Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 83

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

→

Archive 90

First Indochina War

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Mztourist on 11:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute First Indochina War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mztourist (talk · contribs) Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Previous consensus was that the outcome in the Infobox should not state that the result was a Viet Minh victory as the war took place in three countries: Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and the outcome decided at the Geneva Conference saw the partition of Vietnam, the independence of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and the departure of the French. It is simplistic to describe it as a Viet Minh victory, particularly as the Viet Minh were forced to settle for control of only North Vietnam. Recently some Users have changed the infobox to Viet Minh victory and they seek to support this change with a variety of POV or otherwise non-reliable sources, including out of context or shorthhand quotes (lacking any quality analysis) from authors who are not scholars of the First Indochina War. There are a limited number of reliable sources for the outcome of the First Indochina War and the majority do not say that it was a Viet Minh victory. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on the Talk Page How do you think we can help? Independent evaluation of quotes and RS Summary of dispute by Darkness Shines Viet Minh won, sources say they won, the sources are reliable. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TheTimesAreAChanging Darkness Shines was certainly right to revert this edit, in which Mztourist alters sourced material simply because he disagrees with it. The facts are not in dispute: The Viet Minh achieved military victory but suffered political defeat. After looking at this a bit more closely, I can understand why Mztourist would want to omit the "victory" label altogether in favor of a more nuanced description, but misrepresenting sources (changing the source's "Viet Minh victory" to "French defeat") is not an ideal solution. I don't have much experience working on comparable infoboxes, but I would like to know how other war articles handle this type of problem. Is "victory" commonly used to summarize results? Does the failure of the victorious party to achieve all of their war aims impact the results summary?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC) First Indochina War discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer (and the current coordinator) here. I'd like to say a few words before this kicks off because I see a procedural snag. Mztourist claims that there was a prior consensus which established the version of the results box before this edit by Darkness Shines which attempts to introduce the Viet Minh victory. There was, indeed, a substantial prior discussion here which resulted in that version, which has been in the article for several months. That discussion included the Viet Minh victory question. Here's the problem from DRN's point of view: Under this section of the Consensus policy, if there was a prior consensus — and I believe that there was, especially since there were other editors (AustralianRupert and Anotherclown) who supported Mztourist's position there — then the only way the article text can be changed in a way contrary to that prior consensus is by the formation of a new consensus. That means that this DRN discussion can only be productive if, given the current participants, Mztourist can be convinced to change his mind, perhaps with a DRN volunteer's assistance though it is also possible that the volunteer will remain neutral or, of course, side with Mztourist. If Darkness Shines and TheTimesAreAChanging do not feel that to be likely, then their only practical choices are to either drop the effort to include the text or to file a RFC at the article talk page to try to bring other editors from the community into the discussion, in which case this DRN listing will be closed. On the other hand, we can move forward with discussion here if they think that they can change Mztourist's mind. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC) I see no prior consensus to remove this at that link, I see various people being worn down by attrition, that is not a consensus. We do not remove reliably sourced content because one guy don't like it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) abbreviated out of context statements by authors who are not experts on the Indochina War are not RS Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC) TheTimesAreAChanging says the facts are not in dispute and the Viet Minh acheived military victory. That is simply incorrect, the Viet Minh won several decisive battles, but they did not militarily win the war. The war didn't end April 1975 style with the Viet Minh capturing Hanoi and Saigon, it ended (like many modern wars do) at the negotiating table at Geneva, where the Viet Minh accepted partition and control of only North Vietnam. Those are the facts. The other point to note is that Indochina War means the war in 3 countries - Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, the Viet Minh won in northern Vietnam not anywhere else. Saying the Viet Minh won the Indochina War is the same as saying the North Vietnamese won the Vietnam War, something that TheTimesAreAChanging has corrected several times recently. The reason why I suggested "French defeat" was because I was growing weary of this debate and sought an outcome statement that might be acceptable. Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC) I'll try and assist as a volunteer, as it seems this section hasn't received any attention in about a week. What is the current status of the dispute? It seems to me that an accurate overview of the conflict's outcome should be posted in the "result" field; what do participants believe is accurate here, based on WP:RS? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I had understood that based on TransporterMan's comments above that he agreed that there was an existing consensus and that parties who wished to diverge from that consensus should "either drop the effort to include the text or to file a RFC at the article talk". Darkness Shines made no constructive response to this and has not filed the RFC and so I assumed that he accepted this, however when I deleted "Viet Minh victory" to reinstate the previous consensus he reverted this and continues to try to push non-RS references. Mztourist (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC) There was no prior consensus, plenty of sources have been given on the talk page which state very clearly that the VM won the war, Mztourist is now saying that military historians are not RS, which is obviously wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC) User:Theodore! this case is scheduled to auto archive on Dec 6th. You may want to extend that if you are going to continue with the case. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC) I think some participants are interested in an RfC to examine source reliability. If others are, I would suggest going there. If not, I will continue with the discussion here. I won't extend the archive date yet; hopefully we will be able to figure things out today or tomorrow. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC) I've extended the auto archive date to Dec 10th. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 6 December 2013 (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.

Involuntary Celibacy article

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by 99.245.191.227 on 18:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Involuntary celibacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Alchewizzard (talk · contribs) 99.245.191.227 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User Alchewizzard is reverting the page "Involuntary celibacy" back to its July 2013 version, undoing 6 months of edits that have been discussed on the talk page. The first time the article was rewritten, it was reverted by a different user. Since then, the article has been systematically and slowly improved, with sources and discussion on the talk page, however all that work is being undone by Alchewizzard. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The first time the article was reverted, I undid the edit and explained myself. He then reverted the edit with a pseduo-threatening "WARN TO TROLLS AND VANDALS." How do you think we can help? Can you determine whether the edits since July (and more recently since the November revert) really do represent trolling as Alchewizzard claims? Summary of dispute by Alchewizzard Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 99.245.191.227 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Involuntary Celibacy article discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Karna's talk page

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. – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Pinkfloyd11 on 20:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Karna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Pinkfloyd11 (talk · contribs) Abecedare (talk · contribs) Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Basically, there is disagreement over the length and sourcing of the Karna article. While I think we all agree that the article can be shortened by changing prose, the primary disagreement is over content. One side is contending that the article is too boring, too long, and is violating wikipedia policy by including primary sources. The other side is contending that while the prose could be bettered to deviate from in-universe view, the article may be required to be long to fit wikipedia guidelines on building a fictional character biography. Also, that primary sources can be used in an article to describe "plot" of a story, and just not in analysis or interpretation. @Dharma: Consensus is not determined by counting heads. Yes, you asked me to stay out of it for a week. I then proposed certain guidelines for you to follow in that week. You never responded and proceeded with edits that violated those conditions. Yet I still did not revert anything and tried to engage y'all with little result. I think in your desire to avoid "mumbo jumbo", you end up providing no examples and no context. Hence, your arguments devolve into "content should be "x way" because "x way" is good, because "x way" is good. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Maybe this isn't the place for it, but stop with the Personal Attacks, remember Wikipedia:Etiquette and don't bite the newcomers. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC) I would hardly call any of those things that I did complicated or requiring experience. It is wikipedia, not the cracking of CIA code. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've posted to the talk page per BRD, referencing specific examples and referencing wikipedia guidelines. Some of my contentions really haven't been answered. The editors in questioned have expressed their frustration at the length of my posts. They've gone ahead and done some very massive edits without discussion. They've suggested I go to this board. I've wanted to avoid it, but they aren't leaving me much choice. Of course this is only "my" side. How do you think we can help? Maybe clarify the wikipedia guidelines relevant to this dispute? Help judge what kind of plot content is relevant to the analysis? Answer the question if articles like the one in type have a set length limit? Fundamentally, I want them to engage in conversation with me. A lot of what I am hearing is "primary sources are bad because they are bad" or "delete content because it should be deleted". They want me to refute their specific points while not expecting the same of themselves.... Summary of dispute by Abecedare Background The article is about a character from the Indian epis Mahabharata and the dispute as I see it is regarding how much space should be devoted to simple character bio based on (translations or paraphrases of) the primary source (ie, the Mahabharata) versus what secondary sources have said on the subject. For future reference, the starting point for discussion was this version of the article. My view Essentially copying from my post on the article talk page: The article needs drastic pruning from the in-universe mess that it currently is (On a quick look, sections 2-7 need to be combined into a single 2-4 paragraph summary.) The aim of an encyclopedic article such is this one is not to to provide a cliffs note version of Mahabharata, but rather to concentrate on what modern scholars have had to say about the subject; his portrayal; possible inspirations and archetypes; cultural, literary and religious significance etc. Quotes and paraphrases from Mahabharata should be very limited, comparable to say a plot section of a well developed movie or book article Here is a sample list of high quality secondary sources on the subject that can used to improve the article by any interested editor. I may give it a try, but will probably not get to it till December. Suggestion I think WP:ADOPT or WP:30 would be better avenues for resolving the issues, but have no objection if DRN is preferred by Pinkfloyd11, since an "outside opinion" can often be helpful. Note though that there have been two previous such attempts: I myself entered the picture after seeing this post on the Hinduism Project Noticeboard, and initially commented on the article talk page User:Mdebellis responded to an earlier post at the Teahouse and left this comment Lets hope, the third time is a charm! :-) Summary of dispute by Dharmadhyaksha Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. @Pinkfloyd11: I had left the article to allow you to do whatever pleased you. You said we should have consensus and do nothing without that. Two more editors, and the only two present there beside you and me, are okay with the way i am going towards cleaning this article. Thats WP:CONSENSUS dear. In fact, they both suggested that the article should be deleted and started from stub again which i felt unnecessary. Further to that, on 22nd Nov i asked you to stay out of the business for a week (that's generally 7 days on Earth). There is no dispute at all to run to the DRN; at least yet. Come back after 7 days when the article is ready. And remember WP:WALL. No one reads all this mumbo jumbo. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC) With a click, any version of the article can be restored any time. Only if you could keep out and let other editors work, you would know what we are doing. There is so much fuss you created and that too without knowing whats in my or other's mind. So quit wasting everyone's time and edit something else; or better still just go away forever. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Newcomer? 14 days back you were using dabsolver and creating new articles. If you consider yourself old enough to create articles directly in article space, i would think you are exceptionally good or a sock of some blocked account and not a actual newcomer. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Karna discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I'm Theodore, a DRN volunteer. I will assist with this discussion, if participants are still interested in holding one. As I am also involved in three other ongoing discussions, my responses may be somewhat delayed; however, I will try to be as punctual as possible. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC) The editor who filed this is inactive. That's how the dispute is resolved i suppose. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks Theodore for taking this up. When Pinkfloyd returns, we can continue with the process. I may be a bit tardy this week, but will try to respond within the day to any messages. Abecedare (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC) [User:Theodore!], I've forwarded the auto archive bot date to Dec 15th. Feel free to adjust further as needed. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks much! I'll continue to monitor this; as Abecedare has said, we can kick off the actual discussion when Pinkfloyd is back. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC) I'm back. Shall we start the discussion? Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Sounds good! —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC) I don't want to re-hash what has been posted here and on the Karna talk page. Basically, Dharma and Abecedare are contending that the article is too long and violating several wikipedia policies (namely in-universe, article length, and use of primary sources), and have cut 30,000+ characters from the article. Abecedare specifically cut around 17,000 characters with little explanation, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I am contending that while the article needs cleanup, it isn't violating those policies. In universe doesn't say anything about not using primary sources. In fact, the Karna article violates it by not using the correct tense and perhaps at time referring to Karna as a real figure, and not a fictional one. Wikipedia frown on the analysis of primary sources, not the use of them specifically; to tell the role of Karna in the mahabhartha, primary sources need to be relied on. According to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary and character article, I think that the article requires a lot of text to provide the readers with context; context that has now been deleted. Secondly, I would aledge that part of the reason that article is so long, is that there are multiple "primary source" accounts. There are many different versions of what Karna does in the Mahabhartha. Unless it is a supreme minority view, I don't know how you can delete them and just keep the story element from one or two primary sources in order to keep a short article. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Two quick points, since they seem to have been missed: I don't think the article is too long. It is the plain character bio part of the article that was unduly long before some much needed pruning by Dharmadhyaksha (the current version can be further tightened but is much improved). The rest of the article, which deals with secondary analysis of Karna, can and should be significantly expanded. If there are multiple accounts of significant events related to Karna discussed by secondary sources, do include them while citing the relevant Mahabharata recension or secondary literature where they appear, and, preferably, alongside (sourced, scholarly) analysis of the significance of the variation. The Secondary literature and media section of the article was recently created just for this purpose, and can be gainfully expanded using sources listed here. I'll step back for now and let user:Theodore! weigh in. Do let me know if there are any specific issues that you'd like me to address though. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Sorry for the delay in responding here! I'll post a few comments shortly; I have a few real-life things to wrap up before I do. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Closing notice This dispute has been here for 15 days with little participation; it also has been stale for two days. I will close the dispute in around 12 hours if nothing relevant can be brought to it. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 04:31, 8 December 2013 (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.

Talk:Shusha

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Grandmaster on 23:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Shusha (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Grandmaster (talk · contribs) Hablabar (talk · contribs) Brandmeister (talk · contribs) Roses&guns (talk · contribs) Zimmarod (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A detailed explanation was provided here by another user. In short, there's a long running dispute at talk of the article with regard to the foundation of the town. While it is generally accepted (including by major encyclopedias) that the town was founded in 1752, there are also a few primary sources of questionable reliability that may suggest otherwise. In my opinion, presenting the early foundation as a fact despite this view being in minority and contrary to the generally accepted view being the mid-18th century foundation is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. The issue requiring a resolution is how to present the conflicting views on the foundation of the town in accordance with the wiki rules. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The issue was reported by one of the involved editors to WP:FTN, but it did not generate any outcome. How do you think we can help? An outside view and an active involvement of the wider wiki community would be very helpful. Responding briefly to Hablabar, if pre-1752 foundation is a widely accepted opinion in the international scholarly community, you should have no problems finding a bunch of third party secondary sources supporting this viewpoint. So far you only refer to primary sources, reliability of some of which is highly questionable. But as Brandmeister convincingly demonstrated, all the major encyclopedias and other third party secondary sources point to 1752 foundation by Panah Ali khan. Now if there are different views on the subject of foundation, then according to WP:Weight all notable viewpoints need to be presented in accordance to their weight. As for the "composite timeline" mentioned by Hablabar, it is nothing but WP:OR and WP:Synth, where he merged two mutually exclusive views to present as a fact the existence of the town in medieval times, while this view is clearly not shared by most of the sources. Grandmaster 21:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC) the existence of the town in medieval times and the 1752 foundation by Panah Ali khan are not mutually exclusive, because pre-1752 mentions refer to town and fort, while 1752 references point to a settlement that was slated to evolve into a city in the 19th c. Your sources are in minority not those which talk about pre-1752. Hablabar (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC) That is your personal interpretation of the sources and as such is a WP:OR. If a source says that the city was founded in 1752, you cannot imply anything more than it actually says, and combine it with others to imply things that the source did not say. That is a violation of WP:Synth, which holds: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Plus, there are sources that say that the town was built on an empty spot, so claiming as a fact something that contradicts other sources is not in line with the rules. In addition, most primary sources claiming pre-1752 foundation refer to the nearby village by the same name, and not the town of Shusha, and the secondary academic sources supporting this view are lacking. Grandmaster 19:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Hablabar Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The dispute arises from User:Grandmaster mischaracterizes the situation as an issue of WP:Weight in order to avoid the creative handling of timeline. He says that ostensibly the majority of sources say that Shusha was established in 1752. However, the credibility of primary sources making such statements is dubious, as demonstrated on talk pages in Shusha. Also, spinning the discussion around the majority or minority of sources can be viewed as WP:OR, unless there is a secondary source discussing the majority or minority issue in explicit terms. As it was demonstrated, mentioning the alleged establishment of Shusha in the 18th century does not override the evidence that an earlier town and fort existed long before the upgrade of Shusha into an urban settlement in the 18th century. WP:Weight, WP:FRINGE do not support the apportion of sources into "majority" and "minority," and WP:BALANCE and WP:OR invalidate this apportioning. If all mentioned sources supporting the notion of an earlier creation of the city are counted, the view about the 18th century establishment can be well a minority view, if one follows the logic of the Grandmaster/Brandmesiter duo. I suggest to return to the previous version where a composite timeline is put in place, and discrepancies are explained on the side. Hablabar (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Brandmeister Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I agree with the above that the issue at stake is how to present the conflicting pre-1750s version in the article and whether that version should be treated in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Personally I found it difficult to find any mention of Shusha before the 1750s in reliable sources, including all encyclopedias which tackle this issue. According to some sources from the opposing camp's version, there was already a fortress in Shusha before 1750s and it was ceded to Panah Ali Khan, but it contradicts the 1750s version, which says that the town's only fortress was built by Panah Ali Khan. This latter version is confirmed particularly by the inscription on the wall of the town's mosque and some primary sources, quoted in the article. Brandmeistertalk 12:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Roses&guns Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Zimmarod Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I think Proudbolsahye's suggestion expressed here [1] is reasonable and we can modify the text per his suggestion. At the same time, Grandmaster's refusal to cooperate and his attitude "My way or no way" should be be taken note of by administrators. Zimmarod (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Alborz Fallah As my native language is Persian and Persian sources are of major importance in chronography of that region , I can say all Persian sources support 1752 foundation . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Talk:Shusha discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 24 hour closing notice: In light of the fact that several significant participants in this dispute have chosen not to participate here (as is their right), there's not much we can do. This will be closed as futile unless those editors choose to give opening statements before 17:00 UTC on November 27, 2013. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC) I left additional notes today for some people who have been active at Shusha and hope there may be a response. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Thanks T-man and Ed for your efforts but it seems participation is lacking and so I am closing this case. Please let me know if have any questions or objections. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC) I would like to ask to keep this case open, so that we could get more involvement from the wiki community. I think discussing and trying to find a solution is better than edit warring, and leaving this issue unresolved could result in resumption of edit warring. It would also be helpful if editors checking this page could provide their opinions so that the issue could be resolved in accordance with the wiki rules. Thanks. Grandmaster 19:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, discussing is always better than edit warring. User:TransporterMan? Is there enough participation now to move ahead? I'll leave it open and let you do the close if you feel it is stale. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I think so and I've removed the closing notice. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Great, glad things are moving forward :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC) PS I've forwarded the bot archive date to Dec 15th. Please adjust as needed. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC) 24 hour closing notice-- Attn: User:TransporterMan and others. I note that discussion is ongoing at the article talk page and that there has been no discussion here by involved parties for more than a week. User:Grandmaster has said he would like more community opinion. An RfC would be best for this as moderators here at DRN attempt to be neutral and generally do not offer opinions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:00, 7 December 2013 (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.

Trail of Tears Classic

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by TheWABACmachine on 20:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Trail of Tears Classic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved TheWABACmachine (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Page describes a college sports rivalry that is not accurate. While the two teams play each other, they do not label this rivalry, nor do they use the ethnically insensitive term. As the marketing and communications director of Arkansas State, I can speak directly to this. The article has been cited by on-line media as proof of a ethic insensitivity by A-State toward the Native American community. If individuals use the term, it is not sanctioned by A-State, and we would appreciate deleting the article as it is inaccurate. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Made the edit to remove, it was reinstated How do you think we can help? First time for me on this, so I hope I am following the correct procedures. Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Trail of Tears Classic discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SpeedFan

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by D0s4d1 on 10:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute SpeedFan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved D0s4d1 (talk · contribs) 71.196.246.113 (talk · contribs) 109.154.160.28 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hi, and thank you for your time with this. Someone seems to be running the Speed Fan page, but they have no account on Wiki and are issuing proclamations from unregistered IP addresses. I think it might be the programmer. Since Wiki seeks to include all opinions, I feel both their and my point of view should be represented. I welcome any suggestions of neutral wording. The section in question: Risks SpeedFan crashes some systems when it is launched, possibly causing registry corruption or loss of recent changes to the registry. This can cause recently-installed programs to disappear from Add/Remove Programs, programs to no longer function correctly, or loss of operating-system stability. What I wrote was factual. That software and any like it hook so deep into the operating system that there is some risk of trashing your OS. On a Windows PC, this is not a surprise, and many programs (antivirus, device drivers, etc) have the same risk. That risk should be stated so the casual computer user understands the risks before proceeding. I was prepared to deal with the fallout of a system crash, but many people I know are not. Can you help form neutral language and, if necessary, lock the page from drive-by editing or SpeedFan's organized in-house press? Thank you again for your time. D0s4d1 (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to start a discussion on the talk page, and restored the text. After my text was deleted again, I tried to start a discussion again with this anonymous troll. How do you think we can help? Suggest neutral language, mediate, or lock the page except to people with usernames, if necessary. Summary of dispute by 71.196.246.113 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 109.154.160.28 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. SpeedFan discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Millet (Ottoman Empire)

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Jingiby on 11:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Millet (Ottoman Empire) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jingiby (talk · contribs) 46.193.1.177 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A statement of Ethnic Macedonians being one of the Orthodox different ethnic groups in the Ottoman Empire, has been recently added by an IP. However. during the early 20th century, i.e. at the eve of the end of the Ottoman rule on the Balkans, the international community viewed the Macedonian Slavs predominantly as regional variety of Bulgarians. This was also the time of the first expressions of Macedonian nationalism only by a handsome of intellectuals outside the region of Macedonia. Meanwhile in the 19th century the classic Ottoman millet system began to degrade then with the continuous identification of the religious creed with ethnic identity. Most of Macedonian Slavs then joined the new Bulgarian Millet, and some joined the Greek or the Serbian millets. Generally, till the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century there were recognized 17 separate millets, i.e. nations. Macedonian Millet or separate ethnic community was never recognized or claimed. Macedonist ideas increased only in 1930s and were supported by the Comintern. During the Second World War these ideas were further developed by the Yugoslav Communist Partisans, but some researchers doubt that even at that time the Macedonian Slavs considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians. In this way the crucial point for the Macedonian ethnogenessis was the creation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia in 1944. The IP provided a single primary source by Georgi Pulevski and added the Ethnic Macedonians as a separate entity in the article. However, Pulevski viewed the Macedonian identity as being a regional phenomenon. Once he was calling himself a "Serbian patriot", another time a "Bulgarian". His numerous identifications actually reveals the absence of a clear ethnic sense in a part of the local Slavic population in Macedonia then and that is confirmed by a secondary sources. The IP rejected all provided academic sources and didn't discuss on article's talk page, making blind reverts, insisting of the presence of any imaginery Ethnic Macedonian community during Ottoman times. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to discuss the issue on IP's talk page and also proposed the article for semi-protection. How do you think we can help? On the base of provided lots academic sources. Summary of dispute by 46.193.1.177 (talk · contribs) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As a note, this IP editor has been blocked for a period of 48 hours due to edit warring. Once he makes an opening statement, discussion can be opened unless the DRN request is closed for another reason. Thanks. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Millet (Ottoman Empire) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

novocure

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by 1zeroate on 19:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Novocure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 1zeroate (talk · contribs) zad68 (talk · contribs) alexbrn (talk · contribs) MastCell (talk · contribs) Dispute overview zad68,alexbrn these two are following me around or we are bumping heads alot. They are insisting on removing most anything I put forth. Some of the citations they insist upon require credit cards to be read. They have a severe dislike/bias against novocure and modalities like it I can appreciate not giving undue weight to that which is unproven. However , Novocure is proven. I made a few edits on zad68 and then this novocure page I made was put up for articles of deletion. I feel this was done in retaliation. Mastcell was quick to support him after blanking my talk pages on the Royal Rife page speaking about novocure. This is a clicque. A club. A gang of individuals working their best to control the medical pages from a Cynical skeptic point of view. And thats fine till their bias targets individuals. I am sick and tired of being at the short end of the barrel. Can I get some assistence in resolving our disputes? Things like references that are free instead of ME having to buy access. Not having the majority of my edits targeted for rollback by these people on this page and other pages. The assumption that everything I do is in bad faith wears me down. And they recurit. Their is a salm somthing. He was on another delete page supporting a delete and asking for a merge. I opposed the merge because of the shady timing. Now he is on the novocure page supporting alexbrn and zad68 and asking for delete. And this is with that clique. Clique group editing is not gonna advance humanity for the best. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talking, comprimise. I am down for comprimise. I asked for a RfC with mast cell after blanking. but I have years of experience with Mastcell and his babysitting of the defunt royal rife smear page. That page is not a BIO. Biographys are about people. That Rife page is about his machine and how dangerous machines attributed to him are. It is that bias mentality that is following me and insisting that my edits be edited out. How do you think we can help? I have no clue. I am at my witts end. I try to come back on occasion... I was watching the Anthony Holland (composer) page from back in the day when He was the only Anthony Holland here. As soon as i added that bit about his work with frequency devices it did not take long to be put up for deletion by the clique. It would be nice if those of the clique would raise the bar, talk more before editing, assume good faith, double check ref links. Summary of dispute by zad68 The editor who started this DR, 1zeroate, has just been indef-blocked. It's unlikely anything further will happen with this DR. Zad68 20:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by alexbrn Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by MastCell Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. novocure discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deobandi

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 98.100.23.77 on 20:08, 18 December 2013 (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. Location of dispute Deobandi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved null (talk · contribs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorgeCustersSabre (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Statements backed by references to the links of extremism and terrorism to Deobandi movements have been systematically removed over the course of more than a year. Mention of such practices (not in line with neutrality and factual accuracy) began over a year ago in the talk section but received no comment. Additions today to references to this topic were summarily removed and labelled "silly" today. Given the global importance of such links in providing an objective view of Deobandi aspects, such references must be allowed in. As an alternative, the entire page should be deleted to prevent dissemination of a distorted view of this movement. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Undid the deletion, added comment in talk page. How do you think we can help? In short, allow references to links between Deobandi and terrorism and extremism, or delete the entire page. Given the dismissive and inaccurate description by GorgeCustersSabre accompanying his/her deletion of referenced statements, I see no reasonable possibility for acceptance of the references on the aspect of Deobandi extremism and terrorism connections without resolution by others. The chilling effect of GorgeCustersSabre's approach on this topic will be significant if tolerated. Summary of dispute by null Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorgeCustersSabre Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Deobandi discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Macedonians (ethnic group)

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Jingiby on 06:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Macedonians (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jingiby (talk · contribs) Slovenski Volk (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In the section describing the Macedonian identity is a statement during the Middle Ages, there was no distinct Macedonian identity, however the designation Macedonian referred to any person who lived in Macedonia. I tried to clarify with properly soursed sentence that Medieval, i.e. Byzantine Macedonia was an area outside the borders of the region known in antiquity and modern times with this name and it even disappeared after the Ottoman conquest in 14th century, restored only in the 19th century as geographical term. However another user fiercely prevents those objective circumstances to be described in the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I wrote on a talk page of an admin: Future Perfect at Sunrise. How do you think we can help? On the base of a common sense, compromise and provided reliable academic sources. Summary of dispute by Slovenski Volk Jingiby is a well-meaning editor, and i consider him a (cyber) friend. However, on this occasion he appears to be rather confused. There difference between my version of the discussion of "Identities" and his later additions are visible here [2] Several errors are evident is in his additions (1) he claims "The term was used rarely in a geographical or administrative aspect" Quoting J V A Fine here [3] which says nothing of the sort. So he has misrepresented the source. (2) He then claims "This designation began circulating on the Balkans in Western-influenced cultural contexts since the 16th century again, however the idea of Macedonian identity arose outside the region during the 17th century, involving the local Slavic population hardly in the second half of the 19th century" Aside from the poor English, it is out of context. The paragraph he has added it in is dealing with the medieval time-frame. He is jumping to a discussion on the modern period, surrounding issues of modern Romantic Nationalism etc which are already discussed subsequently in greater detail in an additional 3 chapters (!) His addition is thus redundant, and one is forced to conclude that it serves no purpose apart from ramming down his personal POV. (3) He appears to be confused by the notion of Macedonia (region) and Macedonia (theme). The Macedonian region had been established since Phillip and Alexander annexed Pelanognia and Paeonia to Macedonia propper, and this remained so through Roman times and into Late Antiquity and the early medieval period; when Slavic tribes settled there. Whilst its expanse varied and was subject to change, a vague notion of "Macedonia" as a region always remained. Scholars of antiquity and Middle Ages have no confusion where Macedonia lies [4][5] - as they clearly discuss Macedonia in a wider, regional perspective, and when talking about the specific theme of Macedonia, they clearly distinguish. Eg Curta talks of "another Byzantine raid into Macedonia in 991. .. with a shift in centre of Power.. to Prespa" (pg 242). whilst the Companion the "bishop of Stobi, the capital City of Macedonia Secunda" (pg 559). When referring to the theme they illustrate clearly eg "Bulgarian troops raided the theme of Macedonia"(Curta pg 227). There is no "rarity", and the only confusion is with Jingiby. As an aside, and an explanation, Byzantine naming conventions were haphazard, tempered as they were on the chronolgy and extent of what land they actually controlled/ recovered. They could not call historic Macedonia the theme of Macedonia becuase they had simply not conquered it ! As a cross -example, the theme of Serbia was not actually in Serbia, but in what is now Montegenro. Serbia itself actually lay in the 'theme of Sirmium'. The theme of Bulgaria lay far to the east of original Bulgaria, and where Bulgaria is today. The Byzantine theme of Hellas did not correspond to ancient Greece, nor modern Greece , etc, etc (4) In any case, Jingiby can confabulate ad nauseum about where he thinks Macedonia should lie, however, the reference is clear. "Most references to Macedonians in Byzantine texts are in (both) a geographical or administrative and not an ethnic sense".[6]. So it was used both as a general geographic identifier as well as the specific administrative theme. QED Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC) List of sources for discussion Since the topic seems to be complicated for the volunteers and no comments were posted, I would like to present a lot of specialized sources and corresponding links on their attention, aiming to to help them. I will avoid any personal comments on the topic. In the second century CE Claudius Ptolemy imagined Macedonia to be more or less where it is considered to be today, especially if one defines Macedonia as exclusivelly the contemporary Greek region. In other words, the northern regions around Skopje were not identified as Macedonian lands. However for reasons that are still unclear, over the next eleven centuries Macedonia's location “shifted” significantly—both in Byzantine and in Western European sources. Entangled Histories of the Balkans: Volume One, Roumen Daskalov, Tchavdar Marinov, BRILL, 2013, ISBN 900425076X, pp. 278-279. The migrations during the early Byzantine centuries also changed the meaning of the geographical term Macedonia, which seems to have moved to the east together with some of the non-Slavic population of the old Roman province. In the early 9th century an administrative unit (theme) of Makedonikon was established in what is now Thrace (split among Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey) with Adrianopleas its capital. It was the birthplace of Emperor Basil I (867–886), the founder of the so-called Macedonian dinasty in Byzantinum. Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956, p. Iii. By the beginning of the 9th century the theme of Macedonia, with its capital at Adrianople consisted not of Macedonian but of Thracian territories. During the Byzantine period the Macedonia proper corresponded to the themes of Thessalonica and Strymon. The Ottoman administration ignored the name of Macedonia. It was only revived during the Renaisance, when western schoolars rediscovered the ancient Greek geographical terminology. Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Macedon, 650 BC - 300 AD, Robin J. Fox, Robin Lane Fox, BRILL, 2011, ISBN 9004206507, p. 35. In antiquity and modern times, Adrianople belonged to Thrace, but all scholars agree that in Byzantine times Adrianople was the capital of the theme of Macedonia. Byzantine Macedonia: Identity Image and History, Roger Scott, John Burke, Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, Australian Catholic University, 2000, ISBN 1876503068, p. 67. By the Middle ages Macedonia's location had been forgotten and designated in areas mostly outside the ancient Macedonian kingdom, vanishing completely after the Ottoman conquest.Plundered Loyalties: World War II and the Civil War in Greek West Macedonia, Giannēs Koliopoulos, New York University Press, 1999, ISBN 0814747302, p. 1. The reason for specifying this period (late Ottoman rule) is that during the Middle Ages the geographical definition 'Macedonia' is somewhat vague; and with all but a few of the Byzantine writers the term comes to include the larger portion of Northern Thrace or what is today South Bulgaria, and often present day Thrace as well. History of Macedonia 1354-1833, Α. Ε. Vacalopoulos. Translated by Peter Megann, Institute for Balkan studies, Thessalonika, 1973, p. 3. Over a certain period they (Byzantine authors) called the inhabitants of the Adrianople area " Macedonians" because at that time the Adrianople area was included in the theme (administrative region) of Macedonia. The troops of this theme were also often called Macedonian troops. Documents and materials on the history of the Bulgarian people, Dimitar Kyosev et al. Publ. House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1969, Sofia, p. 6. When the barbarian invasions started in the fourth through seventh centuries AD in the Balkans, the Macedones and the other remnants of the Hellenes who lived in Macedonia were pushed to eastern Thrace, the area between Adrianople (presently the Turkish city of Edirne) and Constantinople. This area would be called theme of Macedonia by the Byzantines... whereas the modern territory of R. of Macedonia was included in the theme of Bulgaria after the destrution of Samuels Bulgarian Empire in 1018. Contested Ethnic Identity: The Case of Macedonian Immigrants in Toronto, 1900-1996, Chris Kostov, Peter Lang, 2010, ISBN 3034301960, p. 48. The ancient name 'Macedonia' disappeared during the period of Ottoman rule and was only restored in the nineteenth century originally as geographical term. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism, John Breuilly, Oxford University Press, 2013, ISBN 0199209197, p. 192. Under Turkish rule Macedonia vanished completely from administrative terminology and survived only as a in the Greek oral traditions. Plundered Loyalties: World War II and the Civil War in Greek West Macedonia, Giannēs Koliopoulos, New York University Press, 1999, ISBN 0814747302, p. 1. The region was not called "Macedonia" by the Ottomans, and the name "Macedonia" gained currency together with the ascendance of rival nationalism. Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question, Victor Roudometof, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002, ISBN 0275976483, p. 89. The first of these two groups was the Bulgaro-Macedonians, whose Slavic component the Bulgarian historian Zlatarski derives from the Antes. They were conquered in the late seventh century by the Turkic Bulgars. The Slavs eventually assimilated them, but the Bulgars’ name survived. It denoted this Slavic group from the 9th century through the rest of medieval into modern times... Thus the reader should ignore references to ethnic Macedonians in the Middle ages which appear in some modern works...Nevertheless, the absence of a national consciousness in the past is no grounds to reject the Macedonians as a nationality today. The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, John Van Antwerp Fine, University of Michigan Press, 1991, ISBN 0472081497, pp. 36-37. Jingiby (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Macedonians (ethnic group) discussion Since no other volunteer has stepped forward, I will open this case myself. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Dear User:Jingiby and User: Slovenski Volk, Thank you for your willingness to join a moderated discussion in an attempt to find compromise and agreement on an issue you have been struggling with on the article talk page. Please remember that the purpose of this forum is to discuss content only. Therefore please refrain from making any comments about each other and what one or the other has done in the past. I'd like to approach this issue with a fresh start and stay focused only on the content issues. My sense from reading your statements above is that the core of the dispute lies in the use of the word Macedonia in the context of the article Macedonians (ethnic group). Part of the dispute is its usage in the Identities section as indicated by Slovenski's objection to this edit made by Jingiby. Rather than speak general terms, which tends to go round and round, I'd like to suggest that edit as a starting point for discussion. Is that OK with both of you?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you dear Keithbob. However, meanwhile we have found some kind of compromise on the article itself, with my friend Slovenski Volk. Thank you again. Jingiby (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you Keithbob and Jingiby. Since it appears Jingiby and I are at odds with how exactly to interpret the cited relevant source (althugh in my humble opinion, the interpretation is clear and apparent); I ve decided to use the very quote of the scholar and leave it at that. Surely, this might avoid the need to continue the ad nauseum discussion on the talk page there. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC) However, I used also another sources making minor clarifiyng tweak in the sentence. Regs. Jingiby (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Nice work folks. Glad you were able to find an acceptable compromise. I will close the case now. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:33, 19 December 2013 (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 Simpsons

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Blurred Lines on 16:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Blurred Lines (talk · contribs) AmericanDad86 (talk · contribs) Grapesoda22 (talk · contribs) WikiAnthony (talk · contribs) List of discussions during the dispute: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2013 November 24#The Simpsons Adult Genre Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 160#Is this reliable? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 160#Is this link reliable? Dispute overview There has been multiple discussions, about the genre, and the links that has been inserted originally by AmericanDad86, before that was WikiAnthony, and Grapesoda22, who added the genres without sources, in which cases there has been a problem since then. DRN Coordinator's note: Dear Blurred Lines, you have cited three prior discussion above but only the middle link goes to a specific thread rather than an entire page. Can you fix the links so they are thread specific? or if that is not technically possible for some reason, then please give the names of the headers for each thread. Evidence of extensive prior discussion is a prerequisite for a DRN filing so this is important. Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Blurred Lines 18:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Hi User:Blurred Lines, Thanks for your efforts. What I need to see are both the links to the discussion pages and the titles of each discussion section so I can look at the discussions. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC) @Keithbob: I already have the links of the previous discussions above. Blurred Lines 23:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Oh, you made a special section above. So sorry I didn't see that. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Yes, but it's not working out for me, or anyone else. The lastest RFC discussion I had on the article's (The Simpsons) talk page, only one user responded to it, as of that user is (DarthBotto), who thinks that the links that AmericanDad86 provides have good context because he claims that they are scholarly links. Later, AmericanDad86 (who was involved in the dispute) made a survey stating that it supported DB's comment, in which I disagreed everything. How do you think we can help? I don't know, this is my second request since a few weeks ago, and was never answered (in which was speedy closed by a uninvolved user). Summary of dispute by AmericanDad86 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Grapesoda22 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by WikiAnthony Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Notes from DRN coordinator The filing party has a Semi-Retired banner on their talk and user pages. I've inquired as to whether they will have enough time to fully participate here. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC) The filing party seems very responsive and says they will have to time to fully participate. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC) DRN volunteer coordinator 24 hr closing notice--Unless we see some participation by the named parties in the next 24 hrs I'm going to close this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC) The Simpsons discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nichiren Shōshū

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Daileyn on 20:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Nichiren Shōshū (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Daileyn (talk · contribs) Catflap08 (talk · contribs) Kiruning (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The image posted on Nichiren Shoshu page is not a Nichiren Shoshu Gohonzon. The two editors who responded to me agreed this is true. It was originally posted right next to the section on DaiGohonzon. It is misleading and bad editing and visually deceptive. I uploaded an image of the temple where the DaiGohonzon resides which is a better instructional option. Catflap08 continues to delete the temple image and insert the incorrect gohonzon image with the caption "similar but not identical." Posting this incorrect image (see my "talk" statements about Turkish vs Italian lira analogy) is a false representation and harms the integrity of Wikipedia. It's just bad editing. It seems that there a political agenda at play here with Catflap08. Thank you for any assistance you can provide to resolve this issue. Nancy Dailey Have you tried to resolve this previously? I originally emailed EN-Copyvio, Robert Laculus, who removed the image but it was inserted again by several different people. How do you think we can help? I would hope that you can help to uphold the standards of practice for this article and not let it disintegrate into some political conversation. I am a big fan of Wikipedia and a donor. This experience has already shaken my confidence in it as a truth telling entity. I hope you will help get to the truth. Thank you. Summary of dispute by Catflap08 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Kiruning Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Nichiren Shōshū discussion Administrative notices: Note that Catflap08 had started an ANI thread about 20 minutes before this DRN was submitted. Since nobody's responded to it, however, DRN is probably the better bet. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks Mendaliv, I'll be holding up this discussion here until the ANI thread cited above is closed by an Admin. Meanwhile, named parties can make their opening statements.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Far left politics

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Trfc06 on 15:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Far left politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Trfc06 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview My question: on the far right page it states that nazis are far right and caused genocide. Was told that this is allowed. On the far left page I wish to put similar examples such as Khmer Rouge and the Russian and chinese communist parties that caused similar bad things, even more so. But I am told that no examples are allowed. Both statements can not be true? So can I add examples to the left page of remove examples for the right page? (Trfc06 (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)) PLus every time i list the article as needing npov help as per the guidelines it is removed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? experienced editors to look at article How do you think we can help? experienced editors to look at article Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Far left politics discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nizami Ganjavi

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Interfase.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Nizami Ganjavi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Interfase (talk · contribs) HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) Borek 9 (talk · contribs) Zyma (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In my opinion, the name of Nizami Ganjavi should be written also in Azerbaijani. The main reason is that the city where Nizami Ganjavi was born, lived all his life and dead, is in Azerbaijan. The population of this city are Azerbaijani people and they speak in Azeri. Nizami Ganjavi has a direct relationship to this city. Also the mausoleum of Nizami is in Ganja. Nizami Ganjavi is a Cultural Heritage of Azerbaijan. All of this are big reasons to add Azerbaijani name of the poet. Even Britannica sees Nizami Ganjavi as a part of Culture of Azerbaijan [7]: In the course of its long history, Azerbaijan has given the world a number of outstanding thinkers, poets, and scientists… The poet and philosopher Nẹzāmī, called Ganjavī after his place of birth, Ganja, was the author of Khamseh («The Quintuplet»), composed of five romantic poems, including "The Treasure of Mysteries, " "Khosrow and Shīrīn, " and «Leyli and Mejnūn.» Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on the talk page. How do you think we can help? I'd like an outsider to judge matters from the viewpoint of Wikipedia policies and conventions: are separate articles warranted, or not? Summary of dispute by HistoryofIran Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Nizami Ganjavi lived in a city which was not populated by Turks, it was populated by native Iranians. Heck, even the name Ganja is of non-Turkic origin. Plus it was not known as Azerbaijan then, that's like writing the names of the kings of Caucasian Albania in Azeri, or writing the Uzbek version of Avicenna's name because he lived in present day Uzbekistan. Nizami did not speak Azeri either, he spoke Persian, and was a Persian poet. Let me quote what Zyma wrote: Nizami was a Persian/Persian-speaking poet. He is a part of Persian and Iranian culture. He has nothing to do with modern ethnicity Azeri and Turkic-speaking peoples. Azerbaijan itself is a Persian name and through the history it was a part of various Persian empires. In Nizami's era, that part of Caucasus was populated mostly by Iranic-speaking peoples and other non-Turkic groups. Nizami is too far from Turkification process of that Caucasus region. He was not Azeri. Azeri ethnicity and Azeri language did not exist on Nizami's era. The country Azerbaijan is a new country and it was a part of Iran and then Soviet Russia. No need for his name in Azeri. Because all aspects of his life and works are not related to Azeri Turkic. His name in Kurdish is also not necessary, because except his mother, Nizami's works are not Kurdish or a part of Kurdish literature. So why write Kurdish name for a Persian poet?! The only relevant non-English language in this article is Persian. No need for Azeri and Kurdish. Like Rumi article. I will remove them. DO NOT revert/undo my edit and start edit warring. The whole article is clear and Wikipedia is not a dictionary of names and personal interests. Indeed.. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Borek 9 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My search has lead me to this: There was no ethnicity known as Azerbaijani-Turkic at Ganjavi's time in Ganja nor was there an Azerbaijani-Turkic language or culture. Ganjavi has contributed with more than 30.000 verses in Persian based on Iranian folklore to the Iranian cultural sphere, but has not produced a single verse in Azerbaijani-Turkish. Based on this, it is unclear to me how the initiator of this dispute can claim that "Nizami Ganjevi has nothing with Iran" on [8] and why Ganjavi's name should be written in Azeri-Turkish. Furthermore, it is unclear to me why it is relevant for the discussion which country his mausoleum is located in today. Such retrospective arguments are not valid points. Regarding the Britannica-reference, "Azerbaijani" may refer to the geographical region of today‘s country known as the "Republic of Azerbaijan" since it seems many Iranian poets were from that region (Arran). Borek 9 (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Zyma Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Nizami was not Azeri or Turkic. He was a Persian poet (because of his Kurdish mother, in general he was an Iranic/Iranian too). As I said on the related section on Nizami's article talkpage before, Azeri/Azerbaijani is a modern ethnic group and language. In the Nizami's era, there were no Azeri or Turkified peoples, no Azerbaijan country. Azerbaijan is a historical region. It was a part of Persia. Also today most parts of Azerbaijan are in Iran. Just because now Ganja is a part of new country called "Azerbaijan", we can't add an irrelevant language (language of that new country) to this article. All of Nizami's works are in Persian language, his ethnicity is Persian/Iranic. He is not related to Azeri Turkic language. Remember, this new country was a part of Russia (first Russian Empire and then USSR). Can I add Nizami name in the Russian language to this article?! The answer is clear: "No". Same "No"/answer for his name in Azeri language. English Wikipedia is not a dictionary of names. Only relevant info (relevant non-English language(s)). So there is no need for other languages in that article except the Persian. Irrelevant languages are misleading and will cause further disruptive edits and edit warring in the future. Zyma (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Nizami Ganjavi discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here. While there are many difficult issues about this particular article, this isn't one of them. The rule here is set out in Wikipedia:Lede#Alternative_names: The lede should contain "significant alternative names for the topic ... [which] ... may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages" (emphasis added). The names in ledes are not just for identifying historical names, that's just one of the various reasons for including other-language names. The fact that he was not, and could not have been Azerbaijani during his lifetime is wholly irrelevant if the name is significant in Azerbaijani for some other reason. Looking at this entirely and only from the point of view of what's best for Wikipedia, the fact that there are notable monuments, currency, and museums named after him in Azerbaijani is easily significant enough to include the Azerbaijani version of his name in the lede. Including it makes it show up in search results for people coming to Wikipedia to find out about him after seeing his name on those monuments, currency, or museums and not knowing his name in English, Persian, or one of the other languages. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC) I don't agree with you. First, When someone searches English Wikipedia, It means he/she has a basic understanding of English language to be able to read and use the articles, If he/she doesn't, he/she can use "Languages bar/sidebar" for that article in his/her desired language. Second, If we consider your points, we can add "N languages" to any article. For example, Why not to add Japanese name of Muhammad in his article? Maybe some Japanese interested in that! As I said before, his Azeri name is useless and unnecessary. I've removed Kurdish and Azeri from that article and I wrote my reasons. If other editors don't agree with my points, I will revert my changes to old revision. The revision with his name in 3 languages: Persian, Kurdish, and Azeri. Because if we add Azeri, then Kurdish should be added too. Zyma (talk) 06:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Plus, the user who started this dispute, now started a non-stop quest on Nizami-related articles. An example is inserting bunch of images after my edit: diff1. Also, see his edit history on Nizami article (inserting POV/OR, and replacing cited texts with his personal claims), his recent contributions, and his comments on Nizami talkpage. I think all of them are useful if you want to review this dispute and the related details. Zyma (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC) I'm afraid that's not the way Wikipedia works; it's available to all speakers of English. I agree that the inclusion of the name may not be appropriate in other articles. Merely because the name of a person or place happens to be mentioned in other languages is not significant enough to require or justify inclusion of those languages. It's the fact that the Azerbaijanis have — fairly or unfairly, right or wrong, and regardless of whoever's racial or ethnic or nationalistic bull may have been gored — adopted this guy as their own in their country and have named places and things after him which are notable enough to have their own articles in Wikipedia that makes the Azerbaijani version significant and that's enough to put it in this article. In others which have less significance, maybe not, but they're not involved in this dispute, not is user conduct. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC) I understand your point, but how would one quantify - for an arbitrary Wiki-page - what is required in order to include the name in various languages? If such a precedence is set (which I don't see why is necessary -- but that is a personal opinion), then many articles would have to be reviewed again. Borek 9 (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC) I agree with TransporterMan. Azerbaijani version of Nizami Ganjavi's name is significant. The country of Nizami's origin is Azerbaijan. As I mentioned above Ganja (where Nizami was born and lived all his life) is the city of Azerbaijan. This city never was in Iran. And Nizami Ganjavi never was in Iran. He was Persian poet, but not Iranian. And as the country of his origin is Azerbaijan, it's normally that the population of this country have all rights to claim Nizami as its poet and its cultural heritage. As a result in Azerbaijan there are a lot of objects (museum, subway station, literature institute) named after Nizami Ganjavi. There are a lot of monuments of Nizami Ganjavi, and the description of the monuments in Baku, Beijing, Tashkent, Derbent is in Azerbaijani. All of this is a big reason to include Azerbaijani version of poet. By the way, Muhammad has nothing with the culture of Japan, but Nizami Ganjavi is close related to the Culture of Azerbaijan (a lot of sources including Britannica mention that). Thus, Zyma's this comparison is failure. And my edit history on Nizami article is OK. Please don't try to mislead other users who try to solve this dispute. --Interfase (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC) First, You repeated your previous comments again (your comments on article talk page). No, your previous edits are not OK. Even I can report you to noticeboards and admins for them. You try to deny his origin and ethnicity (Persian/Iranic) by your personal view of history/pseudo-history (POV). Okay? I answered you before. Azerbaijan was a part of Persia. In the Nizami's era, there was no Azeri or Azeri Turkish language. That area was populated by Iranic-speaking peoples like Persians and Kurds plus Other non-Turkic groups. Nizami was not Azeri. Nobody says he was Iranian and from the modern Iran. It's just your misunderstanding of history and ethnic groups. He was Persian. Persian is different with Iranian. It's clear. Second, Muhammad article was just an example. Yes, maybe some Japanese Muslims interested to view his name in Japanese. I suggest to both of you to read the archives on the article talk page. If we forced to add languages based on nationalistic claims, pseudo-history stuffs, and personal interests, then change the name of "Wikipedia" to "Falsepedia". Third, See Talk:Nizami_Ganjavi#Azerbaijani_name_of_Nizami_Ganjavi. It exactly shows signs of POV. Denial of reliable cited sources, battleground behavior, and personal attacks. As I said before, I don't have problem with his name in non-English and non-Persian languages (previous revision). But there is no result/consensus on the related section and this DRN section. Involved editors or other editors should write their opinions to reach a consensus and accepted revision. For me, The quality of article(s) does matter. For example, If somebody finds reliable sources about Slavic/Germanic/African origin of Nizami, that should be mentioned on the article. Same goes for the non-English languages. Just relevant and important non-English names should be written in the lead section. Anyway, If editors don't agree with me, my suggested revision for the lede is (to User:TransporterMan, User:HistoryofIran, User:Borek 9, User:Keithbob, User:Kansas Bear, and User:Dougweller): English name, Persian name (his origin, ethnicity, and native language), Kurdish (because of his mother), Azeri (because of his grave and other related stuffs in the Azerbaijan (country)). Regards. --Zyma (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC) To DR starter: Your nonsense comment and claim about Azerbaijan and Ganja is wrong and incorrect. The name Azerbaijan and Ganja are Persian. That region was an Iranic land before Turkic invasions and Turkification. From the article Ganja, Azerbaijan: The area in which Ganja is located was known as Arran from the 9th to 12th century; its urban population spoke mainly in the Persian language. Your country, language, history and culture heavily influenced by Persian/Iranic and Caucasian elements (its history and culture). It's better for you to read some reliable sources about history, languages, and ethnic groups. Stop your denial quest, because all of your edits and comments will be archived and judged for your future edits and activities. Okay. As you see, That Persian poet has nothing to do with that modern country (Azerbaijan) and the modern ethnic group (Azeri). So why add the Azeri language to the lead section?! It can be used in the related section on the article. But my above suggestion maybe satisfy all editors. --Zyma (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC) That region was never an Iranic land. This is nonsense. During the period of Nizami this land including Ganja was a part of the state of Atabegs of Azerbaijan, before that it was a part of Seljuk Empire. The population of this area was Persianized population (that's why they spoke Persian). Then this population was Turkicized [9]. The modern Azeris are descendants of that population (don't you believe that they came from the Moon?). And of course Nizami Ganjavi is cultural related to Azerbaijan and its population, not to Iran and Iranian population. --Interfase (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC) I find the claim "that region was never an Iranic land" dubious, to say the least. I refer to this article, showing that it was Iranic, based on archaeological and present-day obervations. As I wrote before, Ganjavi has contributed with more than 30.000 verses in Persian based on Iranian folklore to the Iranian cultural sphere; so the claim "Nizami Ganjavi is cultural related to Azerbaijan and its population, not to Iran and Iranian population" is baseless. Taking into account his Iranic background, I find these comments to be POV-pushing rather than agreeing on an informative format for the Wiki-page in question. I was under the impression that this was not allowed in this community. Borek 9 (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Please keep in mind that you're speaking with person from country which claims even ancient Sumerians were "Turks". Civilized scholarly discussion is impossible. Words like Ganja, Azerbaijan or Baku all have Iranic origin, but according Interfase it was "never part of Iran". Indeed, if we put some 2000 years of Achaemenid, Parthian, Sassanid, Safavid, Afsharid and Qajar period beside, it really never was part of Iran. Insisting of Azerbaijani name in lead is simply nonsense, it's like putting Turkish names for dozens of ancient Greek scholars. It's called anachronism. It should be noted that user Interfase has long history of soft promoting Azerbaijani propaganda around many projects, like for example inserting post stamps with claims Nasir al-Din al-Tusi is "Azerbaijani" at German Wikipedia. --109.165.138.127 (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Please keep in mind that you're speaking with person from country which claims even ancient Sumerians were "Turks". Civilized scholarly discussion is impossible. Words like Ganja, Azerbaijan or Baku all have Iranic origin, but according Interfase it was "never part of Iran". Indeed, if we put some 2000 years of Achaemenid, Parthian, Sassanid, Safavid, Afsharid and Qajar period beside, it really never was part of Iran. Insisting of Azerbaijani name in lead is simply nonsense, it's like putting Turkish names for dozens of ancient Greek scholars. It's called anachronism. It should be noted that user Interfase has long history of soft promoting Azerbaijani propaganda around many projects, like for example inserting post stamps with claims Nasir al-Din al-Tusi is "Azerbaijani" at German Wikipedia. --109.165.138.127 (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2013 (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.

Chess.com

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by MaxBrowne on 02:37, 21 December 2013 (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. Location of dispute Chess.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MaxBrowne (talk · contribs) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A defamation lawsuit has been filed against this website/company, and this was reported in the New York Post. Not the most prestigious newspaper, but court records confirm the basic facts. Both sources were cited. TheRedPenOfDoom has several times removed any mention of this lawsuit, arguing "unencyclopedic" and "undue weight". In my opinion his argument amounts to "I just don't like it". Have you tried to resolve this previously? Have raised it on the talk page but user shows little inclination to discuss. How do you think we can help? Would like an opinion as to whether or not it is reasonable to mention the lawsuit in the article. Summary of dispute by TheRedPenOfDoom Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As MaxBrowne admits, the source is a screaming headline tabloid - not at all a reliable source. As he also mentions, he is trying to use a record of a court filing, a primary source document that is specifically not allowed in content about living people, such as a defamation suit. Furthermore, the suit itself is a completely run of the mill case of no potential of being groundbreaking in any manner, and of the type that are faced by companies as a standard part of business Wikipedia:ROUTINE#Routine_coverage - there is nothing at all unusual WP:UNDUE or encyclopedic Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion / WP:IINFO about the case. Even furthermore, it is merely a case filing - WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BLPCRIME - we wait to cover legal issues until they are settled or at least they are being regularly covered by the media. Plus this all takes place on with the backdrop of the article having been recently recreated after being deleted in a previous deletion discussion. A second AfD resulted in a "no consensus - default to keep", but by the inclusion of this inappropriate content and the multiple, {inappropriate) footnotes, it gives the clear impression that they are only being used to give the illusion of sources to prevent a re-examination at another AfD. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Chess.com discussion Hi User:MaxBrowne, I'd like to open this case but according to DRN guidelines stated at the top of this page: Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. I don't see a discussion on the talk page. Am I missing something? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC) OK, I see a short, RfC like, discussion here in which User:TheRedPenOfDoom (who has reverted the addition of the material in question) did not participate, but there were comments from two other editors. I'll point out that any consensus reached here at DRN is not binding and can be superseded by discussion on the talk page. Since there seem to be a few editors on both sides of this issue already on the talk page I would suggest an RfC. However, if the named parties in this case want to proceed anyway, knowing the limitations of this forum and its outcome, we may proceed. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC) I do not see the need for dispute resolution. As I said on the talk page, I do not believe that it is appropriate to mention a pending lawsuit based on a brief mention in a tabloid newspaper. Businesses get sued all the time, and a large percentage are either not successful or settled quietly out of court. If the suit is successful, and reliable sources report that it has an impact on the business, then I would support mentioning it. That seems to be the common way we deal with lawsuits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC) This DRN filing is probably premature. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC) This would hardly be the only article on wikipedia to cite the New York Post. It may be a "screaming" tabloid but it's not the National Enquirer, it doesn't print outright fabrications, and court records confirm the story. So reliable sourcing is not an issue. The statement in question was "In November 2013, this policy led to a defamation lawsuit being filed against them by New York player Henry Despres." This is a simple statement of fact, neutrally presented with no judgement as to the merit or otherwise of the case, nor does it make any suggestion as to possible outcomes, so the WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:BLPCRIME links are red herrings. This is not a WP:BLP, it's an article about a chess website and company. This is not a large company, they have maybe 30 employees, so I imagine getting sued is kind of a big deal to them, not run of the mill business. Also, the mention of the previous Afd and the allegation that the information was included only to "give the illusion of sources" seems to me to be a violation of WP:AGF. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Why not wait until the lawsuit is decided, and then see whether any reliable sources discuss its impact on the company, and then consider mentioning it in the article at that time? To me, that's the neutral approach. If the lawsuit is without merit, then mentioning in an article on the #6 website may cause harm to the reputation of the innocent people who own the company. Why not let the court decide first? We are not a tabloid newspaper. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC) 24 hour closing notice -- There has been no participation here for the past three days. If no one responds in the next 24 hours I will consider closing this case. Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:10, 27 December 2013 (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.

Milton Berle

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jburlinson on 22:18, 19 December 2013 (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. Location of dispute Milton Berle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jburlinson (talk · contribs) Light show (talk · contribs) DoctorJoeE (talk · contribs) Iss246 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a section in the Milton Berle article called "Berle offstage". It includes a paragraph that starts: "Berle was famous within show business for the rumored size of his penis." This statement is supported by five references to reliable sources. The remainder of the paragraph consists of instances which provide examples. Most of these are also referenced with citations to reliable sources. One editor has been repeatedly deleting this material on the grounds that it's vulgar. There has been a lengthy discussion on the talk page. It appears that there's a working consensus that this material should remain in the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Lengthy discussion on article talk page. How do you think we can help? Confirm that there appears to be a consensus that this material should remain part of the article. Summary of dispute by Light show The talk page includes all the key aspects. I would only add that that the above statement, "One editor has been repeatedly deleting this material on the grounds that it's vulgar," is false, as I was simply repeating the opinions of others during discussion. However, I never used that rationale for deleting anything. User:Iss246: "Of course the deleted Berle material . . . is vulgar."; " Although the material is vulgar, it should not be deleted"; User:Jburlinson: " this type of vulgarity was commonplace . . ."; "Sure it's vulgar;" It's not a stretch to assume that 200-plus words about Milton Berle's "rumored" penis size was included primarily because it was "vulgar," as it's presented in the style of shock jock entertainment. --Light show (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DoctorJoeE Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Agree with Iss246. Summary of dispute by Iss246 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I think Light Show was well intentioned but wrongly deleted the material. Vulgar material can be placed on a WP page provided the material is relevant to the topic covered, which is the case with Berle. I realize that we have a rumor here. The rumor is material that is part of Berle's shtick and the shtick of comedians associated with Berle. It is a facet of the Berle persona. That is why the material belongs on the page. Iss246 (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Milton Berle discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Clarification request: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm a regular volunteer here. I'm neither "taking" this listing nor opening it for discussion at this point in time, just seeking a procedural clarification: @Light show: I'm not sure what you are saying, above. Are you saying that there's nothing to talk about? That you do not wish to engage in this process (which is your right since participation in mediated dispute resolution is always voluntary)? If you do want to engage, could you please say what you are saying, not what you're not saying or, to turn that around, could you say what your objections are to the material? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC) TransporterMan although I believe the opener of this DR was acting in good faith, I think a more appropriate venue for this might be an RFC. There is a relatively limited number of people involved, and there does not appear to be any policy based reason for mandatory inclusion or exclusion. Therefore its just going to be an issue for consensus to determine if it is valuable or not. It seems rather than trying to hash out a compromise here, it would be better to just see what the wider consensus thinks. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Since the talk page had all sides and opinions stated, with this noticeboard stating to keep things "brief," the reasons for including or excluding the material are best read there. But in brief, I do not feel the material should be included. --Light show (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC) I have not looked at the talk page but, from what I've read here, I tend to agree with Gaijin42 that an RfC might be a better venue for this issue. However, if Lightshow wants to have a moderated discussion here and the other parties are willing to participate, then they are welcome to have a discussion and explore the potential for compromise or consensus in a moderated setting.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC) As the person who opened this discussion, perhaps I should explain myself. I posted on the DRN because this was one of the options provided by WP guidelines as a means to resolve a controversy between more than two editors. RFC was suggested as another option. I didn't realize one was more appropriate than another and if I made an error I apologize. Since this discussion has already started, though, perhaps I could offer a solution. How about if I draft a new section for the Berle article called something like "Berle's Persona"? This could include a number of aspects, including penis size, propensity for interrupting other comedians' routines, stealing jokes, insult comedy and dressing in drag. Each of these can be supported with references to reliable secondary sources. If Lightshow is concerned that the current paragraph unbalances the article, perhaps placing it in this context would be more appropriate. Just a suggestion. --Jburlinson (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Hi User:Jburlinson there is no right or wrong regarding DRN or RfC. Just a matter of which one you think might be more effective. Let see what User:Light show says about your suggested compromise.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC) I'm personally not in favor of that idea, which would simply add insults to injury. Being the butt of jokes by others is not considered part of one's own persona, in any case, but is the persona of the one telling it. However, both User:Jburlinson and User:Iss246 rely on that erroneous fact: User:Jburlinson: "This is definitely part of the Berle persona . . ." User:Iss246: "What was deleted is part of the Berle persona." Therefore the paragraph is best removed, IMO, so we can all get back to xmas shopping.--Light show (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC) I appreciate your concern, but don't worry about me; my shopping is all done. As to "being the butt of jokes", nobody played this up more than Berle himself, whose autobiography mentions it proudly along with other boasts about his sexual prowess. I believe it's been well established in the article and the talk page that there are a plethora of reliable sources that attest to this being part of Berle's persona. --Jburlinson (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC) OK, I'm officially opening this case since all named parties have made opening statements and some have posted here in the discussion area: Thank you everyone for your willingness to discuss and collaborate in this DRN, moderated forum Keep in mind that conclusions reached at DRN (or any noticeboard) are not binding. They may be superseded at anytime by a consensus on the talk page. The scope of this DRN is described by the filing party as: "Confirm that there appears to be a consensus that this material [the paragraph in the Berle offstage section which discusses Berle's penis] should remain part of the article." With these points in mind, let's proceed........My sense from reading the opening statements and discussion here is that User:Jburlinson, User:Iss246 and User:DoctorJoeE all feel that the paragraph in question should remain since they feel it is both well sourced and relevant. User:Light show would like to see it removed. There seems to be an emerging consensus to keep the paragraph. Light show is there any specific point that you would like to present that you feel might cause these other editors to reconsider their position?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Nothing that hasn't already been said on Berle's talk page or above. --Light show (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Then I'm not sure where this discussion can go. Does anyone have any suggestions for compromise? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Possibly some neutral POVs or definitions of "persona" would help. The dispute began with a difference of opinion about that one word per Berle's talk page. My own impression of what would constitute his persona would be, for example, a description already in the article's section, Mr. Television: "Berle's highly visual style, characterized by vaudeville slapstick and outlandish costumes, proved ideal for the new medium." I also just added a sourced quote about his changing "persona" --Light show (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC) I think that part of what we're struggling with here at DRN is, still, trying to figure out whether you object to the penis material altogether or that you think that there's too much of it. There's no point in discussing things like "persona," until we know why we're discussing them. Look, we're volunteers here and this forum is designed for the discussion to take place in a moderated form here. That can't happen unless we know what your position is and it is unfair to us as volunteers to make us go have to dig it out of, and hope that we get it right, that wall-o-text at the article talk page. I'll tell you what I think, however: If you're objecting to the material altogether, I think you've got a difficult task ahead of you. There has been at least some of that material in the article since some time in 2005, and a good solid paragraph of it similar in content to the current paragraph (which has been expanded quite a bit) since some time in 2007 when it was cut down from even a larger paragraph in 2006. Wikipedia policy says that, barring some policy requiring removal, long established material should only be removed by consensus. That consensus can either be silent (you remove it and no one objects) or can be by agreement. Right now to the extent that there is any trend towards consensus here, it's against your position, if your position is removal of the penis material altogether (which your edits to the article and comments above suggest that it may be). The only way to fix that problem is to either change your opponents' minds or attract new editors into the discussion who may (or may not) think like you do. The discussion on the article talk page and this forum are your chance to do the former; an RFC would be the best chance to do the latter. If on the other hand, you think that there's too much material, that can be approached by an appeal to the undue weight policy, which would be an appeal to cut down the material because its importance does not justify the volume it's given in relation to the rest of the article or it can be approached by simply attacking part of the material as being UNDUE for that particular point or, frankly, by attacking it as being inadequately sourced or being original research or some such. But we can't work on any of that until we know what you're trying to do, and why. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Well, I'll then defer to User:Jburlinson, who brought the issue here. I did not request it, or even a RfC, but was simply responding to comments on the talk page. If simple consensus is all that matters, then I'm not sure why the issue was brought here, since that was never in dispute. All the other rationales for at least trimming the material, and there were quite a few, were mentioned at talk. There, I also stated, "It should at most be mentioned as a single sentence," and gave reasons why. Among some of the reasons given there are the following: the editors all relied on an erroneous definition of persona; they gave undue emphasis to it by creating the largest paragraph in the article; the paragraph relied almost entirely on third-party "rumors" and even cited a fictional Capote story; that the subject is essentially trivia; that the entire rumor-based focus is off-topic; and that the material used unsourced material. A simple review of the history of my removal of material, beginning Dec. 19th, will show that there was a clear and justified rationale for each one. Nonetheless, User:DoctorJoeE quickly reverted all of them at one stroke without explaining anything on the talk page, but simply wrote, "see talk." That was an unjustified reversion of edits since none of the rationales used for trimming material had been discussed there. --Light show (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC) It's not clear to me why I've been singled out here; but in fact, your unilateral removal of sourced material has been reverted multiple times by multiple editors, both before and after I did it -- and FWIW, my explanation was as follows: "You removed all the sourced trivia & left all the unsourced trivia. Might want to rethink that." I would also add what others have already said, that you should gain consensus before removing longstanding sourced material. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC) The definition of "persona" that I'm using is the dictionary one: "the personality that a person (as an actor or politician) projects in public : image." Berle's persona was basically that of a man who was willing to do anything for a laugh -- whether it was stealing a joke, interrupting another performer, wearing a dress, or boasting about his sexual prowess and endowments. This is why I thought that including a section on this persona (with appropriate references to reliable secondary sources) might be a good way to contextualize the issue of Berle's penis. I don't know why there's been a claim that this material is unsourced, since there are well over half-a-dozen published sources cited in the paragraph, and there are many more that have not been cited. When we're talking about a comedian's public facade, something like this is not trivia; it's part of the performer's public image and was recognized as such by his peers and audiences. Another example would be Jack Benny's supposed miserliness. For a biography on a U.S. president, his stinginess might be trivia, but for a performer who made a living telling jokes about himself, it becomes an essential part of his public personality. A WP article that didn't mention it, even highlight it, would be doing a disservice to the reader. --Jburlinson (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC) @DoctorJoeE, at least we agree that we're discussing "trivia." As for reverting the edits I made to remove it beginning Dec. 19th, each of which had a different and justified rationale, all were reverted at once without explanation. @Jburlinson, the same points were brought up in Berle's talk page and replied to there, so I'm not going to burden the DRN by repeating things. --Light show (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Perhaps I'm just dense, or have missed something in the earlier discussion, but I'm not at all clear what the precise definition of "persona" has to do with Wikipedia. Is there some policy or guideline that turns on that question? Similarly, trivia sections, generally in the form of bulleted lists of trivia points, are discouraged in Wikipedia (see WP:TRIVIA, especially the example at the bottom of that page), but trivia itself is generally not an issue per se. What we generally look at is, first, the verifiability of the information as a threshold (not a guarantee) of inclusion, second, the importance of the material, and third, the importance of the material in relation to the rest of the article. Importance is a multifarious, open-ended issue, but some guidance can be obtained from the concept of being encyclopedic: In relation to the subject of the article, is the particular type of information the kind of information which a general reader seeking information about that subject would want or expect to learn when consulting an encyclopedia, taking into account Wikipedia's unique characteristics which differentiate it from a traditional paper encyclopedia? (Expanded depth and scope of coverage, lack of censorship, etc.) Focusing on the subject of the article, is the information of the kind that is one of the enduring characteristics of the subject matter that ought to be covered in an encyclopedia? Finally, as a gauge or rule of thumb of importance, and growing out of Wikipedia's use of verifiability as an indicator of significance, importance is often (but not necessarily) determinable by the number and quality of reliable sources which discuss the particular information in question. Does this, perhaps, help? Regards and Happy Holidays, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC) 24hr closing notice- There has been no discussion here for 4days. Unless there is further discussion in the next 24 hours I will be closing this case due to inactivity. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC) OK with me to close. Since all the editors involved have been around a while, the verifiability guideline, your point #1, is common knowledge. But points 2 and 3 are what's at issue, and IMO, the disputed paragraph fails totally, as explained above, although no one argues there was no consensus. As for the number and quality of sources used, it's quite weak. ::One anecdote wasn't sourced at all, another is sourced from a fiction story, and another is off-topic to the section. A few others are from a fan site. It seems that nothing has changed or been added to from the original talk page discussion, so a RfC might have been better. --Light show (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I don't understand what you meant when you refer to points #1, #2 & #3. The only numbered points listed by User:Keithbob above don't seem to match up with your comments. At any rate, I think everyone's probably said what they have to say, so I see no problem in closing the discussion. It seems to me that a consensus to retain the material has been achieved. --Jburlinson (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2013 (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.

Tin box

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Horatio Snickers on 17:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Tin box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Horatio Snickers (talk · contribs) Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) Pkgx (talk · contribs) Dream Focus (talk · contribs) Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is an ongoing disagreement over the difference between a tin box and a can. There is one point of view that a sealed can (for example, a can of baked beans which is opened by a tin opener) is different to a resealable box (eg: a metal tin that mints come in, with a hinged lid), The alternate view is that a tin box should be referred to as a can, and that essentially the two items are indistinguishable. The confusion is making my head spin. I think we need to get to the foot of this dispute! It is spiralling into mayhem! Have you tried to resolve this previously? Long discussions on the talk page. Attempt to compromise. We have essentially been sucked into some kind of ontological fog. How do you think we can help? Help us work out the best way to proceed. Summary of dispute by Andy Dingley This is already beaten to death at Talk:Tin box. Pkgx seems to be out on a limb. My position is in my last comment on that page: Are we a dictionary or an encyclopedia? True (as Pkgx wants to move the article) there are two words "box" and "can" and they are often overlapped. However, as an encyclopedia, we have two concepts (and two articles), box and can, that are very clearly defined and distinct. This is not a merge discussion, I see no call (even from Pkgx) that we should merge the two concepts. If we retain two concepts in two articles, then we should retain each concept clearly within those articles and not confuse them. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Pkgx We are discussing metal containers here, specifically those with removable or resealable covers. Containers have a variety of common names at the household level: can, tin, pack, tin box, tin can or whatever we choose. We can all have opinions of how to describe them. Some editors, however, are using Wikipedia trying to formalize their personal views. In Wikipedia, we call this Original Research. Using one of the many common names in the title is allowed; that is not the issue. The content of the article needs to follow Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia requires verifiability and insists on reliable sources for information in articles. Reliable sources are available here. Two respected authoritative books on packaging are; Soroka (2002) Fundamentals of Packaging Technology, Institute of Packaging Professionals[10], ISBN 1-930268-25-4 Yam (2009) “Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology”. Wiley [11], ISBN 978-0-470-08704-6 These two highly respected books have chapters on cans that indicate the preferred name of the containers in question to be “cans”. Even Britanica online says: "Cans of tin-plated steel, both those that are permanently sealed and those with tops that can be lifted and replaced, are also used predominantly for food storage." These are all a variety of steel can. Resolution of the question must be based on published reliable sources rather than a consensus of opinions. Pkgx (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Dream Focus Its all about this edit [12] which removed the word box from the article, despite the article being called "tin box". The construction section of the article said "Some types of tin boxes have", tin box being the name of the article after all, and he changed it to "Some types of metal tins or cans". Other changes made in that edit are just as ridiculous. See talk page for more. A tin box is a totally different thing than a tin can, we having separate articles for a reason. Dream Focus 00:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Northamerica1000 Many sources refer to this type of container specifically as "tin box", "tin boxes" and "tins". "Belgian woman has collected 56,800 tin boxes over 2 decades". CNTV. August 3, 2013. Retrieved 11 October 2013. (1907). United States Congressional serial set. p. 228. Nelson, Rick (November 28, 2012). "The search for holiday cookie tins". Star Tribune. Retrieved 30 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Butter Cookies in Tins from Denmark. U.S. International Trade Commission. Volume 3092 of USITC publication. pp. I1-I12. 1998. Mccann, John (2005). Build the Perfect Survival Kit. Krause Publications. p. 107. ISBN 0873499670 Beaded Boxes and Bowls. Kalmbach Publishing Company. 2006. pp. 6-7. ISBN 0890246297 O'Reilly Media (2008). The Best of Instructables Volume I. O'Reilly Media, Inc. pp. 178-180. ISBN 0596519524 Gupta, Amit; Jensen, Kelly (2011). Photojojo: Insanely Great Photo Projects and DIY Ideas. Random House LLC. p. 55. ISBN 0307586936 The sources support use of the term "tin box". Also, per WP:COMMONNAMES, commonly recognizable names should be used for the titles of Wikipedia articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Notes from coordinator I've left a note on North's talk page asking them to post a brief opening statement and so a volunteer can open the discussion. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC) DRN volunteer coordinator Tin box discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I wanted to thank Northamerica1000 for providing some sources to discuss. I’m not sure, however, that they resolve the questions. One is an old reference to some postal laws that mention ‘tin box’. It is very old indeed; the reference is from 1906, over a hundred years ago. This is nice history but is it relevant today? Most of the listed references are to ‘tins’. Of course, ‘tin’ is a common name for tin can and steel can. When a newspaper references ‘tin’, which does it mean? The answer could be both because ‘decorative tin cans’ are in fact ‘cans’. At least one on the list specifically states ‘tin box’. That is fine because we all agree that ‘tin box’ is one of the several common names for a ‘decorative tin can’. I do not think that WP:COMMONNAMES is important here because we are not discussing the title of this article at this time. It is difficult to understand what the other editors really want. It seems to be that some have an opinion that ‘tin boxes’ have nothing to do with ‘tin cans’. That is true for ‘tin trunks’ and ‘tin tool boxes’ but not for ‘decorative tin cans’. I have provided solid reliable sources that clearly state that ‘decorative tin cans’ are a variety of ‘tin can’. No evidence has countered this. What is the argument? Pkgx (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC) NOTE: Please, wait for further discussion until a volunteer has agreed to take the case. (see notice below) Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC) The question seems to be - what, other than the Wiley Encyclopedia of Packaging, would you consider to be a reliable source? Horatio Snickers (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I'd be glad to help with this discussion. I will be available for most of tomorrow and the subsequent days this week, so feel free to commence discussion whenever. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you Theodore! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC) PS I've left messages on the talk pages of all concerned parties, letting them know that the discussion may proceed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC) I am not sure exactly what the problems are with the present article; the other editors need to state specific issues clearly. I find it mostly acceptable as is. One minor point is the caption for the top picture of the breath mint containers. It currently describes them as “tins with hinged covers”. A better name is “flip top cans”; source is IoPP “Glossary of Packaging Terms” [13]. Thank you Pkgx (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC) According to the filing party, User:Horatio Snickers the core of the dispute is "an ongoing disagreement over the difference between a tin box and a can". User:Dream Focus says: "Its all about this edit [14] which removed the word box from the article, despite the article being called: tin box." Shall we begin the discussion with that edit? Dream Focus added the phrase 'or boxes' and User:Pkgx removed it. What if we used the word 'containers' so that the new sentence would read: These tinplate containers are often used to package breath mints, throat lozenges, instant coffee, biscuits and holiday treats. This way we avoid using the words, can and box, which seem to be controversial. Would this type of sentence be acceptable? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC) I didn't add the word box, it was there before. I reverted him removing it. The article is called tin box, not tin container, so no that doesn't solve anything. Dream Focus 17:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Keithbob, you had asked about a compromise of changing “cans” to “containers”. In doing this, however, you deleted a solid source that says these are cans. It is not just my opinion that these are cans, rather it is several reliable sources that state that these are in fact cans. I can consider compromising my opinions but what do we do with published reliable sources? We may have to consider other options. Pkgx (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks Dream Focus for clarifying that in the edit under discussion you had re-added the word 'box'. As a point of further information for editors to consider: 1) the word 'container' is defined by Webster [15] (and others) [16] as a "an object (such as a box or can) that can hold something" and 2) WP:SOURCES says: "Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible." Any other comments about the proposed sentence? Or other suggestions for compromise?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC) This discussion does not seem to be going anywhere. Let’s try something else. The article title of “Tin Box” is awkward because several types of metal box-like containers might be called this. Some types of tin cans might be called a tin box. A tinplate lunchbox is certainly a tin box. A tinplate trunk is also a tin box. What is the connection to decorative box? This is too messy. Might we rethink the scope of this article? If we titled the article “Decorative Tin” and in the lead sentence also indicated the common name of “tin box”, we could delete the lunchbox, toolbox, and metal trunk sections. The lead section might be: Decorative tins or tin boxes are special tin cans with removable or hinged covers. They are often used for decorative and craft purposes rather than just the usual structural and merchandising functions of conventional cans for packaging. Is there any interest in resolving this debate? Pkgx (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC) There seems to be a lack of participation including that of the filing party, User:Horatio Snickers. If things don't pick up soon. I may need to close this case as unresolved.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Since 22 hours have passed with no further comments, I am closing this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:14, 29 December 2013 (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.

Smoke testing

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Qwertyus on 02:10, 20 December 2013 (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. Location of dispute Talk:Smoke testing#Smoke testing in software engineering (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Qwertyus (talk · contribs) Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) Op47 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In my opinion, the article Smoke testing violates WP:DICDEF by merging various meanings of a term into a single article, using OR as the means to glue them together. I twice tried to split the one I care most about from the article, so as to have an article Smoke testing (software) that does not bury this meaning of "smoke testing" deep down in unrelated content, only to have my edits reverted both times. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on the talk page. How do you think we can help? I'd like an outsider to judge matters from the viewpoint of Wikipedia policies and conventions: are separate articles warranted, or not? Summary of dispute by Walter Görlitz The editor placed a merge discussion and then removed the section without consensus. The topic does not have enough weight to stand on its own and it doesn't make sense to split the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Op47 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I came to this article because I try to keep the split tag backlog under control. In this case, I found a discussion that had apparantly gone cold. I saw no compelling reason to split the article. My previous experience in these situations is it is best not to split and hence thought the best action would be to remove the tags. Obviously that won't work. There are a number if factors to consider: 1) The lede seems to imply concensus that both the mechanical and electrical use is to be included in the article by concensus. 2) The split tag chosen is probably not the best way to go anyway. We have a number of definitions of smoke test. If the article is to be split up then it should form a disambiguation page and the content of the article be split into the sub pages of the disambiguation page. 3) The elctrical and software use of the term are very small and possibly would not make viable separate articles. WP:IAR needs to be considered. Op47 (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Smoke testing I'm opening this case for discussion. First I thank all of the parties for their willingness to participate in a moderated discussion of a contentious issue. Secondly, I thank you in advance for keeping this discussion strictly on content and avoiding comments about a contributor or their behavior. The scope of this case is whether or not one or more of the several meanings associated with the phrase "smoke testing" should be spun off into a stand alone article. The filing party, User:Qwertyus favors this approach, however, User:Op47 and User:Walter Görlitz oppose a split of the article. Is that a fair assessment of the situation so far?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC) For the purposes of this discussion, that is approximately true. I think though I am more opposed to Qwertyus' proposed method of splitting than splitting per se. Op47 (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks User:Op47. Where is the common ground with you and Qwertyus? What method of splitting would you support?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC) If the article were to split I would favour a hierarchy along the lines: Smoke testing -- A disambiguation page Smoke testing (mechanical) -- describing the use of smoke to test pipes Smoke testing (electronics) -- looking for smoke on first power up Smoke testing (software) -- testing of major functions before formal testing Smoke testing (theatre) -- testing smoke machines This is how similar situations have been resolved previously. My reservation is that the existing material for the last 3 articles is not well developed and (initially) we may have 3 small and rather silly articles. On the other hand, Qwertyus is correct that on Wikipedia we do tend to have an article per concept rather than per term. To clarify I will describe my understanding of Qwertius proposal using similar notation: Smoke testing -- describing the use of smoke to test pipes Smoke testing (disambiguation) -- A disambiguation page Smoke testing (electronics) -- looking for smoke on first power up Smoke testing (software) -- testing of major functions before formal testing Smoke testing (theatre) -- testing smoke machines It should be noted that (using the nomenclature of my proposal) Smoke testing (mechanical) and Smoke testing (theatre) are formal recognised processes in those fields, i.e. an engineer in thos fields would say to their bosses "I am going to do a smoke test" and would be understood. Whereas Smoke testing (electronics) is a colloquial term for when equipment unexpectedly fails (at least where I work) and Smoke testing (software) is another way of describing the free play a tester may undertake to provide confidence that some software actually works before undertaking the formal test (again where I work, the formal phase may take several weeks). I am sorry it was long winded, but I do hope it helps. Op47 (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC) User:Qwertyus, Op47's proposal allows each concept to have its own article as long as no one concept takes claim for the main term. Is this acceptable to you? Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC) I don't even mind promoting the meaning in mechanics to the "main" meaning as it seems to be the oldest, so I'm actually fine with both options that User:Op47 sketches. My main concern is that the other uses are really unrelated to the use in mechanics, with only the electronics and software smoke testing being related to each other according to cited sources (though I would like to have a separate article about software testing to disentangle the category structure and make linking to it easier). I doubt whether "Smoke testing (theatre)" could stand on its own given the limited amount of material, but maybe it can be a standalone entry in a DAB page, without a link? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Op47 is saying he would object to any of the definitions of Smoke Testing being used as the primary search term. He/she would like a search for the term Smoke Testing to go directly to a disambiguation (dab) page where the reader could choose which meaning they would like to learn about. But if you are OK with either of his suggestions (one of which has the term going directly to the dab page) then I think we have the basis for a compromise. One concern has been that not all of the meanings for Smoke Testing has the notability etc for a stand alone article. However, that is not a problem as dab page links can either direct the reader to a stand alone article or to a specific section of a general article on Smoke Testing. So... those definitions that can support a stand alone article can have one and those that need to remain as part of combination article can do so. Either way they will all be listed on the dab page called Smoke Testing with entries like this: Smoke testing -- A disambiguation page Smoke testing (mechanical) -- describing the use of smoke to test pipes Smoke testing (electronics) -- looking for smoke on first power up Smoke testing (software) -- testing of major functions before formal testing Smoke testing (theatre) -- testing smoke machines Does this make sense? Is it agreeable? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC) A dispute resolution is no place to discuss splitting into ridiculously small articles. The discussion here should not assume support for a split. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC) This noticeboard is for the discussion of content disputes in a moderated setting. There are no limitations as to what may or may not be discussed here (as long as its content related). At the same time, agreements or compromises made at noticeboards such as this one are not binding and may be superseded by future consensus on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC) This discussion is to resolve the dispute not to discuss content. If you apply any content changes from this discussion, you will be starting another dispute because the discussion is in a hidden corner of Wikipedia and those who have an interest in discussing the topic are not involved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Re Keithbob's comment on 24 December. Yes you have it correct. My 1st "proposal" is what I am proposing. My 2nd is what I thought Qwertyus was proposing. Clearly I got the wrong end of the stick somewhere. It would appear that Qwertyus and I are in agreement. I suppose we will now have to persuade Walter Görlitz. Your proposal to split the article and yet not have small articles seems ok in principle, I guess we will have to find suitable articles to split to. For info, I am a he. Op47 (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC) OK so it appears we have a general agreement between Qwertyus and Op47 regarding splitting the article. I think this could provide a good foundation for gaining further consensus on the talk page. If there is no resolution amongst that group of interested editors, including Walter Gorlitz, then I would suggest you start an RfC on the talk page and ask for input from uninvolved editors to create a wider consensus. I'm glad this DRN filing has created some progress. I'm thinking of closing this case now, unless there are further comments. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:13, 29 December 2013 (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.