Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 142: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 3 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard) (bot
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard) (bot
Line 885: Line 885:
=== User talk:Sitush, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buff_4u2000 discussion ===
=== User talk:Sitush, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buff_4u2000 discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
{{DRN archive bottom}}

== Talk:Bret Hart ==

{{DR case status|closed}}
{{drn filing editor|151.35.36.60|02:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)}}
{{DRN archive top|This isn't starting off well. Closing this case before it is opened because it has started off with uncivil commentary on contributors. If the editors want to settle this dispute amicably, it can be refiled here without uncivil commentary. If there is a specific issue about the lead of the article, a [[WP:RFC|Request for Comments]] may be used. Personal attacks may be reported at [[WP:ANI]], but read [[WP:BOOMERANG|the boomerang essay]] first. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC) }}

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

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

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Talk:Bret Hart}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Warlock82}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

I have an issue with the lead of the article. Since I'm tired of arguing with the editors here and I'm not really an editor myself, but only a reader, I'm passing the ball to someone else who may want or may not want to alert some higher-ups. To sum it up, the intro says, and I quote, that << [Bret] Hart changed the perception of mainstream wrestling in the early 1990s by bringing technical in-ring performance to the fore >>. [no source]
It appeared really puffery to me, so I asked for clarification. An editor, Warlock82, said that it was reported in an IGN article and that they had just reworded everything a little. Per WP:PEACOCK I said that the quote should have been reported as a quote and not as a fact (and proposed an edit that reflected the policy), yet Warlock82 and other editors kept rolling back everything, with Warlock82 even going as far claiming that I had been vandalizing the article. This was my proposed revision: << according to IGN, Hart winning the WWF title in 1992 "changed the entire industry, re-setting the WWF back to the days of technical wizardry and reshaping all our notions of what a great wrestling match should actually look and feel like".>> [added source: article, quoted ad litteram from the source I received from Warlock82]
In the talk page, the argument eventually evolved into the claim by three other editors that the bit in the lead was ultimately "a widespread opinion" and that my proposed edit was worse for some undisclosed reason.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

Discussed plenty in the talk page. As far as I'm concerned, I've only received links to policies that ultimately did not support the opposing party's view.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

This is simply a matter of making the editors remember the style and format of Wikipedia. This is a case of peacock words. The only certain fact here is that a "journalist said this wrestler did this", not that the wrestler "changed the perception of the industry": this is simply what's - more or less - reported in IGN's article by some journalist; furthermore, it is a symbolical assertion that can't be proven. This is almost a carbon-copy of the Bob Dylan example in the "peacock" paragraph of the manual of style.

==== Summary of dispute by Warlock82 ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
The user who kicked off the dispute was recently trying to force uncited hero worship into [[Eddie Guerrero]]. After failing to find sources supporting his desired hagiography and having it gutted, he seems to have turned to revenge editing. His angle is that we cannot use a [[WP:RS]] (in this case [[IGN]], a reputable entertainment site with a dedicated wrestling section) to support ''consensus opinion'' regarding Hart's impact on the business and must state that we're giving only the cited publication's opinion. What he's not grasping (or choosing to ignore) is that the site's opinion is NOT being used: we're using its article as an RS to support consensus opinion. Since the beginning of time here on Wiki, we've used reliable sources to support consensus opinion on films, albums, books and everything else, so I see nothing wrong with the article.

Also, I'm NOT the IP's only opposition here. There's clearly an emerging consensus against his proposal at the Bret Hart talk page. [[User:Warlock82|Warlock82]] ([[User talk:Warlock82|talk]]) 09:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

=== Talk:Bret Hart discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
*'''Volunteer note''' - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not listed the other editors or notified them. It is the responsibility of the filing party to list and notify the other editors. This thread is left open for that purpose. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I notified Warlock82 in his talk page right after I had started the dispute resolution, it does look like he's AFK right now, though. [[Special:Contributions/151.19.28.154|151.19.28.154]] ([[User talk:151.19.28.154|talk]]) 03:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, Warlock82 is resorting again to obnoxious and unhortodox personal attacks and to me this only makes him appear more biased. I'll keep my stance because this would be a simple matter of taking a look at WP:PEACOCK, stop arguing and report ''the fact''. The fact being that it ''IGN said that Bret Hart winning the WWF title changed the perception of WWF fans''. Two or three editors agreeing with him won't make his stance any more credible or me any less credible. The only incredible thing here is if anything saying that two or three editors agreeing with him amounts to an "emerging consensus", which if anything still goes against the policies.
[[Special:Contributions/151.38.52.163|151.38.52.163]] ([[User talk:151.38.52.163|talk]]) 10:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
:IGN spoke to ''consensus opinion'' on Hart's impact. Nobody's using IGN's editorial opinion. And yes, you have a legacy of rigging and agenda-driven editing here on Wikipedia (failing with previous plots on the Seth Rollins and Eddie Guerrero articles), so that seems relevant. [[User:Warlock82|Warlock82]] ([[User talk:Warlock82|talk]]) 10:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not, because "name calling" and ad personam is not a proper line of defense. I may as well go on and say YOU and the editors are biased because that's what it looks like to me. Name calling is another thing Wikipedia policies are against. On topic, as eloquently proven, your contrived line of logic only gives leeway to more and more contradictions. And yes, even IGN saying "this is the best" or "this or that is one of the best" is using IGN's ''opinion'' in a journalistic sense. You're not supposed to be the judge here in saying what changed "the perception" and what not. It's nearly absurd that I have to state the obvious. [[Special:Contributions/151.57.117.210|151.57.117.210]] ([[User talk:151.57.117.210|talk]]) 11:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
:"even IGN saying "this is the best" or "this or that is one of the best" is using IGN's ''opinion''"
:And once again, that is NOT what's being used here. [[User:Warlock82|Warlock82]] ([[User talk:Warlock82|talk]]) 11:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, ''according to you'' it's not being used. ''According to me'', it is being used. [[WP:VNT]] refers to this exactly with the hypno-toad example. We disagree = the opinable part gets reworded objectively, reporting the fact per [[WP:PEACOCK]], which basically has "Bob Dylan was a revolutionary fellow" being switched out for "Time said this about Bob Dylan: *quote*". That's how things are supposed to be done, and I'm even more convinced after spending a fair amount of time re-reading every consultable policy. We have done it for Guerrero's article as well - which was, even more appropriately, reworded with "according to Fox News, he was one of the in-ring greats". By the by, those parts in Guerrero's article have even been moved out entirely from the lead at the moment, but I don't think anyone is making a fuss over there anymore, right? Again, the double-standards in the Wikipedia wrestling project appear kind of apparent to me.
[[Special:Contributions/151.57.117.210|151.57.117.210]] ([[User talk:151.57.117.210|talk]]) 11:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
{{V note}}Please keep discussion on this page to a minimum before the case has been opened. The filing party has not listed and notified any editors other than Warlock82. The filing party should list and notify any editors who engaged in discussion on the article talk page, including themselves. -- [[User:AntiCompositeNumber|AntiCompositeNumber]] ([[User talk:AntiCompositeNumber|Leave a message]]) 19:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
{{DRN archive bottom}}
{{DRN archive bottom}}

Revision as of 04:07, 26 September 2016

Archive 135Archive 140Archive 141Archive 142Archive 143Archive 144Archive 145

Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement_of_Britain#Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:Obrenović dynasty

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:Khan Noonien_Singh

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:Naturopathy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Tigrayans

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Yom Kippur

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:Serena Williams#Battle_of_the_Sexes

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:Sciences Po

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:Northern Epirus

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Maxine Feldman

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:2016 Uri_attack#Other_Nations

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:Bret Hart

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion