Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 125
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Talk:Edgar Allan_Poe#On_the_precise_description_of_Poe_and_Others
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | A compromise wording for the lede has been agreed to by participating editors, without objection from other editors. Will one of the participating editors please make the edit to the lede of the article? Thank you for working collaboratively. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I contend “author,” in the Edgar Allan Poe article should be replaced with the phrase “short story writer?” The pro and con opinions are unmovable. Here is a DIFF link, as asked for, to the controversy over the small word change I proposed: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Allan_Poe&diff=685268128&oldid=684639271
I've explained my position again and again in different ways to deaf ears in "Talk" section. How do you think we can help? Take a look at my explanation and note the use of the phrase "short story writer" in other Wikipedia biographies. Summary of dispute by MidnightdrearyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I think the content dispute speaks for itself. From my perspective, as someone who specializes in Poe as a published academician, the term in question is too reductive. I am further concerned that using such a specific term for his prose fiction makes it appear we are oblivious of his other prose fictions which do not fit this category. Finally, I reiterate that we cannot easily generalize for the perspective of all Poe readers. As I said before, there are scholars in other countries who have imported a greater interest in Poe's novel than in his tales and would be confused by the oversimplified categorization. I agree as mentioned elsewhere, nevertheless, that his short story writing is emphasized well enough in the lede, not to mention the remainder of the article. I might note that I have no ill-will towards the editor who first brought forward this discussion; I am thankful that we had the opportunity to collaborate. The project, after all, is bred on collaboration. As a completely irrelevant non sequitur, I was the main author of the article who guided it through the featured review process. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by David LevyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Hallward's GhostPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Paine EllsworthPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This dispute might be better served by an RfC on the article's talk page opened by the contributor who brought this subject to DRV. Thus far the consensus has been to maintain the status quo, and since it is consensus that shapes these decisions, an RfC may show a broader community consensus. Paine 14:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Talk:Edgar Allan_PoePlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Comment
First statement by volunteer moderatorI am accepting this case for moderated discussion. It is true that an RFC might be an appropriate way to resolve this, but an RFC is one possible resolution of a thread at DRN. Reaching a compromise here would be the best result of this discussion. Would each editor who has not made a statement yet please make a concise statement? I see that one issue is how to word the description of Poe in the lede. Are there any other issues to be discussed? I expect every participant to check this thread at least every 48 hours. I will check this thread at least every 24 hours. Please be civil and concise, and comment on content, not on contributors. Please conduct discussions here while discussion is in progress, rather than on the article talk page, so that we don't need to flip back and forth. Please do not make any substantive edits to the article while discussion is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC) First statements by editorsI contend that the lede to the Edgar Allan Poe biography is slightly flaw and would be improved with a minor change: From: "Poe…was an American author, poet, editor, and literary critic…” To: “Poe… was an American short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic….” The order of the descriptor is not terribly important to. It seems other editors want to include a catch-all phrase like “author” or “writer” to cover every thing mentioned in this bio that Poe ever wrote. But it’s unnecessary to use such a general, all-inclusive descriptor in the first sentence, and such a descriptor doesn’t fit in with the specific “poet” or “literary critic.” To “author” followed by “poet” and “literary critic” is redundant. Better stick with the specific and write: “American sort story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic” “novelist could be added too. If that sentence seems too long, break it up thusly: "Poe was an American short story, poet, editor, [novelist,] and literary critic. He is widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole. (I'm not particular about the order of these precise descriptors.) Anything else Poe wrote could be introduced much later in the bio—something like Poe also wrote This, That, and Other. Other Wikipedia bios appropriate omit the “author” catch-all and they lose nothing for that. Moreover, other encyclopedias see no need to use a catch-all phrase in the ledes of their Poe biographies. I gave links to those bios on the Poe Talk page, and offer them again here:
Overall, the Poe article is not bad; it could use some editing: tightening and general clean-up. I’m only interested improving the article.JoePeschel (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC) I contend that the lead is just fine as it is. It appears that the two precise items in contention are (1) to exclude the term "author" from the lead sentence, and (2) to include the term "short-story writer" in the lead sentence. I see no compelling argument to exclude "author"; however, clarification may be needed by a slight alteration to:
That sentence does satisfy "2" above, if not "1". Painius 02:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Painius 23:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Second statement by volunteer moderatorFirst, please direct all comments to me, the moderator, and not to each other. That is, please do not engage in threaded discussion. I realize that threaded discussion is the usual rule on talk pages, so now we can try something different. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Second, are there any issues other than the lede, or is the wording of the lede the only question? If the wording of the lede is the only issue, please state your own proposed wording of the lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Second statements by editorsMy proposed lede is clear and concise: “Edgar Allan Poe was an American poet, short story writer, and literary critic…." I see nothing in that introductory lede that is unclear. Do you, Robert? The use of the word “author” is merely a very broad catch-all to include any other work that Poe wrote, and even Midnightdreary said as much. As I mentioned earlier, the OED defines the word “author”: 1. The person who originates or gives existence to anything. “Author,” in my experience, is not an “esteemed term in the business of writing”; I’ve never claimed so and I’ve never heard anyone else in the business seriously claim so…till now. And even Rosie O'Donnell is considered an “author.” I used “tonnage” in the sense of weight or load. As to whether I’m a Poe fan or detractor-—I take an unbiased position.JoePeschel (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Third statement by moderatorIt appears that the difference is whether, in the lede, to characterize Poe as a short story writer or as an author. Is that the real difference? Are there any other issues? Can someone propose a compromise? If not, there are three ways to resolve this. First, the editors can agree on "short story writer". Second, the editors can agree on "author". Third, the editors can agree to submit a Request for Comments. Reply as to which of each of the three options is acceptable. That is, each editor is being asked a three-part question. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Third statements by editorsRobert, on October 7, when I corrected the biogrpahy of Poe by removing “author” and inserting “short story writer” I had no idea of the resistance that a simple, tiny change in the copy would meet. That same day, Midnightdreary reverted my edit saying, “author is more appropriate -- in addition to tales, he also wrote a novel, a play, etc.” I reverted that edit on October 11 and said, I undid “Midnightdreary Midnight’s revert "since Poe's ‘tales are short stories" There seemed no real concern about including a novel and a play in the lede. Anyway, some reverts back and forth and we wound up on the Poe Talk page. There I explained the reason for my revision by giving the definition of “author” and “writer” and for my wanting to include short story writer in the lede. There was little disagreement about including short story writer, but never have I seen so much resistance to such minor but obviously necessary deletion as I met with removing the word author. The word “author is redundant and simply unnecessary in the sentence: Edgar Allan Poe (/poʊ/; born Edgar Poe; January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American author, poet, editor, and literary critic, widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole. And can be tightened to read: Edgar Allan Poe (/poʊ/; born Edgar Poe; January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American poet, short story writer, and literary critic, widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole. I think everyone has now agreed on those three descriptors: poet, short story writer, and literary critic. Throughout the Talk page and here, I have given several reasons for accepting my edit. I’ve explained those reasons as best I can. Here are the major points: 1. “Author” is too general to be included in a lede that use specific descriptors. 2. To use “author” with “poet, short story writer, and literary critic” is redundant since poet, short story writer, and literary critic are each authors of poem,s short stories, and criticism. 3. Author is unnecessary to use as a catch-all phrase the Mighnightdreary suggests. It’s not necessary to include a word in the lede that is so general that it includes everything that Poe ever wrote. 4. There is plenty of precedent in other Wikipedia biographical articles for using a lede like the one I suggest. There are other Wikipedia articles that include “author” (I believe wrongly in their ledes.) So, no. There is no consensus on Wikipedia about the use of “author in a bio’s lede. The overwhelming consensus that David suggests is merely 4:1 5. Other encyclopedias (that I’ve listed above on this page) do not use the catch-all “author.” There have been several personal comments directed at me on the Talk page and here that I’ve tried not to respond to, since they are red herrings. (I appreciate that Dr tried to “hat” them and I thank him for trying to do that unasked by me.) But as far as I can tell, there is one main reason that the four who want to keep “author” in the lede sentence: 1. It is all inclusive. And I’ll note that recently Paine had suggested the word “author” should be used because it is an honorific. It should be evident (not “self-evident”) that author should be deleted from the lede. Our business here should be writing better articles, not quibbling over a couple of words. And the deletion of “author” improves the bio.JoePeschel (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC) The lead sentence is best left as it is at present.
Robert, the only explicit consensus is 4:1 and I note that’s not including in [another editor's] opinion. On the Talk page, [another editor] wrote: "I admit that I came here from the DRN because it caught my eye. I expected that the 'overwhelming consensus' would be just that. Maybe I am getting the wrong end of the stick, but I would have to agree with [another editor] that, in context, "short story writer" would be a better term than 'author'." Just because no one else has pointed out the weakness in the lede till now doesn’t mean that the lede does not need revision. The so-called “overwhelming consensus” simply does not exist. I’ve pointed out several reasons to change the lede, offered supporting evidence, given examples of other Wikipedia bios and Poe bios from other encyclopedias. The opposition has pretended and repeated again and again that there is a consensus, and give the reason for keeping “author” that it cover everything Poe wrote. Oh, yeah, [another editor] thinks “author” is some sort of honorific: “‘Author’ is an esteemed term in the business of writing.” But, in my experience, that just isn’t so. It would be good to hear from Midnightdreary since he was the first one revert my edit.JoePeschel (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderatorThis section of this discussion is for the moderator. It is not for threaded discussion by editors. Reply in the section below. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC) So far, one editor has deleted his opening statement, and will be deleted from the list of participants. Another editor has said that this case should never have been opened. Since discussion here is voluntary, does anyone else want to be withdrawn from the list of participants. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC) I asked a three-part question, with an opportunity for a fourth answer. The three questions were whether each editor would agree to "short story writer", whether each editor would agree to "author", and whether each editor was willing to accept the results of an RFC. The fourth option was to propose another compromise. The purpose of this noticeboard is to discuss content, and perhaps get agreement on content. It isn't to restate your comments, no matter how well-founded they are, about other editors. Please answer the three-part question. At this point, I am imposing a zero-tolerance policy with regard to comments on contributors, and will fail this discussion if there are any more comments on contributors or threaded comments. If I fail this discussion, administrative action, such as locking the article or blocking the editors, may be the next step. No one should really want administrative action, so try one more time. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC) If anyone doesn't like the way that moderation is being conducted, then can go to this noticeboard's talk page and ask for another moderator, but another moderator isn't likely to approach this conflict any differently. So try one more time to comment on content, so that I don't have to fail the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors
1. and 2. In this vein, I have agreed and will continue to agree to the following compromise:
3. Yes, I would be willing as always to accept the consensus drawn by an RfC regardless of outcome. 4. I've no intention to propose another compromise. Painius 21:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The current biography reads: Edgar Allan Poe (/poʊ/; born Edgar Poe; January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American author, poet, editor, and literary critic, widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole.
Edgar Allan Poe (/poʊ/; born Edgar Poe; January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American poet, short story writer, and literary critic, widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoePeschel (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Comment on content: It should be noted that "editor" is missing from JoePeschel's suggested opening sentence. I would like to know why, since this has not previously been discussed. Painius 02:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Robert, if Paine would like “editor” somewhere, anywhere, in the lede, I have no problem with that.JoePeschel (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Then if JoePeschel would please reinclude "editor" in their "compromise lede", that would be greatly appreciated. This brings up JoePeschel's usage of the phrase "compromise lede". Please explain why this can be considered to be a "compromise". The lead sentence suggested is what JoePeschel has supported all along: to include the term "short story writer" and to erase the word "author". That is precisely what has raised objections on the article's talk page, so I would appreciate an explanation as to exactly how JoePeschel's suggested lead sentence is a "compromise". Painius 06:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Here is the revised compromise lede:
Robert, Paine can place “editor” anywhere he wants in the lede. If I wrote that first graf, I would not have included “literary critic,” only “poet” and “short story writer,” but "literary critic" is fine by me. My compromise lede did not include editor, but I’m willing to put “editor” in it. At one point, Midnightdreary said some scholars in other countries thought highly of Poe’s novel, so I figured “novelist” could be included in the lede, but no one else thought so, and I did not feel strongly about it one way or the other. As I mentioned once before, the bio isn’t badly written, but some of the lede graf could use a little scouring and smoothing. Now, I could have suggested an edit of the first graf and settled for the removal of “author” and the inclusion of “short story writer,” but I didn’t come here to bargain like I would over a used car. I had no idea how much resistance I’d meet over a tiny change. JoePeschel (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you. Painius 17:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC) You’re welcome.JoePeschel (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderatorI won't be doing any more hatting or collapsing or redaction of comments on contributors. Either we will go forward with an RFC, or I will fail the discussion. Will any editor who has a proposed version of the lede that hasn't yet been listed (and isn't the current lede) please list it in the fifth statements by editors? Limit the fifth section of comments to proposed versions of the lede, and nothing else. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC) One editor wrote: "I am willing to accept the results of an RFC, so long as other editors refrain from commenting on persons and that they focus on content. I also would hope that I would have the opportunity to restate my case." Read the policy on Requests for Comments. Of course you will be able to restate your case. However, an RFC is not moderated. The RFC will be structured with two parts, the Survey for !votes, which are on content, and a section for threaded discussion. The threaded discussion does sometimes involve comments on contributors. It would be better if it didn't, but it isn't moderated, only subject to talk page guidelines, and incivility and personal attacks are not permitted, and can be reported to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Fifth statements by editorsI suggested a compromise version of the article's lead on its talk page. Per Robert's request, it appears below:The intent is to avoid commingling the catch-all "author" and the specific "poet" by shifting the latter (in the form of "poetry") to the following sentence, paired with a mention of short stories. In this manner, I believe that everyone's concerns are addressed. (We gain the benefits desired on one side of the dispute, but without incurring the loss to which those on the other side object.) —David Levy 20:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC) David, what do you say to a version of your proposal where I substitute "writer" for "author?" JoePeschel (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Sixth question by moderatorIs there agreement with the proposed lede by User:David Levy? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Replies to sixth questionIf David agrees to my modification above of his proposed lede, where I substitute "writer" for "author," I think we might have an agreement. For everyone's convenience, here's my slight modification of David's proposed lede.
JoePeschel (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC) If substituting "writer" for "author" in my suggested version will resolve the dispute, I'm more than happy to agree to this. —David Levy 22:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Works for me, David. Now, if everyone else concerned agrees…. JoePeschel (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC) I'm still at a loss as to why "writer" is acceptable where "author" is not; however, I also agree. Painius 14:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Paine, an author is the proud & happy fella who’s just published a book and just wants to talk about it; a writer, to slightly misquote Hemingway, “should write what he has to say and not speak about it.” Anyway, if you want, we can swap writer-author anecdotes on my talk page.JoePeschel (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC) To me, an author is the proud and happy fella who's just published a book that many people buy and take home, which makes the author deeply agonize over whether or not s/he will be able to write another book just as good as the one many people bought and took home. "Writer" is ever a more general term than "author". Poe was a great writer and, more specifically, a great author. Painius 05:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Seventh statement by moderatorDo we have agreement on the revised lede? Can this thread be closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Seventh statements by editorsRobert, I think David, Paine, and I have agreed to my tiny revision of David Levy's proposed lede:
Robert, are Midnightdreary and Deb still participating? Do we wait for them? JoePeschel (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Final statement by moderatorAfter 48 hours, I am taking silence as acceptance, and am closing this case as resolved by reaching an agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Talk:Wallis Simpson
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive recent talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Seven seals
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Administrative close. No other editors involved in the dispute listed and it is unfair to require a volunteer to research who is involved and create opening statements sections and then notify the other parties. Please feel free to refile and list all editors who have participated in the discussion in a substantial way. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:2015#Same-sex marriage in the US
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Already pending in another forum. The filing party refers to a Request for Comments, which was filed four days ago and is still in progress. A Request for Comments establishes community consensus, and is the only content dispute resolution process that is considering binding. Wait for the RFC to complete. If there are any conduct issues involving the RFC (and there do not appear to be any conduct issues), take them to WP:ANI. Otherwise, wait for the RFC to complete and to be closed by an uninvolved editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Church of_Norway#No_consensus
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed without prejudice due to lack of response. User:Per Weo hasn't edited since the filing of this case. I would suggest that discussion can continue on the talk page, but should focus on the wording of the lede, rather than tagging, which is merely a first step to calling for the need for discussion. If content disputes continue, they can be brought back to this noticeboard (which is voluntary and requires at least two editors), or a Request for Comments can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
List of_Indian_cities_by_GDP_per_capita
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Procedural close. Premature. All requests for moderated dispute resolution must be preceded by extensive discussion on the article talk page, not a simple question by one editor. Also, the other editor has not been notified. If discussion on the talk page continues and is inconclusive, this case can be refiled. However, in refiling, do not refer to vandalism (and there hasn't been any vandalism); real vandalism should be reported at WP:AIV. This board is for content disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Al Jaffee#H Jaffee
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. Since the editor objecting to this source rejects it as a reliable source, a request for advice at RSN would seem appropriate at this point. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File talk:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg#Norway
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| This case does not identify a specific Wikipedia article, so that there is no way of determining whether there has been discussion on a talk page. Also, the filing party has not notified the other editors. If this dispute does involve a specific Wikipedia article, the filing party may refile this case, identifying the article, after there has been discussion on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC) If I may supplement Robert's comments, this request is inappropriate because to the extent it involves a dispute currently ongoing at Commons, English Wikipedia has no authority or jurisdiction over it and the filing party should use whatever dispute resolution procedures are available at Commons, if any such exist. To the extent that it involves a dispute at the Conscription article here, there has been no discussion on that dispute at that article since June and this noticeboard, like all other moderated content dispute resolution forums at Wikipedia requires extensive recent discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg#Norway){kind=link}
Talk:Coffee
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Procedural close. There has been discussion on the article talk page. However, the filing party has not listed the other editors or notified them. It is not the responsibility of the volunteer editors at the dispute resolution to identify and notify the editors who are parties to a dispute. The filing party may relist this case after identifying and notifying the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Proportional representation#Edits and Reversions by BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Getting nowhere. Closed. User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd hasn't edited Wikipedia in five days. As I noted in my opening statement, I expect every editor to check on this case at least every 48 hours. When both parties are available for discussion, they can go back to the article talk page, and then if that doesn't resolve things, they can come back here if they both want to discuss content issues (not conduct). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Politically partisan disruptive editing of Proportional representation by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd to show First-past-the-post voting in a better light and to diminish PR and particularly mixed member proportional representation. Have you tried to resolve this previously? WP:ANI which no admin responded to. A WP:POLITICS request for help. Admin User:Abecedare protected the article - see too User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_21#Experiencing_revert_war_on_Proportional_representation. How do you think we can help? Understand enough of the lengthy (but repetitive) Talk page discussion to recognize that User:Ontario is acting in bad faith, and then recommend to an admin that User:Ontario be blocked. There is too much for an admin to wade through alone to make this judgement. Summary of dispute by Ontario Teacher BFA BEdHello User:Robert McClenon, I am willing to participate in a dispute resolution.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Proportional representation#Edits and Reversions by BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by volunteer moderatorI am opening this case for moderated discussion. I will state a few ground rules. I will check this case at least every 24 hours. I expect every editor to check this case at least every 48 hours. Be civil and concise. (Civility is not optional in Wikipedia, and concise explanations are often quicker and so better than long statements.) Comment on content, not contributors. This noticeboard is restricted to discussion of content issues, not to behavior of editors. Please do not make any substantive edits to the article while this discussion is underway, but discuss them here. Please keep your comments here while this case is open, rather than on the article talk page, so that they can be centralized. Do not reply to each other. That is, do not engage in threaded discussion. (There has already been threaded discussion on the talk page, and it was inconclusive.) Address your comments to the moderator in the section below. I don't have any particular knowledge about this article or about proportional representation except that it is used in countries with multi-member electoral districts rather than with single-member electoral districts. Will each editor begin by stating what they think that the issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC) First statements by editors"Will each editor begin by stating what they think that the issue is?" I have already stated this in "Dispute overview" above. As to specific article content, the essential problems are: 1, MMP. Para.2 of the lead can hardly be simpler: (paraphrasing) "there are 2 PR systems, a third system is usually also counted as PR". The third system, "mixed member PR" (MMP), Ontario insists is not PR but "mixed", as if it can't be both, a mixed system that produces PR. Of course it is both, as its name implies: "mixed member proportional representation". Ontario has deleted the last of the three solid sources for this, ref.8, probably because it is the most accessible, just one click. He provides nine (!) sources for his carefully contrived but pointless replacement sentence "MMP ... is considered a mixed system, which is a distinct voting system", but none of them says MMP is not proportional. They say only that it is "mixed", which is not in dispute (see question 3 from my Sep 21 talk post, his reply, and my response). 2, Party list PR. Ontario is insistent that open and closed list systems do not use electoral districts. For this he has no sources. That I point out on Aug.25 that two party list PR systems with districts are already discussed in the article fazes him not a bit. Since Sep.13 he has added in some places the qualifier "pure", which he doesn't explain, citing a source that uses "pure" to indicate a system that uses a single nationwide electoral district. So this statement from his latest "Closed list PR" section: "Pure proportional representation systems such as closed and open list do not use delineated electoral districts" actually means in simple English "PR systems with a single nationwide district have a single nationwide district". It is not about open & closed list systems generally, as the unwary might suppose. PR systems that are not "pure"? Nothing. (See question 1 from my Sep 21 talk post, his response, which supplies two further sources for "pure", and my follow up to that response). 3, changes to the structure of the article. Because Ontario insists MMP is not PR he moves it from "PR electoral systems" to a new section "Mixed electoral systems". Inconveniently, there is no WP article on "Mixed electoral systems" for the {{main}} tag so he refers to the semi-PR article (see also this change to the MMP article, "current" since Sep.16). That MMP is semi-PR he provides no source (see question 2 of my talk page post of Sep 21). To fill out the section a bit he has pasted some text from three semi-PR systems articles: two are not "mixed" and the third is an alternative name for MMP and already mentioned in the article. He adds no sources. He moves to the "Party list PR" section the existing "biproportional apportionment" and "sortition" sections, neither of which are voting systems, still less party list PR. Part of the lead text from section "Two-tier systems", including a sentence on biproportional apportionment, has been moved to the new "Mixed" section. This is chaos. --BalCoder (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Second statement by volunteer moderatorI will restate some basic instructions. Please be civil and concise. Please comment on content, not on contributors. The first statement by User:BalCoder is civil, but it is not concise and it comments both on content and on contributors. If the editors cannot define the scope of the dispute concisely, it may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard, which is for informal light-weight mediation, and may require formal mediation. Will each editor please state concisely what the issues about the content of the article are? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Second statements by editorsI refer again to my "Dispute overview": "Politically partisan disruptive editing" is the most concise statement of the issues I can manage. I was told this is the right place to take this (here, here, here), but if you think otherwise I have nothing against you referring the problem elsewhere. Formal mediation appears to be concerned with content disputes. For conduct disputes, which this arguably is, his edits are after all opportunistic, formal arbitration would seem to be more appropriate. I have already been to WP:ANI without a response. Perhaps it should be to edit warring: in his short WP career (<3 mths) Ontario has twice been warned for warring, on this and another article: here and here (which he immediately deleted). It is high time he were permanently blocked, I don't mind how. --BalCoder (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Third statement by volunteer moderatorUser:BalCoder states that the issue is politically partisan disruptive editing. Three other editors have advised them that this is a content dispute, and asked them to take it here. BalCoder says, correctly, that RFM is for content disputes, not conduct disputes. This noticeboard is also for content disputes, not conduct disputes. The report at WP:ANI was archived without action because it appeared to be a content dispute. In summary, multiple editors think that this is a content dispute. If User:BalCoder continues to present this as a conduct dispute, when everyone else sees it as a content dispute, I will have to close this thread, and the issue can't be resolved. Please either present this concisely as a content dispute to be resolved here, or agree that it is a complex content dispute to take to RFM, or we will have to drop it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Third statements by editorsOK, let's concentrate on my point 1 above. The sentence in para.2 of the lead: "...(MMP), a hybrid method that uses party list PR as its proportional component, is also usually considered a distinct PR method." It is supported by three solid sources. Ontario disagrees, insisting MMP is not PR but "mixed". It is of course both "mixed" and proportional, as its name implies: "mixed member proportional representation". Ontario has deleted the last of the three solid sources, and added seven further sources none of which says MMP is not proportional. --BalCoder (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Talk:Catholic Church#Org_Template_.28infobox.29
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Stale. On list for 6 days and no volunteer has chosen to take the case. Consider an RFC or perhaps filing at WP:MEDCOM. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview A few days ago, an editor proposed an infobox for the Catholic Church article. I recently moved it to the talkpage, saying there were issues with it, such as a controversial statement that Jesus Christ was the founder, without at a minimum, a citation. This edit was reverted, once by an uninvolved editor who did not see my talk page entry. Another editor has then repeated readded the disputed content, without improving the sources provided. To his credit, he believes the content was adequately cited elsewhere in the article. However, a few months ago, editors on the Catholic Church page had a related lengthy discussion (fixed) about how to neutrally represent the origins of the Catholic Chruch. There was a consensus that all such content must be strictly cited. In enforcing the need for adequate citations, I have been accused of edit warring, page ownership, etc.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have tried discussing on the talkpage. There were several misunderstandings, and I have not been communicating my concerns well, exacerbating the situation. How do you think we can help? Offer a third party opinion, primary on the appropriateness of the [entry in the infobox "Founder: Jesus Christ (According to Catholic Tradition)", and whether [additional] citations are necessary. Summary of dispute by SundayclosePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't wish to add fuel to the flames of this content dispute and I very much welcome other opinions (as I have pointed out to Zfish several times), but a few details have been omitted. Zfish neglects to point out the "Jesus Christ as founder" was resolved by rephrasing "Jesus Christ, according to Catholic Tradition", which is sourced in the article. All other details in the template also are reliably sourced in the article or in the infobox. He also doesn't point out that two editors, in addition to the original contributor of the template, have restored the template ("repeated readded" is misleading; each of us has restored the template twice) after Zfish's four reverts within 24 hours. Zfish's edit warring is easily identified by looking at the article's edit history. Finally, the archived discussion (incorrectly linked above; it should be [5]) is hardly a consensus about anything. It is primarily two editors briefly disagreeing about the distinction between Catholic beliefs and historical fact; there is no conclusion that something must be "strictly cited". If anything, that discussion points out one of the problems in the current dispute: the template, like the article, is about Catholic belief. Obviously there is lots of dispute about whether the Catholic Church is right or wrong in its beliefs; but the beliefs are well sourced in the article and reflected in the template. By the way, I encouraged Zfish to seek the standard dispute resolution process for Wikipedia rather than continuing to edit war. I would also like to remind him that a third opinion is one step in this process. Whether that opinion supports his position or another one, it does not necessarily reflect any final decision about the template. There can be additional steps in dispute resolution, and I encourage Zfish to pursue those steps if he feels the need rather than continuing to edit war. Thanks to any editors who might share thoughts about this issue. Sundayclose (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Catholic Church#Org_Template_.28infobox.29 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's note: I am neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this time, but merely noting that notice and discussion seem to be adequate. We're waiting to see if the responding editor chooses to participate by making an opening summary, above. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)
|
Talk:Fulgurite#Naively-resolved criticisms_masquerading_as_authority
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This was a request for an analysis of what amounted to original research and is outside the scope of Wikipedia articles. See article talk page for more details. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Yemeni Civil_War_(2015)#Russian_and_North_Korean_involvement_in_Yemen
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all disputes to be discussed here, there must first have been extensive discussion at the article talk page. There has been one comment by the filing party, and no discussion by the other editor (who also has not been notified of this thread). This case can be refiled here if there is extended discussion on the talk page and proper notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Donald Trump
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Not a request for dispute resolution. To request edits to a page, place the request on the talk page of the article in question. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Australian head_of_state_dispute#Inter_alia
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | General close. No editor has commented in 48 hours. Either this case can be closed due to agreement, or it can be closed due to lack of participation. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Aloysius Stepinac
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | One of the two editors has withdrawn from dispute resolution. Since dispute resolution is voluntary, this case is being closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Dispute overview The dispute is about Aloysius Stepinac article. Stepinac was a Catholic archbishop in the Ustaše-led Independent State of Croatia. I have tried changing the first part of the article (before the Contents box) but have encountered a heavy resistance. This article currently conveys an image of Stepinac as one who has made an error at the start of his carrier and later changed his ways. The article ignores the facts that Stepinac was the Supreme Vicar of the Ustashi Army, that he retained that position until the fall of Ustashi, that he sat on the Ustashi parliament, that he oversaw forcible conversions, that he always supported Ustashi and even took over after Pavelic (Ustashi leader) escaped. Instead, the article makes use of sources sympathetic to Stepinac, Stepinac's anti-communist stance and the fact on a few occasions he objected to persecution of Jews and Nazi laws to paint him in a generally positive light.
Several issues are disputed on the talk page: * Changing his title from „His Eminence Blessed Dr“ to „Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of Ustashi Army“ (titled „Seán Mac Mathúna blog“ and „Removal of infobox cardinal styles“) * Adding a Stepinac's words „Hitler is an envoy of God“ (titled „Croatian Sentinel quote“) * Replacing Stella Alexander pro-Stepinac quote with Stepinac's own words (titled „Stella Alexander Quote“) * Rewording description of Stepinac's actions (titled „Material from Gilbert, Jansen, Kent etc“) * Rewording description of Stepinac's trial (titled „Condemnation of communist government“ and „Depiction of trial in the West“) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have provided detailed arguments for each change I requested. I have changed the article several times just to see it reverted
One RfC was successfully completed (started by Peacemaker67). I have changed my starting position and agreed with the majority (RfC: Should {{infobox criminal}} be used in this article?) I suggested an RFM, but Peacemaker67 declined. How do you think we can help? I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia process, evident by the fact that, at the start, I wasn't even aware of the need to argue my case on the article Talk page. My goal is to see the record on Stepinac set straight, but my arguments are ignored and blocked. I would like advice on the best way to have my arguments seriously considered and article changed. Summary of dispute by Peacemaker67Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I suggest that User:Erosonog is trying to do too much in one go, with a poorly defined "dispute". I believe Erosonog would be better off trying to discuss one issue at a time via RfC rather than this "shotgun effect". I have already initiated one RfC which has been easily resolved, and am sure that consensus on the other issues raised by Erosonog would be fairly easily achieved by the same method.
I am an atheist and couldn't care less about the way the Catholic Church looks in this article or any other, I just want the article to reflect the academic consensus and compare and contrast differing reliable sources on the subject. I have nearly four years editing experience in the "Yugoslavia in WWII" field, and have taken over a dozen articles and lists to FA, some of which have been controversial. A review of the article history will show that I am currently trying to improve the article, citing all material properly using shortened footnoting, adding reliable sources and comparing and contrasting views on a person whose life and actions during WWII are quite controversial.
I don't see any point in this at present. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Aloysius Stepinac discussion
First statement by mediator, Drcrazy102 (talk)I am checking that this is the current extent of the dispute which we can work through in a "checklist" fashion.
If I have missed any current areas of contention, or I have placed a dispute that is still contested as being "resolved", can you please let me know in the section below, as well as if there is any particular order or items that you wish to discuss and resolve first. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC); amended 13:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
First round of statements by EditorsPlease remember to keep statements short, sharp and to the point. Do not create threaded discussions about another's statement. Please respond to any questions for clarification or further information that I place under your comments.
I'm comfortable in dealing with these issues in the order Erosonog prefers. You may have misconstrued a couple, but I'll leave it to Erosonog to confirm what. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not particularly concerned about the order of issues. However, as Peacemaker67 noticed, I do not agree that that the Croatian Sentinel quote has been resolved. I am still of the opinion that it should be kept. On the other issue that was just raised for the first time: should changing the lead of the article be postponed until the body is changed, I do not agree that it should. My edits are mostly in the lead section simply because I never got the chance to continue with the rest of the article. Erosonog (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Second statement by Moderator, Drcrazy102 (talk)
I am assuming that the list of disputes from above is now accurate of the current "dispute" ( or "dispute range"). Erosonog, the lead of an article is based on the content of said article; so if there are disputes about the content of an article, then any mentioning of said content in the lead is also disputed. Hence, changes to the lead should be postponed until the article is settled so that it reflects the article's content rather than being a stand-alone paragraph not related to the content. However, I am not saying to not edit the lead at this time, but to instead avoid making major or controversial edits to the lead that are affected by, or related to, the above "areas of dispute". I think we are ready to now start discussion about each point. Since neither party has any particular preference, we'll just work through the list as it stands. (I will amend it when we have reached either an agreement or an impasse that will need an RfC to settle.) So, without further ado, can I please ask you both to tell me why the article should reflect either the "His Eminence Blessed" or "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army"? Please refer to policies, guidelines and/or MOS where applicable but please avoid "throwing them around" as that is unhelpful. In other words: Ensure the policy/guideline/MOS is relevant to the point being made. I would also appreciate reliable sources being cited/referenced with quotations. See Template:Citation (or the relevant citation template for the type of source, e.g. "Cite book", "Cite web", etc.) for information on creating citations on Wiki amended 13:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Second round of statements by EditorsPlease remember to keep statements short, sharp and to the point. Do not create threaded discussions about another's statement. Please respond to any questions for clarification or further information that I place under your comments.
I had two reasons for this change. First, the “Blessed“ title was given to Stepinac by the Pope. The Pope (albeit a different Pope than the one that beatified him) was Stepinac's superior during WWII. Stepinac sent reports to the Pope on the progress of forcible conversions of Serbs to Catholicism[1] . As such, Pope Pius XII shares Stepinac's guilt. That another Pope would whitewash it by beatifying Stepinac does nothing to exonerate the crimes he was complicit in. To refer to Stepinac as His Blessed Eminence gives impression that Stepinac was indeed “blessed“, holy and an innocent martyr. My second reason for this change was that the “Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army“ was the most important role in his life. He got the title in 1942 [2]and kept it until the bitter end, in the crucial years of his life and the world history. His most important work was done under this title. Erosonog (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC) In the first instance, I am most concerned about the origin of the title “Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army“. A Google search for just "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar" garners a total of 15 results. Of those, we can discount the one published in 1843 and the fiction book by Hunt. There are seven by Avro Manhattan (at least one of which, Vatican imperialism in the twentieth century uses the title "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Croatian Army"), leaving six others, all of which appear to lean heavily on Manhattan, and one of which (by Yelesiyevich) is a hagiography about Ratko Mladic and contains a clear falsehood seen even in snippet view, when it says Stepinac was a member of the Croatian government throughout the war (which he was not). What is incredible is that despite Manhattan mentioning the title in nearly every one of his books, no academic author dealing with Stepinac or the NDH has mentioned it. The second issue I have is with Manhattan himself as a reliable source. I have a series of reviews of Manhattan's books that contain serious questions about assertions he has made in the books without citing evidence to back them up, and he appears to be something of a conspiracy theorist. I'm happy to make the reviews available via email rather than quote them at length here. I am also happy to take the issue of whether Manhattan is a reliable source to WP:RSN if that is felt appropriate. Further, Google Books results clearly show Stepinac is better known as either Cardinal or as Archbishop of Zagreb, and perhaps for his subsequent beatification, that is not only clear from the Google Books search, but also by the paucity of sources that use the "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army" title. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Third Statement by Moderator, Drcrazy102 (talk)I recently posted a "Resource Request" (see here) for sources that use "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army" as a title for Stepinac. The editor that responded, John M Baker, found a newspaper clipping from the Pennsylvanian "Gazette and Daily" on Aug 5, 1947: here[3], continued here[4]. To quote the newspaper: "The Archbishop was proven guilty of having ordered the people to fight for the fascist puppet “Independent State of Croatia,” and to have subequently [sic] served in the sabor (parliment) [sic] of the quisling regime and also accepted the post of supreme apostolic vicar of its army." While this is stated by the source, the editor also said "It looks like the accusation that Stepinac served as the army's supreme apostolic vicar was part of the communist regime's charge against him, so it's probably not a reliable source for the claim that he actually served that role," and I have attempted to find other sources using Google searches of various similar wordings but have found few sources that would pass the muster of the RS noticeboard and the reliable sources policy. The title does not seem to have been in common enough use to warrant inclusion in the lead or the infobox(/es) (or as I call them, "Summary boxes"), though there could be a passing mention that he was referred to as such within the main body of the article. I would suggest using in-line attribution to the "Gazette and Daily" and to Avros Manhattan if doing so. Is this an acceptable compromise for both parties, i.e. not in the lead, but attributed in the main body? Pinging to notify: Erosonog, Peacemaker67. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC); amended to clarify 03:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Third round of statements by EditorsPlease remember to keep statements short, sharp and to the point. Do not create threaded discussions about another's statement. Please respond to any questions for clarification or further information that I place under your comments.
I don't think it should be in the lead or infobox due to its uncertain nature. One of the issues with this is that there wasn't an "Ustashi Army" per se. There was the Ustaše Militia, a party militia similar to the Fascist Blackshirts or the Nazi SS, and there was the NDH armed forces proper, the Croatian Home Guard. They were only combined in 1944, when they became the Croatian Armed Forces. Problem is, we don't know which one Manhattan is referring to, as his books refer to both the "Vicar of the Ustashi Army" and the "Vicar of the Croatian Army". I could live with a mention in the "Trial" section of the body as long as it was attributed inline to Manhattan and it mentioned both versions of who he was supposedly the "Vicar" of according to Manhattan. It would be good to know for sure if it was originally drawn from the trial documents, but I'm not aware of a source in English or Serbo-Croat. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The fact that Stepinac was the "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army" and that he was appointed by the Pope is not difficult to confirm. I have already provided these additional sources in previous discussions with Peacemaker67, but here they are again: "The Case of Archbishop Stepinac", Information Officer, Embassy of the Federal Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia, 1947, page 67; "God's Bankers: A History of Money and Power at the Vatican", Gerald Posner, page 87 ; "Encyclopedia of World Biography: 20th Century Supplement", David Eggenberger and J. Heraty, page 356. If you feel the need to see Avro's material, feel free to read page 25, 29, 78: http://revelado.org/thevaticanholocaust.pdf. In addition, Stella Alexander, author of The Triple Myth (called "a sympathetic biography of Stepinac" in the current version of the Stepinac WP article) states the same on page 157. I hope this puts an end on the discussion regarding the veracity of this data. Let's discuss now if the title should be included in the infobox. I think anybody professing a modicum of neutrality here would agree that the Catholic Church and its scholars prefer not to refer to Stepinac as the "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army", given the genocidal nature of said Army. The volume of work referring to Stepinac by any other title (Archbishop, Cardinal, Beatified) hence far exceeds the mentions of "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army". Even when mentioned, doubts are raised if this is even true (as evident in this very discussion). Hence the situation today: the prevailing POV (defined by the number of people cognizant of a fact) is that Stepinac is a beatified cardinal. The question we are grappling with here is: should Wikipedia strive to present the prevailing POV or the neutral POV? Further, the current title in the infobox - "His Eminence Blessed" was conferred upon Stepinac posthumously in 1998 by (yet another) Pope. Arguably, Stepinac did not perform duties of a "Blessed Eminence". He did, however, perform duties of the "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army" and did so in the crucial years of his life and world history. Which title therefore better illustrates the man? No, I don't agree that the title should not be in the infobox and reduced to a mere passing mention with an inline attribution. Erosonog (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Fourth Statement by Moderator, Drcrazy102 (talk)I am currently under some off-wiki pressure and haven't had much time over the last few days to go through the sources. I will be free to devote full attention after the 27th/Oct. My apologies for the delay in response. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
References for "Talk:Aloysius Stepinac" DRN caseReferences
|
Talk:Olympiacos Women's Basketball#Problem with WP:RS and WP:NPOV
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Stale. No response by parties to question posed by volunteer 4 days ago about whether they're interested in continuing. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:White Anglo-Saxon Protestant
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Stale. On list 6 days with no volunteer interested in taking case. Consider RFC if assistance still needed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Procedural close. It is the responsibility of the filing editor to notify the other parties to the dispute of this discussion. (It is also the responsibility of the filing party to file the case correctly so that the subject article can be identified correctly.) The filing editor may refile this case giving proper notice to the other editors and formatting the case correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
User talk:Fallengrademan#Terence Crawford
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Withdrawn by filing party, who will be using a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:British Empire#The_British_Empire_a_Superpower
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Stale. On list 6 days with no volunteer interested in taking the case. Consider a RFC or WP:MEDCOM. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The article is British Empire and the question whether it was a "superpower". Snowded constantly reverted the edit but without giving a concrete reason to why. I provided various sources and references to support the statement, yet as things went on, some agreed whereas some disagreed, but the ones who didn't agree didn't provide any references or sources whatsoever. And I suggest there be a compromise (proposed by Snowded) in order to accommodate the consensus and the sources and references. Despite this, Snowded kept reverting the edits despite the compromise. Snowded didn't provide any concrete reason to his view nor sources or references and reverted pretty much all edits in the article and began to threaten and made false accusation towards me. Like I said, I think a compromise is best, mentioning that Britain was a superpower, at least in it's latter stages. He even deleted the fact that the British Empire was a "world power".[21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. And for more transparency, feel free to look at the discussions: [30][31]
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried seeking different POWs yet there was no concrete agreement. I left a notice on RFC [33] and ANI [34] due to Snowded's behavior but removed it by suggestion to talk it out. How do you think we can help? I would like and opinion. Honestly, some agree and some disagree, but the ones that disagree didn't provide any reference at all whereas the sources provided show that the statement is valid and should be left in the top of the article. And since some agree and some disagree, I propose the following compromise by putting this following phrase in the end of the first paragraph: "By the 20th Century the Empire became a modern superpower". Summary of dispute by SnowdedThe filing editor has not even bothered with an RFC despite being told about it by three editors. This is a minor editing issue in which the filing editor seems obsessed with a minor change but can not get support from others. It is not appropriate for dispute resolution. Suggestion of a possible compromise for discussion is not authority to make a change, it is an invitation to propose changes on the talk page and get agreement. The filing editor has form here as well with a block reversed after having edit warring explained. Add to that three examples of canvassing on this issue together with multiple personal attacks and the community is being pretty tolerant of someone who really seems to have a problem understanding how to focus on content issues and getting agreement on the talk page. ----Snowded TALK 05:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC) In response to the idea that a compromise was rejected. I was prepared to countenance a possible change but we saw no concrete proposal on the talk page. Instead N0n3up simply made up his own change and then argued that was an agreed compromise - again editing the article before reaching agreement. That change was really not suitable and there are other editors who have not indicated that they are in agreement with any compromise. So again, N0n3up has to learn to use the talk page rather that edit warring or forum shopping. ----Snowded TALK 09:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Just an opinion, but I don't think this is even near the point where dispute resolution is appropriate. We have a single editor advocating a particular position who has not yet engaged fully in the talk page or though a RfC. What is needed is someone to mentor N0n3up ----Snowded TALK 14:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by CliftonianPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
N0n3up contacted me two days ago (on 28 October) to ask my opinion on whether the term "superpower" could be applied to the British Empire. This is not an issue I have strong feelings on, but I still wanted to be helpful, so I gave my opinion on the article talk page that in my opinion the term could be used at least in reference to the Empire during the interwar period. In support of that I mentioned a history book on this topic called The British Empire as a Superpower, 1919–39. Snowded replied that "it's not a big issue" and "a date limited reference might be a good compromise", to which I replied that I would also support such a compromise. I have not taken part in the debate on the talk page since then so feel unable to comment. N0n3up has posted on my talk page a few more times. I have encouraged him to get more views and again told him I would favour a compromise based around using the term to refer to the early 20th century. He asked if he could make reference to my opinion on the article talk page and I told him he could. N0n3up posted again on my talk page after I went offline last night alleging that Snowded had "gone beyond the boundaries of reason". I have not examined the events and so feel unable to comment on that. I continue to favour a compromise where the term "superpower" is used in the interwar/World War II context. — Cliftonian (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Wiki-EdPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:British Empire#The_British_Empire_a_Superpower discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I am neither accepting nor declining the case. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
|