpur, Rio, etc - similar issue (perhaps goats or Buffaloes rather than Cow). I suggest that as compromise, both Mrt3366 and your side, agree to include both dimensions of urban life - city skyline and city chaos. No need highlight or hide anything - either in a template or as rotating images. Dispute resolved! No? Perhaps, you two can take this back to the talk page?
I agree with AVC. Azadhpur is a farmers' market. It represents one extreme of how Delhi looks, malls, Luteyns delhi etc. represent the other. The Delhi metro on average looks a bit like this: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Likewise, you can always find extreme examples of what other Indian cities look like. The point is, why should only Indian cities be subjected to non–striking negatively biased images. Does the whole of Australia look like the Melbourne docklands or Sydney opera house skyline? Again, I second what AVC said, as a compromise perhaps both aspects can be represented in the article. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»13:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@AVC Yes, I'm aware of what the world looks like, having widely traveled all over it since childhood. No, please don't exaggerate: Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Rio, and even Cairo are nothing like any Indian city. The poverty in India is an order of magnitude greater. Bangkok and KL were more developed 35 years ago than New Delhi is now.
As for rural/urban, there are no rural landscapes in the India page either, only, as you said, pictures of people (because that is what we worked on last year). Yet, I ask again, why is it that no one is bemoaning the lack of rural landscapes? Or even the lack of pictures of the vast majority of urban clusters, which are small to middling towns? Why only the mega cities, and in them, only the unpeopled sanitized nonsense CorrectKnowledge considers representative of the Delhi metro. (My image by the way, is hardly about the metro. It is about the major infra-structure investment in Delhi during the last 10 years that has funded the metro, the new buses, and the expressways, even though this one is a little congested.) Pictures of a country need to be representative and informative. Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler - our experiences in different countries, have clearly been very different. I have spent weeks and months in places such as Rio/Cairo/etc visiting and philanthropically helping in the slums - IMO, the slums/traffic/etc is worse in some respects and better in other respects than India. Poverty is same - qualitatively and quantitatively. Millions and millions of our brothers and sisters live in extreme poverty on every continent. Africa has lot more poverty and issues - but let us leave it at that. As Mrt3366 reminds us, this is not a forum. Let us focus on the dispute, and more importantly on ways you two can reach consensus.
Wikipedia is not a democracy, and shouldn't be one. Consensus isn't a matter of majority vote. Just because, a group of editors vote and the vast majority agree on the talk page that 2+2 = 5, does not mean it should get published on a wiki page. Even one person should be able to remove such content, and it would be inappropriate to call his or her behavior as disruptive. In the case of this template or rotating images and urban skyline+street life information, our goal ought to be to ask is this information a significant aspect of the subject India? and is it verifiable? For India, its skylines and urban street photos are very important truthful dimension/aspect of India because it affects 100s of millions who live in these cities; photos are verifiable.
I understand some of your concerns. I hope Mrt3366 reflects on them, respects them, as it will help build a consensus. By consensus, I don't mean consensus by vote, I mean wiki-style constitutional consensus. Your group's concern is about completeness and whether it will be 'eyesore' quality issue? The completeness issue may be addressed by including the best quality city street photos for each city presented with skyline. The 'eyesore' issue is more an issue of creative style and layout that you can together solve. If two or more things are an important and major aspect of India's reality, then let us not highlight or hide one, or both. Let us welcome it all, and figure a creative way to present balance and complete information. Images are very useful, because as one of the DRN volunteer noted, a lot of we human beings are visual. So there is a way to get this dispute resolved. What are the remaining concerns?
Extended discussion on the errors of the present template
@Mrt3366 (per talk-page request):
In Australia#Demographics, the twenty-city template there lacks formatting problems for me. It also doesn't do a four-image urban overkill (settling for two instead). Thus I don't need to widen my browser to ~ 1800 pixels to get the template to fit the page. If Mrt3366 copied, then simplified the Australian template by removing the purple colouring and perhaps table-izing it so that it resembles the one at India#Government (thus making it sortable by name/pop), then that would make it more palatable for me. If, like at {{Largest cities of Australia}}, you stick to two cityscapes to avoid bad formatting, then fine. But I also don't think it's a good idea to both stick cityscapes inside the template/table and have other cityscapes in "Economy" or elsewhere outside the template. But if people consensually decide on non-cityscape urban/modern images, then fine, whatever.
Unlike Australia, (as Fowler notes above) most of India's urban areas aren't as spiffed-up as UB City, which is the "biggest commercial property project" in Bangalore. But, having stayed there with family, I can assure you that the vast majority of the city's urban core doesn't look nearly that spiffy. Equating UB City with Bangalore seems glib and disingenuous, hence the accusations of WP:UNDUE. But if you want to put (IMO, at most two) high-quality images of Mumbai or Delhi or Bangalore as a whole (the entire skyline—slums and office towers together in the same wide-scale shot or panorama) in a template/table/wherever, then great, maybe let's just do that if other folks here agree. That way, neither the best ("India Shining") or worst ("Slumdog") parts are being "cherry-pick[ed]". At least Mrt3366's two Mumbai shots, thought of middling or poor quality (as ) due to artefacts, etc., have good composition and representativeness (of the urban rich and poor alike). Higher-quality cityscapes can eventually be fetched from Flickr, Commons, etc. Saravask13:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The Delhi image is not that bad either. Older, dying skyscrapers of CP have been selected rather than fancy Gurgaon ones. The image also represents the fact that Delhi is greener/flatter than other Indian cities. Let's restrict it to two images then, one each of Delhi and Mumbai. That can be a workable compromise. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»14:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I am more than happy to make / remake a template with just two images (Delhi and Mumbai) exactly like the Australian one. That's the compromise I am willing to make. And, for sure, it will be far, far better and easier than File:India Population Compromise Map September 2012.jpg. Which looks something like this on the page. If that's not "ugly" and my template is, then I am out of here. Pardon my digression but it actually hurts my eyes. I cannot even make the figures out properly, then there is the problem of coding.
I'm sorry, there is no agreement on an uncollapsed permanent template with images. Not even remotely. Time to close this DRN and head back to the India page and, for you Mrt3366, to worry about listening to consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Are the other editors still interested in continuing this DRN case? If not, then it will be closed as no consensus and the discussion will be deferred back to Talk:India. If further third party involvement is required, WP:MEDCOM is recommended.--SGCM(talk)14:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Per SGCM's post on my talk page, I could agree to a collapsed template with two images to be chosen by consensus on the talk India page. That is as far as I will go. Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Fowler, Mrt336 has (intentionally or not) mischaracterised my views. I didn't auto-support the Delhi image (I'm on the fence, more so in light of Fowler's replies to AVC regarding image balance). I didn't say I'd agree to an exact copy of the Australian template. No. I said I might support a colorless, tabular, sortable compacted version. That or else one of Fowler's ideas then. For me, any relatively unobtrusive solution (image/template/table) that doesn't interrupt textual flow as much. Most importantly, even if we agreed on that, you'll need to discuss with Fowler, RP, AVC, and others. RP (who tends to be right about these things) already said this DRN is a failure. And Fowler wants this closed. Saravask15:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
"Mrt336 has (intentionally or not) mischaracterised my views." - When did I say you auto-supported the Delhi image?????? Or any image for that matter? I am surprised!!! We can choose/pick images later. This is just a demonstration:
After having seen the hyper-wide template Mrt3366 has made, I take back my previous offer. Even in collapsed form it dams up the prose from extreme left to extreme right. I'm done. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
For reasons I just noted above Mrt3366, I would support a template or rotating image that includes city chaos and city skyline. Hiding or highlighting one or the other leads to bias. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Like F&F, I am unsatisfied with the above. Rotating or not, a uncompacted full-width template disrupts textual flow, especially with the unnecessary purple. My biggest concern, however, is that many hours have been spent haggling over which way some bits on a Wikimedia server will be flipped—images, template, non-template rotation, whatever. As RegentsPark has said, this has become another bottomless time sink. Saravask15:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Width is not a major issue and can be rectified easily. If collapsed version is the only one acceptable to Fowler and Saravasak then I am on board. This is not the only issue being discussed at Talk:India and I agree with regentspark, we should not spend any more time on this. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»15:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec)I'm ok with putting the collapsed template (though I think it unnecessary) if this ends the deadlock and as long as the template is kept fully protected. Images can be picked later. Mrt3366, the image picking process on this article is a model example of collaborative work (nominations, discussion, voting) and it is best to keep it that way. There are many editors who edit the India page, everyone has their own favorite images, and it is a good idea to get as wide an input as possible before adding images to the article. --regentspark (comment) 15:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been observing because there seemed to be some flow towards resolution. I still think you are closer than some think. Here are some suggestions:
Cease filibustering for closure. It is merely a way back to the past and stalemate which serves one parties agenda.
Cease lawyering up. It is another passive-aggressive way to stalemate.
You cannot reach a compromise if either side says it's my way or the highway. You'll never resolve this if you feel you must have your way or you'll take your ball and bat and go home.
You are close to a compromise. If you can do that here then the article will grow and evolve well on other issues as well. Jobberone (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
RegentsPark - I concur that image selection process is best done by a community process, driven by agreed guidelines. Fowler&fowler has a good point there - the image should be representative. Images together should also give more complete, balanced picture. I hope both sides will work towards getting this to closure, as this consensus process may create the footprints to guide preventing spin-off disputes and forumy emotions on the talk page. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler - one other concern of yours I haven't commented yet. I should. You expressed concern on selecting images just from top cities, and wrote: "...Or even the lack of pictures of the vast majority of urban clusters, which are small to middling towns? Why only the mega cities.." Well, you have a point. This needs bit of balance. After all, you can ask yourself why you included just Gandhi+Nehru picture? Why did you pick them, instead of vast majority of independence leaders and activists from pre-1947 era, or political leaders over 1947 - 2011 from the dozen parties from small to middling towns, and so on? Why only the mega leaders? Other political leaders were as much real India, real part of India's history as Gandhi+Nehru. My guess is that you all picked that image because it feels like the most interesting sample of that encyclopedic dimension. The article is better with that image, IMHO. Same is true about that parliament building or stock exchange or aircraft - each state in India has political buildings and there are government offices in small to middling towns. You all picked one of the most interesting sample. Again.
From readers perspective, high level articles tend to be better received and understood when the article includes the most significant information, the famous names, the largest cities, the most interesting sample of each encyclopedic dimension. While doing so, balance/representativeness/completeness is still necessary.
I hope this 'why mega city' issue does not prevent your side to avoid this dispute resolution, because RegentsPark's suggested image selection process feels likely to help reach consensus. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@Jobberone, AVC, etc.:
I'm fine with, as RP described, a fully protected collapsible template, with images selected on Talk:India, whether from the same pool as the "Economy" images, concurrently in a separate "Template" selection, or after the new "Economy" images are agreed to. In my view, though:
Allow only two panoramic skyline shots in the template. Don't use particular buildings, slums, etc. We can save those for display outside the template. Delhi/Mumbai is so-so, but also, per Fowler, perhaps they can rotate with skylines of other (non-mega) cities, selected at Talk:India.
Replace the purple with light grey, the same shade as {{Infobox Country}} (one of Mrt3366's proposals was dark grey). Having a more compact sortable wikitable inside an uncoloured collapsible navbar would be better, but again, this has all the gravity of flipping bits on some WM server. Saravask21:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be nearing an actual consensus: a collapsible template, with two images, reduced width, recolored, with images (rotating or not) chosen based on community consensus. Is that compromise agreeable to all parties? Let's not argue over which images to use first.--SGCM(talk)22:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
If one looks at India#Demographics, cities are mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. Thus the template logically belongs between the first and second paragraphs. There is now a density map floating right of the first paragraph, and an image rotation floating left of the second. Hence, at present, there's no clean way to insert a 100%-width template unless it were inserted at the end of the section, away from its contextual prose. Either that or remove an image rotation (backed by previous consensus) or the map.
Someone needs to figure out how to get a two-image navbox template (with Mrt3366's layout) to float left or right of an image at reduced width. If that's not feasible, then another option is at Help:Collapsing#Sortable_tables, with a four-column pre-collapsed sortable list. But then that needs to be packaged with two images somehow, possibly in the header row so that the table stays thin and sortable. Either way (navbox or wikitable), a reduced-width template would be free to float left of the map.
Whatever consensus you guys (CK, AVC, FnF, RP, Saravask, etc) , I am okay with it. That's my final comment. My purpose was to bring about some changes. I think it's going alright. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)05:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree (reluctantly until a better solution presents itself) to the compromise: "a collapsible template, with two images, reduced width, recolored, with images (rotating or not) chosen based on community consensus." Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)12:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Feels like both sides are onboard and agreed to this consensus and agreed process: a collapsible template, with two images, reduced width, recolored, with images (rotating or not); the images will be selected by community process on the talk page; layout of template creatively addressed to address Saravask/etc comments. FWIW, thanks there DRN volunteers for the patience, input and for not rushing into closing this dispute resolution process. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
So far as I remember, collapsible text boxes are not allowed in featured articles. The same may be true for collapsible templates. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh just for the record I still think any template doesnt add any value to the article, see my comments further down, not that anybody is listening. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
We're listening! Trust me, your opinions are valid and welcome. It's just hard to keep track of everyone's opinions when the discussion has gone on as long as it has in this case. ;)--SGCM(talk)19:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Milborneone, nobody is indifferent to your views, but I am not particularly impressed by your comment that "any template doesnt add any value to the article". Many templates do. And the job of most templates is to provide navigation, but what I am proposing will also provide info that other FAs have and readers care about. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)12:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Observation
Despite the length of discussion, nobody explained how does this dramatic change of weight in "Demography" section improves either article or section. In the lack of rationale behind introduction of this change I'm going to close this discussion on September 11 as resolved, noting that this template isn't appropriate in the article. Objections? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
No objections from me. I agree that there is no rationale for the introduction of the template and we're all probably agreeing to this merely to end the discussion and possibly because of early comments from one of the DRN volunteers. However, c'est la vie. --regentspark (comment) 16:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The reasons for inclusion of template are numbered in Mrt3366's post above (visual aid, other FAs have it etc.). You can close the discussion as resolved, but noting that inclusion of template "isn't appropriate" seems to be diametrically opposite to the compromise arrived above. It also mocks at the effort of two other editors who have been collecting images for the template at Talk:India, after this discussion. If the closing comments here have no bearing on anything and are simply idle musings of the volunteer, then go ahead. Otherwise, I object to the wording of the close. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»17:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
You missed the discussion on how it improves the article. The template is useful and adds missing information on the urban demographic aspect of India with some 380 million people. Numerous country articles - for developed countries and for developing/rural/poor countries - have that template, but not all. While 'other country articles have it' is not justifiable reason for the article on India to have it, if you would allow assumption of good faith, the hundreds of wiki contributors on many of the most popular country articles on wikipedia chose to include that template because it is useful, improves the article and meets wiki content guidelines (and not because they were motivated by the bad faith showing off intentions or to mislead). As a user, I found that template useful in wiki country articles; and usefulness must be defined by wiki reader perspective. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The rationale given above is about as facile as it gets. Navigation aid is a meaningless argument (might as well list every link on Wikipedia). Other FA articles have it is also meaningless since there are probably many FA country articles that don't have it. Which one should we choose as exemplars, the ones that do or the ones that don't. And should we ignore the good faith (I'm not going to stoop to the level of blue-linking that) of the hundreds of editors on country articles that don't include a template? Finally, usefulness should be defined by the perspective of all wiki readers, not just one named AvC. Sorry, these arguments are ridiculous. But, how about closing it with an explicit statement that a compromise has been reached that doesn't address the issue of whether the template adds value to the article or not?--regentspark (comment) 17:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you find the arguments "facile". As someone who favors the inclusion of the template, I have to say that most of the arguments against it seem equally facile.
I guess the reason this is so hard to decide is that at bottom it really is a subjective opinion question: does the (admittedly redundant) information that the template provides justify its cost in terms of the amount of space (and, if it bothers you) visual distraction) it introduces? —Steve Summit (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) SGCM, consensus for the sake of keeping things calm is not exactly a best thing for featured article. In this case this template, as well as any other, is a great step back for a brilliantly composed and perfectly balanced section. I asked about collapsible template initially to drag arguments, and the very first response was precise: it is redundant. Just look at it: it occupies more then ⅓ of the section, while the largest cities are subtopic of city demography of India, which itself is subtopic of demographic split between cities and country, which itself is one of the aspects. Overall, this data, together with pictures, largely shifts the focus of the section to the minor aspect, making the article fail GA criteria, not only FA. We just can't leave the parties with such compromise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how this volunteer thing works, but it looks like you have a strong opinion on non–inclusion of the template. So, you are welcome to participate in the discussion and get your opinions registered, in which case it would be wisest to not close the discussion. I have no objections against participating in an even longer discussion that lasts till the end of time. Best wishes. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»18:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Like RegentsPark, I have gone along only to end the discussion, to get Mrt3366—one of the most obsessively tendentious editors I have encountered on my six years on Wikipedia—off my back. I am reminding Mrt3366 and his cohorts again that this is a temporary resolution, to be superseded when the clickable map by Planemad is in place, a resolution conditional on all the provisos being met and consensus gained for each. SGSM, has obviously worked very hard, and he should be both complimented and honored for stalwart and judicious stewardshhip. Mrt3366, however, has during this process flagrantly violated Wikipedia policy by blatantly canvassing, a blockable offense, and is lucky I haven't taken him to ANI. Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
@SGCM: this is a false compromise, as this template, collapsed or not, floating or not, with pictures or not, shifts focus from balanced description towards the minor subtopic.
@CorrectKnowledge: this thing works pretty straightforward – volunteers try to resolve dispute, and when of the sides is plain wrong, this side is told so. My will to avoid giving a party an advantage of saying that the damage to this FA was licensed on DRN doesn't make me involved here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Wonderful, I didn't know volunteers get to decide which side is "plain wrong". Why didn't you just add a comment at the beginning of the discussion that one side was "plain wrong" and be done with it? Why waste all of our time here? Correct Knowledge«৳alk»18:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
@czarkoff: As someone against the template, you're preaching to the choir here. ;)
@CorrectKnowledge: I think you may have a misunderstanding of DRN. Volunteers are just regular editors, and their input is always welcomed. Czarkoff isn't "deciding which side is plain wrong", he's just offering his opinion, and he's invited to do so.--SGCM(talk)18:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Discussion on another editor's conduct. Please focus on the content. All editors are invited to contribute to DRN.
So let him offer his opinion in a discussion. Offering his opinion right now is worthless. Also something tells me, steering the discussion to suit your opinion and keeping the discussion going as long as you want it might not be appropriate for a volunteer. Anyway, do what you want. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»18:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @CorrectKnowledge: I had reasonable hope that there would be at least some viable rationale put out. Unfortunately, I have been occupied IRL since, so that I couldn't afford enough time to keep eye on this discussion. That said, I'm not sure why you think that I am obliged to do babysitting here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
@CorrectKnowledge. His opinion is not "worthless", and has as equal weight as any other opinion in this informal discussion. I'll have to defend czarkoff here, there is no requirement for participation, or for when to participate. If you disagree with his argument, then please address his arguments, not the notion of his participation. As an informal noticeboard, anyone can participate, whenever they want and whoever they are.--SGCM(talk)19:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
@SGCM. You don't seem to understand that editors aren't here for your opinion. There many more editors who can give far better opinion if and when required. And delaying close etc. to get your way doesn't seem alright.
@czarkoff. If you do not understand the difference between guiding a process and babysitting you shouldn't be a volunteer here. I guess an uninvolved editor like Jobberone is more of an exception than the rule. What a waste of time this has been. Regards. Correct Knowledge«৳alk»19:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
@CorrectKnowledge. The purpose of DRN is to offer outside opinions. "It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy." Please don't comment on the conduct of other editors, while ignoring the content. It's not helping your case at all. And trying to pit the DRN volunteers against each other is an extremely bad idea.--SGCM(talk)19:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
@CorrectKnowledge: you blame me for not putting this comment before. This is babysitting. Furthermore, I'm always advocating for mediating disputes instead of simply stating the opinions; that said, nobody would be mediating the dispute whether to include unreferenced false statement or not, or whether to give the flat Earth theory equal weight with modern view or not. Some disputes can't be mediated, as the matter is straightforward, agree other editors or not. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
RegentsPark - as I wrote before, if wiki has link pass through data to verify general usage of equivalent templates - it is worth checking into for an objective measure, and to avoid 'not just one named AvC'.
Dmitrij - I am sorry, I am not following you. I looked at India#Demographics, what is 1/3? Why not include more relevant urban and rural encyclopedic information? Why are some 380 MM people in urban or 830 MM people in rural information a minor aspect? If anything, parts of this section are stale with 2001 data and rely on old reports; prominently discussing two causes of a small % of deaths (per an old WHO report cited by Time magazine), in a 1.2 billion people country is not a balanced coverage of demographics. The section needs some work, IMO. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I originally opposed the template on the article talk page as I thought that a mention in prose of the top five population centres would be all that is required. Having just read through all the discussion and argument I dont think my opinion has changed that the template should stay in Demographics of India and not be added to the article. Other linked to articles like List of most populous cities in India are linked in context of the prose. All the template says is look here is the top 20 cities, completely out of context of the prose and disturbs the flow. We have a lot of information to say about India in what is just an overview and an out of context list does not add anything that the article already has. I read the stuff about urban/rural split and the need to show both sides of the development of India but this table doesnt do that. Although a few examples of cities with an indication an explanation of growth over the last fifty years would do far more to inform the reader. So just for the record I dont think the template adds any value to what is a featured article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
@ApostleVonColorado: I say that top 20 cities occupying ⅓ of the section is too much. That doesn't mean that information shouldn't be appropriately updated, it just means that dropping in statistics trivia (and yes, in the summary style the top 20 cities with location and photos are trivia) is not appropriate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps czarkoff is right and we shouldn't be agreeing to something just for the sake of getting some peace around here. Reading through the discussion it does appear that this is mostly a result of the way the initial DRN volunteer framed the question I need to see an appropriate reason to exclude information which improves the article other than a consensus doesn't 'like' it. Returning to the better question "does the chart add value?" is perhaps the better encyclopedia building path to take. --regentspark (comment) 20:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Dmitrij - I understand you better now. You are hinting at a reason I share - unlike a few here, I prefer a collapsed template. A collapsed version will not be 1/3, more like 1/10. Stats can seem like trivia without context, but stats is not the reason or dimension of encyclopedic information the article needs through this template or something equivalent. What makes it interesting and an improvement is the biggest cities list (the text includes the big metro list though; but sometimes tables and images are better way to present information than text). Another improvement to the article would be from the included pictures, rotating or not, of urban skyline/infrastructure and the urban street chaos. I sense Mrt3366 side wants to include the template because, beyond the trivia stats, it offers an opportunity to include visual presentation of urban structures/infrastructure/life in a country that is changing like every other country. Without a better format of information and the included pictures, this country article is missing an important part of encyclopedic info on India. With it, the article will be improved. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
AvC, if Mrt3366 is including the template primarily to change the image composition on the page, then that is a disingenuous reason to do so. Far better to address the issue directly because this tangential approach only causes grief. --regentspark (comment) 21:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, as previously stated, I don't think it's possible to resolve the rather trivial issue of template inclusion, without resolving the broader dispute going on on Talk:India that underlies it.--SGCM(talk)21:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, my instinct is to not assume bad faith, but channel his or her energies to creatively enhance that template, and thereby the article. What if we eliminate trivia data, be willing to redo the template, and asked what kind of demographic/etc information would make an interesting and useful template, one that would improve this article? What about including the pictures with urban and rural summary data such as number of cities with over 1MM people, number of villages, etc etc or a comp between 1991 versus 2011 key census data, etc.? I will be delighted if we can channel the enthusiasm of wiki contributors to do what we all want - improve the article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
@AVC Not sure someone here knows if MediaWiki allows for a compact collapsible "quick tab"-style widget, with one tab for top cities and their pictures, one for a graph of rural/urban stats, another for total population chart, etc. That would be more along the lines of what Fowler/Planemad were starting to do (but with a clickable map instead). Not suggesting that we need to do this—I no longer have a strong opinion either way. But it'll be interesting to see what (if anything) the article ends up with. Saravask21:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Saravask - That quick tab is an interesting and creative idea; as you note, it is possibly cumbersome and complicated. I was thinking simple: along the lines of replacing the data Dmitrij and some wiki contributors consider trivia or repetitive. Replace the 20 rows of city population data in that Mrt3366 draft template with information the article does not include now, and that is unique and interesting high level summary of India's demographics. The diversity and complexity of India's demographics is unique and unusual in the world. Perhaps, just like images, what demographic information to include inside the template, information that may be interesting and value-adding, could be decided by consensus on the talk page. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I must say that this sounds intriguing. Some sort of demographic map, I suppose. But along what characteristic or characteristics? Other than a percent vegetarian heat map or a percent hindu heat map - or perhaps an urban/rural distribution map (assuming that there are large enough regional variations)? --regentspark (comment) 00:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
@AVC, RP, Saravask: I have said this many times before on Talk:India, even did so at the onset of this crisis to Mrt3366, and let me say it again. Unlike the first three sections of India (History, Geography, Biodiversity), the others have not been systematically rewritten any time in the recent past. They were so in 2004, but have since been randomly edited by random editors. Their additions, in further addition, deletion, and amendment, have stuck. This ad hoc and open content addition is Wikipedia's founding principle. Much valuable content has been created by its practice, especially in its early days, by talented IPs. However, as talented IPs are increasingly replaced by socks of banned editors, such freewheeling addition can only go so far, especially to featured articles, which per policy require more exacting standards, even graceful prose. If remedial reviews are not carried out, the articles drift. Last year, the collective nomination of images to the demography and culture sections was such an exercise, and one largely successful. Something similar needs to be done for the substandard content. Inevitably, the protocol for such a group exercise will be different. It will need to be considered thoroughly and stated unambiguously, but it can be done. We should attempt this after the current image selection bit is over. This, I believe, would be the best resolution. Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Allow me to maintain my silence on user conduct here. Allow me silence also on why sometimes conduct is more a reaction to abuse suffered, not each party's inherent character. On content, yes, the article India has serious content problems - something that is likely to cause concern who study/research or know India. The page has lots of stale data (economy, society, demographics, etc), emphasis on minor aspects or minor causes of certain stale facts, absence of a fair summary of India's recent progress and continuing problems from wiki-acceptable reliable sources. Fowler&fowler is right - sections of this article need to be considered thoroughly. Mrt3366 is also right because, in essence, he or she has been saying the same thing. This article should not remain a glossed up collection of stale, static and misleading information. Additionally simple fact/report updates should be easy to make - not a drawn out, WP:OWN flavored, accusations filled, edit wars, community vote, content dispute, and DRNs. Who has time for that? Most of us don't.
RegentsPark - You made me smile with that % vegetarian comment!! India, after all, has changed rapidly, and per USDA, is now the world's largest beef/meat exporter (more than USA, Australia, Brazil, etc). For details inside the template, I feel it would be best to let the community of editors decide what to include so that the article is improved. I can offer a suggestion: Revise the template where left row is 1991 data and right row 2011 information. Top 4 to 5 lines include 1991 and 2011 comparative stats on top cities. Next rows: number of villages, number of towns, number of urban agglomerates, average population density, birth rate, death rate, people above poverty line, people below poverty line, etc. Comparative demographics is best presented in tables, and such a summary can help show the complexity, dynamism and changes in India. All this can be summary from the main linked article: Demographics of India per wiki guidelines. The template should be collapsed, per discussion above. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
@AVC. It is not beef, it is water buffalo meat. (It's a technicality because USDA lists it under beef.) Cows, especially Indian zebu cows, playmates of Krishna and beloved of Hindu mythology, but also high maintenance and lactationally reticent, have been replaced over the last 60 years—except, of course, for a farmer's own needs—by India's water buffaloes. Unfortunately, the males, which in the past were used for farming or transportation, are no longer in much demand as India modernizes. They used to be allowed to wither and left to the vultures, but that was before India lost all its vultures. But that is another story.
Agreed, Fowler&fowler, it is buffalo meat. RegentsPark was discussing vegetarian map, and it made me recall that India's meat export and consumption trends in last 10 years have been impressive. Becoming #1 in total meat export worldwide, and on top India consumes more meat than it exports (see this). The current content already emphasizes and leaves the reader with the soft impression that India is vegetarian (see India#Society section), the current article does not mention once how producing/consuming meat is a major part of India's food balance and economy. That 1909 map is interesting; even if someone can prove it is true in 2011, it is scalar and static. Comparative demographics are vector/directional and dynamic - thus far more information packed. Comparative demographics show how India is changing, how its problems and achievements contrast over a generation (~20 years). Including it as a collapsed template or images/graphs/etc is one way to improve the article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
@SGCM. I think it's time to close this as resolved. Not much is happening here now. The discussion has moved to Talk:India, where editors are busy selecting pictures. Please accept my admiration for your level headed approach. Best wishes, Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
What the heck is going on??? Vegetarian/beef/meat???? What about the template?
"Despite the length of discussion, nobody explained how does this dramatic change of weight in "Demography" section improves either article or section." - Didn't I do it enough number of times for your taste? Read what I wrote above. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)12:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
"Additionally simple fact/report updates should be easy to make - not a drawn out, WP:OWN flavored, accusations filled, edit wars, community vote, content dispute, and DRNs. Who has time for that? Most of us don't." — I couldn't agree more. This should be easier. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)13:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
BTW, The "no template" option is unacceptable. A template will improve the article just as much as most other templates do on other similar GAs and FAs and images have done currently in the article. To summarise
That table is well-cited. The data is verifiable.
Other FAs have such tables/templates.
It will provide information on urban agglomerations in India.
It will help users with learning disabilities, autism, dyslexias and like disorders, etc.
Help some of those who learn in a more visual way than just by reading.
It will be particularly useful to foreigners who do not know the country (i.e. city locations) very well.
It will be used as a platform to display 2 images (rotating) of Modern India, of which there is none currently.
Now, after going through all the digressive, prolix comments made by concerned editors after my last comment in previous section.
I think it's best for us, for the time being, to be content with "a template, with two images, reduced width, recolored, with images (rotating) chosen based on community consensus" and we will decide through RFC whether or not it will be in collapsed form, because there seems to be a technical issue with it, as Dwaipayan stated collapsed text is discouraged in FAs. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)13:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I missed Dwai's comment above. If the template is not collapsible, then perhaps this needs to be discussed further since the compromise includes a collapse (pun intended!). In the interest of seeing where we are on this, I'm initiating a straw poll below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 13:39, 12 September 2012
Verification does not mean that the information must be conveyed through a template, as opposed to a chart, interactive image, or text, which can also be reliably sourced.
Unless a convention is established by the community through consensus (like through the Manual of Style), other articles have no bearing on whether a template should be used in the India article
Navboxes are transcluded list of hyperlinks. Outside of the paltry amount of two images, the template won't help visual learners or those with learning disabilities. The information is still conveyed as text, so reading is obviously still involved. And a chart or interactive image does the same job, without being as intrusive. An interactive image may in fact be a better visual aid than a template.
Other forms of communicating the same information (chart, interactive image, text) are as useful and as informative as a template. An interactive image might be even more informative.
The issue of images can be addressed, but it does not require the inclusion of a template. There can be rotating images without a template.
There might be a reason for a template, and I'm willing to consider it, but the rationales that have been provided are not compelling.--SGCM(talk)14:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
"Why not" is not a good reason to include something (though there are many reasons why not - varying from sourcing issues to the 'football field' size of the template itself). You need to come out with substantive reasons for why the template adds value to the article. --regentspark (comment) 15:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
“ "Why not" is not a good reason to include something ” - the nature of wikipedia means that it is by default in favour of inclusion of verifiable and pertinent content, especially when many other similar pages contain similar info. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?)11:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a good reason why WP:OSE is not a reasonable argument to make. Since you're pretty much admitting that the only reason you can think of is "why not", I'm not going to support any inclusion of a template. I suggest you take this to the next level of DR if you think the India article should have some sort of superset of features of all other country articles. --regentspark (comment) 13:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Straw poll
Let's see where we are on this template issue. Please indicate your preferences - without comment - below. The purpose of the straw poll is mainly to see where people lie on the template issue and is not meant as a substitute for the normal process of consensus. --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The "urban agglomeration" template does not add value to the article
Wikipedia is not a vote. (and also if you want a straw poll, I would say, not enough number of people are getting notified and if this goes haywire, we will have to repeat this in a proper RFC at WT:FA.)
Three of the main parties in this dispute, Fowler&Fowler, AVC, and Mrt3366, the filing editor, have expressed a desire to close the DRN. Any thoughts? It looks like the filing editor has gone ahead to create an RfC on the issue. The discussion is currently spread between three locations (Talk:India, the DRN case, and the RfC page), which is a practice that is not encouraged.--SGCM(talk)23:26, 12 September 2012 (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.
^"Agglomerations & Cities". INDIA: States and Major Agglomerations Population Totals. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner. Retrieved 2020-03-27.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
