This case has been going on for more than a month and there are no signs that it is being resolved. Compromise(s) have been offered by uninvolved parties and the participants have been silent. Since there has been no participation by involved parties for 5 days I'm closing this case as failed. — Keithbob • Talk • 21:40, 1 December 2014 (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.
The issue concerns the inclusion of crowd attendance figures for the race. Haken arizona believes that the attendance figures should be included. I, on the other hand, have objected on the grounds that the sources he has provided have been flawed - they variously fail WP:SPS, WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE, have proven to be imprecise and contradictory, especially for a piece of information that is ultimately of little to no importance in the article. Despite repeated attempts to point this out, Haken arizona has refused to find alternate sources. The article has recently been locked following an edit war, but the moment the lock was lifted, Haken arizona immediately started editing his preferred content into the article, and the debate on the talk page has started getting personal.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have tried explaining what makes a source useable and what a better source would look like. I have demonstrated this to other users, who I think have been persuaded by my argument.
How do you think we can help?
Demonstrate the importance of SPS, RS, VERIFIABLE and the need for accuracy to Haken arizona. Also establish the notability of individual pieces of information to the article, and highlight the need for precision in sources and articles and show why close enough is not good enough.
Summary of dispute by Haken arizona
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Tass Russia is recognized news agency. It is their event and they will have the correct data on event's success. They report 65,000 spectators attended the event, indicating fully sold out event. This is important to add to the page. It indicates how successful was the event. It improves the quality of encyclopedia, in future people will be able to see if the event did good or did it flop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Jirka.h23
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:2014 Russian Grand Prix discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
A list of the sources used, and the problems with them:
The first, from ABC.net.au referred to crowd figures on the Saturday of the event. However, the field in the infobox specifically refers to the attendance on the Sunday.
The second and third sources, from CNN and a Russian news service, gave the crowd figures as 55,000 and 65,000.
The CNN article also referred to "near to capacity", but gave no indication of how near to capacity "near capacity" is.
The latest source, introduced today, is one I have never heard of. I'm a long-time editor of Formula 1 articles, and I have never seen it used, and I cannot verify it.
I have repeatedly explained both these problems and how to overcome them on the article talk page, but to no avail. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Tass Russia is recognized news agency. It is their event and they will have the correct data on event's success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor's note.First a technical announcement. Prisonermonkeys has been blocked from editing for 72 hours for edit-warring on this subject. Haken arizona has been blocked for the same offense as well for 48 hours. So neither of them is going to be able to contribute to this discussion within the next 48 hours. Prisonermonkeys will not be able to contribute for another 24 hours after that.
On the matter, In my humble opinion I think it would be helpful if we had the links to the various sources that have been used to justify the information here, so that one can explore them and compare them. I must admit that, having thought about it long and hard now, I too think that PM's concerns regarding some of the sources seem to be justified. Tvx1 (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here (and the current Coordinator), I am neither "taking" this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but wanted to make some administrative comments. I've taken the liberty of adding Tvx1 as a party and moving his initial comments to a summary section, above, to clarify that he's not here as a DRN volunteer. As of this writing two editors are still blocked. If they resume editing after their blocks expire, this case will be ready for a volunteer to open it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@TransporterMan; Drop in comment from Interwiki Wikiprojects. The two editors share the principle among many Grand Prix followers of not backing down one inch in disputes. If the two editors agree to suspend edit dispute on the article page and agree to follow Dispute Resolution process here then I have read both the German version and the Russian version of the page and might be able to moderate. @TransporterMan, It may be worth your posting a note to the two editors that they have opened a Dispute section here and that normally they are assumed to await the results of the resolution process before making further edits on the article itself. FelixRosch (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor's note. Rather than someone needing to sift through yards of article and talk page drama, a Volunteer could perhaps resolve this by visiting this latest version of the article and deciding whether this updated info about attendance in the intro is encyclopedic, and whether its two references actually support it. Moriori (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
After reviewing the edit, I personally feel that the information is encyclopedic and that it is properly supported by the reference. (TASS is a major Russian news agency, so I think it would be safe to say that it's a reliable source.) --Biblioworm 00:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
As I have outlined on my talk page, the attendance figures should not be included in the article lead. They were never an issue during the race weekend, and including them in the lead overstates their importance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Quite. While I have no problem with the figures being the article providing people are satisfied as to their reliability, they certainly do not belong in the lead paragraph. Infobox and/or article text, background info or somesuch. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I still have reservations about the TASS source. It says "over 65,000", and while it might be reliable, it's way too vague for my liking. Everything else is accurately recorded; we say that Hamilton's pole time was 1:38.513, not 1:38.5 and just round it off. So when the TASS source says "over 65,000", how far over 65,000 are we talking about? And it's contradicted by the CNN source, which says a "near capacity crowd of 55,000". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
You make some good points, @Prisonermonkeys. I'd say that CNN and TASS can both be trusted, but if trusted sources conflict, it's a little difficult to figure out which one to trust. We could always say something along the lines of "Attendance estimates range from 55,000 to over 65,000 people", but that is probably a bit too vague to be helpful. --Biblioworm 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
That is probably too vague, @Biblioworm. We have always aimed for precision in the articles, and giving a range of 15,000 is far too broad for inclusion. Attendance data might be nice if it is available, but it is not so important that we can or should forget our standards in order to include it. If it is worth including, it is worth being precise about. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
If two reliable sources conflict, then it's very difficult to say which one is correct. I'd be a bit more inclined to trust TASS over CNN, because TASS is native to the nation of the race and probably provided more detailed coverage. Because of the contradiction within sources, however, I'm beginning to lean towards omitting the attendance figures from the article. I'd would like to hear more from @Haken arizona concerning these contradictions, though. --Biblioworm 02:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Attendance figures are also being inconsistently applied—the 2014 United States Grand Prix article says over 230,000 people attended, but as the venue cannot hold that many people, it's evidently the sum across the three days. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
@TransporterMan: Drop-in comment from InterWiki Wikiprojects. As a neutral comment from both the Russian version and the German version of this page, neither one mentions the attendance stats as relevant to those language versions of this article. It also appears that only one of the dispute editors is participating here even though both have edit rights restored. If both editors agree to continue the discussion then both need to be heard from soon. @Haken Arizona needs to participate for this discussion to re-commence. If @TransporterMan could ping both editors to see if they wish to continue the resolution process then that's fine. Otherwise, no response in 24hrs from both of the disputing editors seems to indicate this matter is no longer being pursued and it is a candidate for being closed as stale. FelixRosch (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@FelixRosch: I'm here and I want to participate further, but I feel that there is little more that I can contribute without further input from @Haken arizona. If he does not, we could possibly resolve the dispute by removing the attendance data on the grounds that the TASS source is a) vague and b) possibly contradicted by the CNN source, and that attendance data is being inconsistently applied both across English-language articles and across multiple Wikis. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys; Since I am neutral on this question at this time, I can confirm my comment from earlier today. There is no reason that you could not contact @TransporterMan and ask him for his view and possibly for him to ping @Haken arizona. If there is no response in 24hrs from @Haken then this matter could be assessed as stale and it could be closed by @TransporterMan. If @Haken wishes to continue then he can reply here, and I have read both the Russian version and the German version of this page and can still offer a neutral assessment. FelixRoschTALK 21:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I just messaged @Haken arizona on his talk page and asked him to participate here. @FelixRosch: While I do think that we should close this as stale if Haken does not reply, I don't 24 hours is enough time. Perhaps we should wait until the end of the weekend? --Biblioworm 22:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@Biblioworm; Yes, the end of the week-end or Monday morning sounds about right. If @Haken arizona wishes to continue he may reply, otherwise you are justified to assess the matter as stale and you can close it on the time frame you indicate. FelixRoschTALK 22:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@Haken arizona is here. Attendance data is important, it shows how well the event did in comparison with events in other years. It is up to 3rd party to decide this because I was not able to resolve the issue with Prisonermonkeys.
@Haken arizona: there are still major issues with the sources provided, which you have never addressed. For one, the TASS article says that "over 65,000 people" attended.
Firstly, if more than 65,000 people attended, how many more attended?
Secondly, why are the attendance figures so important to the article that we should willingly continue including them even though the source is so vague and sub-standard?
More importantly, the CNN source you originally gave said the event had a "near capacity crowd of 55,000". Now, we have TASS saying "over 65,000 people". If TASS and CNN are equally reliable and equally reputable, how do you explain the difference of over 10,000 people between the two? And again, how and why is the inclusion of the attendance figure so important that we should willingly ignore such a massive contradiction? That alone is enough to justify its removal from the article.
Finally, why are you inconsistently applying this information? You updated the 2014 United States Grand Prix to show an attendance figure of over 237,000 people, but the circuit cannot hold that many at once—the figure clearly shows the aggregate attendance over three days. But in the Russian GP article, you only have the attendance for the race. So why the inconsistency, and why is the figure so important that we can willingly ignore it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Haken arizona and Prisonermonkeys; Both editors appear ready to defend their positions here. If both of you are agreed to accepting to follow strict WP:Lede and WP:MoS policy and guidelines then I am able to offer a neutral assessment of this discussion for resolution. Both editors would need to make a short comment to affirm this and the mediation can start. Otherwise the matter can be assessed as stale and suitable for being closed on this basis after 24 hours if both editors are not present. FelixRoschTALK 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: My first edit was correct one, the TASS source. But you said can't be 65,000 because venue holds only 55,000. Later you corrected yourself stating there are 55,000 seats and 10,000 in general standing area so that makes it 65,000. Then you went with your edit war about the number, then I went with CNN source which was just journalist guess. Then you went with your edit war again. Bottom line is you don't want any attendance data there and refuse to reason. You got blocked for 72hrs and me only for 48hrs, which means moderators found you more guilty than me. Attendance data can be vague like weather can be. Because it is impossible to account for every person at the event so the number is usually rounded off. USA GP attendance data is sourced directly from the event organizer. It is their reputation on the line and not Wikipedia's. I post what they report. User can click on the source and get more detail about the attendance where they can read if it is for sunday or for whole weekend. You are free to go to Holocaust page and argue 6 million figure, why is the number vague there?
I have said it before and I will say it again: I am not opposed to the inclusion of attendance figures on principle. I am opposed to the inclusion of attendance figures—as I would be with any addition to any article—when they use sources that are so clearly flawed. They are not so important to the reader's understanding of the article that we must include them, even if it means using a faulty source. I feel that if we find ourselves in such a situation, then it is better to leave them out altogether.
To my mind, the issues that need to be resolved here are:
1) The importance of attendance figures to these articles as a whole.
2) The obvious issues with the sources that have been presented in this specific instance.
And I would suggest that you give up on the "go and argue the Holocaust death toll figure" argument. It's inappropriate to say the least. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Current summary of dispute
(this summary was replaced and updated below by the 12 Nov update section)
@Haken arizona has indicated an interest in posting a one or two sentence edit on the race attendance statistics in the main body of the article, and also wishes to post a one sentence summary of it into the Lead section. @Prisonermonkeys appears to wish to limit this edit to a single sentence, if that, within the main body of the article and not include a summary of it in the Lead or Infobox section unless verification of reliable sources is satisfied. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
To both editors; @Prisonermonkeys and @Haken ariona. Both editors have been asked to agree to follow strict WP:Lede and WP:MoS policy, which @Prisonermonkeys has done, and I ask for @Haken to affirm this also. I ask for both of you to sign all your edits here with 4 tilde as endorsing your further statements. If the above is a fair summary of your positions then @Haken ought to provide the text he wishes to put into the main body of the article in quote marks within his reply here below exactly as he wishes it to appear in the article along with cites in parenthesis (indicate also exactly which section in the main body of the article you want to place it). @Prisonermonkeys and @Haken; If this summary in not what you are indicating then this is the time to state your amendations/abridgements. Tomorrow is veterans day and everyone gets until Wednesday morning to reply (over 24 hrs), and that is when I shall reply to both posts. Otherwise this matter may be seen as stale and may be closed if left without a response from each editor by Wednesday at 12 Noon. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I do not agree with the above. My position is that if attendance figures are to be included, then they should only appear in the infobox, provided that they are accurate, reliably sourced, and in a format consistent with other, similar articles; the only time they should appear in the body of the article is if it can be demonstrated through multiple, reliable sources that the attendance figures for that race were a major issue.
Accuracy is the key here. "Over 65,000 people" is too generalised for my liking. It's like saying Hamilton's pole time was 1:38.5 instead of 1:38.513. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys There is a proof you just refuse to agree no mater what kind of argument is put forward. You can't compare race car time that is measured by sophisticated computers to be precise within .00001 of a second and attendance figures. When masses of people are counted, the number is usually general in nature and rounded off. I don't care if there is a number of attendance, I am ok even if it is quoted as being up to capacity, sold out, very good turn out. This indicate if the event was commercially successful or not. This is very important especially in the USA. Promoters can charge more money from advertisement if the event gets attended well. @FelixRosch I made my argument, I posted my statement, I don't know what else to say. Haken arizona (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It is not an indicator that the event was commercially successful. In order for the event to be a commercial success, it has to make a profit. You would need to prove that, again with a reliable and verifiable source. And the commercial success or failure of the event is not within the scope of the article.
Also, it's not difficult to count spectators. They need their tickets to get in, and those tickets can be counted as they enter the venue. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Neutral editor here. Having never considered the subject before, it is surprising how 'unofficial' attendance records are in racing. The source that struck the biggest chord was this one: according to a USAToday article, Nascar stopped giving 'official' attendance altogether in 2013.[1] Tracks can give "crowd estimates" on their own prerogative. This means that for current Nascar events there can be no official counts, only track estimates. Would it be a fair compromise to state that attendance would only be included on those races for which Nascar gave an 'official' attendance number?EBY (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I would say yes, but NASCAR articles aren't within the scope of the Formula 1 WikiProject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Update of summary 12 Nov 2014
To @Haken arizona and @Prisonermonkeys; Both editors have answered and signed their comments to continue the resolution process. @Haken arizon proposes to add the following edit to record the attendance figures as follows:
According to CNN and TASS, the attendance stood at near capacity with more than 55,000 spectators on the third and the main day of the event.[2][3] (updated to single sentence proposed edit on 13 Nov 2014)
In response to this edit, @Prisonermonkeys requires a second citation in order to verify the single source claiming that a second source previously presented from CNN cited slightly different attendance stats. @Haken arizona, since the two sources give comparable though not identical attendance stats, would you be willing to move towards consensus by (i) adding the CNN citation to your edit and (ii) stating that there were "more than 55,000 spectators", the lower CNN number, without further amplification. @Prisonermonkeys; It seems more on point to divide this dispute into two phases and first decide if the material proposed for the main body of the article can be defended before deciding if it can go into the Infobox. WP:Lede and Infobox Wikipedia policy is that they can only summarize material which is in the main body of the article, and therefor the issue of this proposed edit in the main body of the article ought to be settled first one way or the other. If both editors could respond during the next 24hrs and both sign your response then the resolution process can continue. Otherwise the matter can be seen as stale and may be closed on this basis if both editors do not respond in the next 24hrs. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It's still not specific enough for me. If this is going to be included at all, then I feel that it needs to be accurate. As it is, it is simply too vague. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@Prisonmonkeys; While waiting for @Haken response could you elaborate just a little. That is, if @Haken has two references and decides he wants to include attendance stats in the main body of the article ("more than 55,000 spectators"), then you still want something in addition to this? If you have something specific in mind or an example you can cite of something similar which would be acceptable to you, then this may aid @Haken in his evaluation. FelixRosch (TALK) 20:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC) @FelixRosch I am sure Vladimir Putin did not buy a ticket to attend his own Grand Prix, that would be absurd, he attended, so if 65,000 tickets were sold, there are VIP people who did not have to buy the ticket and have attended the event, this officialy makes it factual to say that "more than" 65,000 people attended the event. There are 5 or 6 major networks that reported the event as "sold out". All neutral editors tend to side with me. prisonermonkeys is simply being way out of line and unreasonable. Haken arizona (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Coordinator's note about DRN auto-closing: Everyone should note that the normal life span for a DRN case is two weeks and that span will end for this case at 08:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC). Once that time passes, this case will be automatically archived by our bot (and closed by implication) if there is not at least one edit to it every 24 hours. The volunteers working on the case have the right to extend its life by changing the date in the DoNotArchiveUntil comment at the top of the case to a later date, but generally should not do so unless they feel that there is a good chance of successful resolution in a reasonable period of time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
Confirming notice from @TransporterMan for bot archive in 48hrs. There has been no update from one editor since 11 November. Bot is on autopilot to archive in 48hrs unless both editors are participating. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I am participating, I just laid my argument, what else can I do. Moderator should decide quickly. Haken arizona (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
FelixRosch, I feel that the attendance figures are not specific enough. The TASS article says "over 65,000" people attended. So my question is how many more? If it was, say, 65,711 people, then the article should say 65,711 (with a reliable, verifiable source, of course). A rounded figure simply isn't good enough, and if we look at articles like 2014 United States Grand Prix, we know that it's possible to get those specific numbers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Prisonmonkeys and @Haken arizona; This proposed edit is coming down to this single sentence if I understand both of your positions concerning the double cited one sentence edit for the main body of the article:
According to CNN and TASS, the attendance stood at near capacity with more than 55,000 spectators on the third and the main day of the event.[4][5]
@Haken needs to affirm if this is the form of the edit which he wishes to defend here at this time. Simply state "yes" or "no" if this is the edit you are defending at this time. @Prisonermonkeys; Your example from 2014 US Grand Prix raises a second issue which may distract us here since that page introduces material into the Infobox which is not a summary of material in the main body of the article as required by WP:MoS for WP:Lede and Infobox policy and guidelines. Also, one of the two cites given there does not even give the attendance figures. The focus here needs to be on point, namely, this one sentence version of the proposed edit with two citations to support. It seems that @Haken only wishes to make the point that the attendance stats were near capacity though its up to him to clarify exactly what his intentions are in his edit. Both editors should need to try to respond to this version within 24 hours since bot is on autopilot to close here in 48 hours unless there are daily 24 hour responses. FelixRosch (TALK) 20:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I am for what ever source is reporting to be included, in main body.Haken arizona (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys; Earlier today @Haken arizona has indicated that he is willing to move toward consensus and drop his two sentence edit in favor of a one sentence edit with two citations to show near-capacity attendance stats at the event as shown in boldface above. It is for you to indicate a confirm for the edit or to respond. To both editors, @Haken arizona and @Prisonermonkeys, unless there is a response by Monday morning then a bot is currently on autopilot to archive this dispute. Either one of you may request that @TransporterMan extend this bot archive if you request a short extension from him, otherwise bot is set to archive by Monday morning. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't want extention, I want a moderator to decide alreadyHaken arizona (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@Haken arizona; Normally the disputing editors are both allowed to have time to respond and @Prisonermonkeys has been reliable so far in his response time and should be allowed to make his reply over the week-end. Both editors have another 24hrs to add any further information. If any of the other participating editors have any drop-in comments or opinions then this is also the time to make them. If no further information or reply is made then bot is on autopilot to close by Monday morning unless at least one of the editors responds by that time when I shall plan to make my comments on Monday morning. FelixRosch (TALK) 20:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
Uninvolved editor's notice Prisonermonkeys has again been blocked for edit warring (on an unrelated article). This time for a week. As the block was initiated on 14 November, that user will not be able to contribute until 21 November. Tvx1 (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
@TransporterMan, @Tvx1, @Haken arizona; Confirm that block reported by @Tvx1 is in place until this upcoming weekend on Saturday. Since two administrators are involved at this point, it may make sense to see if @Prisonermonkeys will be willing to move toward consensus and meet @Haken's move toward strengthening his edit and @Haken's already stated offer to move towards consensus. @TansporterMan can extend the resolution process until this weekend for this to happen, otherwise the dispute only has one participant and shall be archived by bot within 48 hrs. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Extended to November 26. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Felix, thanks for shepherding this rather long drawn out discussion. I hope there can be some resolution soon. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You now can see that editor Prisonermonkeys is out of line and totally delusional. He has been blocked 3 different times this year alone. Can't believe you guys are giving him all this time to argue his point were you can see no source is good for him. Haken arizona (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
What may or may not have happened elsewhere is of no consequence to this discussion. I have repeatedly outlined what I think would qualify as a good source—one that is reliable, verifiable, and specific. If we cannot find a source that satisfies all three of these criteria, then I would prefer that we leave it out entirely. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
To both editors; @Haken arizona has offered to move toward consensus by shortening his edit to a one sentence version with 2 reliable sources confirming near capacity attendance. @Prisonermonkeys has stated that he would prefer precise statistics once these are available even if the current sources are reliable. Can @Prisonermonkeys move towards consensus in response to @Haken's offer to move toward consensus if @Haken agrees that @Prisonermonkeys may update the current estimate (which has 2 reliable cites) using the precise stats once they become published. This would allow the article to presently confirm the fact that the audience stats were at near capacity (that is, the event appeared to be successful in terms of attendance), and the estimated "Over 55,000" figure may be updated to more precise stats in the future by @Prisonermonkeys when and if they are eventually published by reliable sources? Both editors should respond to this within the next day or two since bot has currently been reset to automatically archive during the holidays next week. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
FelixRosch, I'm sorry, but I can't move towards that consensus. I don't think it's valid. I don't see the need for attendance figures in the article—their importance to the article in any form has not been established, much less why they are so important that we can leave vague and imprecise content in the article indefinitely. It is the least-important piece of information in the article, and if the article had to be trimmed down, it would be the first thing to go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I want to move forward with consensus Haken arizona (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Proposed resolution
Uninvolved editor's proposal Pardon me for barging in, but may I propose a resolution initiative myself? As as an experienced WP:Formula 1 editor, I can't shed the feeling that this issue is to tough for two editors to decide just between them even with the help of the moderators. So I would like to propose two things:
1) The editors involved in this dispute continue to refrain from editing the article concerned until the matter has been resolved, like they have successfully been able to do for quite a while now.
2) We initiate a discussion over at WT:WikiProject Formula One (maybe even an RFC) so as to allow for a wider input from the community of WP:Formula One editors in order to achieve a well-supported consensus on the subject. Tvx1 (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys and @Haken arizona; There is an offer from an experienced editor to take this to RfC and using some of the advantages of that process. It is up to each of you to decide if that route is preferred for each of you. @Keithbob; This discussion is set to archive by bot on 26 Nov and if there is no response from both editors by then this case shall automatically archive by bot. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
This does not sound fine with my, I want this resolved. Haken arizona (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
An RfC will allow more input from other editors. It's the course of action that is most likely going to bring about a resolution. Unless you want FelixRosch to make an executive decision. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
To both editors; @Haken arizona has moved toward consensus by satisfying the three original issues raised in this discussion: WP:SPS, WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE. @Haken is presenting a one sentence version of his edit with 2 verifiable citations. @Prisonermonkeys wishes to retain the right to update these stats with more precise citations when these reliable sources become available in the future. If both editors are in agreement with this status then I am prepared for signing onto this as satisfying the original issues raised with both editors having moved towards consensus. Whichever route you pursue, each editor should note that bot is set to archive on 26 Nov in 24 hours. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree, that is what I wanted all along. What ever best source for attendance numbers to stay. Then if in future better source has update, then it can be changedHaken arizona (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It appears you may be on the verge of some resolution so I've extended the auto close date a few more days. However if discussion stalls and there appears to be no significant progress towards resolution than it's likely the DRN coordinator will manually close the case even before the expiration date triggers the bot. At this point, after 3 weeks we need to see things moving steadily towards resolution. If not, the case will need to be closed. Felix and others have made some good proposals. I hope the participants can agree to a compromise soon. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I still feel that the right to edit and update the article should include the right to remove it entirely if no sufficient source can be found. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
To both editors, @Prisonermonkeys and @Haken arizona; Yes, yet all parties are agreed that the right to refine/remove would need to have a reliable source WP:RS in order to stick. Still, in that case, if in the future you find a contradictory citation, then you would be correct that if you have a reliable source which contradicts the 2 cites from TASS and CNN, then you would have the right to challenge under WP:RS. That is, WP:RS, reliable sources would need to be followed if that happens sometime in the future. For now, WP:SPS, WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE, are consistent with @Haken's current 1 sentence version of the edit with 2 cites as presented at this time, and both editors can accept having moved toward consensus. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
For now, WP:SPS, WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE, are consistent with @Haken's current 1 sentence version of the edit with 2 cites as presented at this time. Thank you, this means I was right all along and prisonermonkeys edit to erase was wrong. Haken arizona (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
1) That's not an opinion. It's a statement from an established journalist.
2) It's not edit-warring.
3) It has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of this discussion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Prisonmonkeys and @Haken arizona; This proposed edit is currently set to this single sentence if I understand both of your positions concerning the double cited one sentence edit for the main body of the article, with @Prisonermonkeys requesting to retain the right to challenge the attendance stats in the future should a future reliable source become available:
(1) According to CNN and TASS, the attendance stood at near capacity with more than 55,000 spectators on the third and the main day of the event.[6][7]
(2) @Prisonmonkeys reserves the right to challenge these stats in the future should a reliable source become available in the future.
Both editors note that this offer of consensus stands only while there is no RfC filed by another editor on this dispute. Both editors can affirm the (1)-(2) consensus edit above by stating "yes" or "no" below. Automatic bot archive is set to archive in 24hrs unless the editors are able to respond by then. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:19, 1 December 2014 (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.
2015 Formula One season
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
I think we have acieved all we can here. The consensus seems to be that we should leave the flag out for a while, and wait for the official announcement. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:27, 29 November 2014 (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.
Filed by Eightball on 10:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The F1 2015 schedule includes flag icons next to each race indicating where the track is located. The German Grand Prix is guaranteed to be hosted in one of two tracks, both of which are in Germany, and I have provided sources proving as such. Furthermore, the German GP has never been hosted off German soil, and assuming that it could be is a massive leap of logic. Editors, who I firmly believe are maliciously editing the page, continually refuse to accept both the objective fact that the German GP will be in Germany, AND the sources I have provided supporting said facts.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
No resolution appears to be possible. My "opinion" as stated above is objectively true and cannot be disagreed with. However, editors continually try to form "consensus" to lie on the page.
How do you think we can help?
Please tell these editors that they need to respect the objective reality in which we live and stop trying to write articles about a world that doesn't exist. Please also note that THIS IS NOT A DISPUTE. Dispute over this fact is quite literally impossible. That's what a "fact" is. Why these editors keep trying to maintain the page in a state that spreads a known and obvious lie is beyond me. However, a third party NEEDS to tell them to stop, so that's why I am here.
Summary of dispute by Bretonbanquet
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Making one comment here, as this is beyond ridiculous. The German GP has always been held in Germany (75 times out of 75), and there is no suggestion anywhere that it will be held anywhere else. There is also no suggestion that it won't be held at all. All that is not confirmed is which track will hold the race. If venues have flags in this table (and they do), it does not require the confirmation of which German track will hold the race to enable us to stick a German flag in the table. This is absolutely typical of the project, to have endless argument over the most trivial of edits. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Prisonermonkeys
The issue here is not whether a German venue will host the German race, but rather that WP:F1 has an established practice of "no venue, no flag". The flagicons are used to mark the nationality of the venue, not the race (as in certain select instances—such as Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and European Grand Prix—the titles do not contain a nationality). If there is no venue, how can we say what nationality it will be? The argument that this is about whether or not a German venue will host the race is just muddying the water.
Eightball is true to his word when he says he has provided sources. However, there are problems with those sources: they claim Hockenheim and the Nurburgring will share the event on alternate years until 2018, with Hockenheim taking it in even-numbered years, and the Nurburgring hosting it in odd-numbered years. By rights, this should be a slam-dunk—the Nurburgring should host it in 2015. But the FIA (the sport's governing body) released a calendar with the venue for the race listed as "TBA". Evidently, something has changed. Right now, there is no venue, and we have no way of knowing what the FIA is planning on doing about it. We don't even know if there will be a German Grand Prix, because without a venue, there can be no race. Furthermore, his claim that the race will absolutely be hosted by one of two venues has never been supported by any evidence.
All of that is a distraction, though. Like I said, this comes down to a refusal by an editor to accept the "no venue, no flag" policy. Moreover, that editor has expressed an intention to ignore any consensus he disagrees with, and has repeatedly failed to assume good faith on the part of half a dozen editors in four different places by accusing them of willingly lying and of making "malicious edits": here, the article talk page, the 3RR noticeboard, and my talk page (and possibly more; I don't know). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by The359
First, I would ask Eightball if he believes this cannot be discussed because his viewpoint is truth and there is no possible debate, why he has brought it to Dispute resolution? Further, if he believes that editors are being malicious in their edits and are vandalizing the article, why this isn't being taken up on WP:AN?
Now, my summary of the dispute is this: WP:F1 has a plethora of nitpicky policies regarding titles, flags, proper usage and timing on including new elements to articles, as well as what resources are worthy for addition, some of which goes outside standard Wikipedia MOS. This unfortunately has created this mess over a simple thing. A new editor added the flag under the understandable belief that the race will inherently be held in Germany even if we do not know where. A WP:F1 editor removed it under the claim that we can't say with certainly that the race will be held in Germany, due to the someone odd nature of Grand Prix titles over the decades in which some races have been held outside of their titled country, such as the San Marino Grand Prix held in Italy for its entire 26 year existence. A discussion was started with another editor believing the flag should remain, and things fell apart from there. Basically the divide comes down to those who believe that although there is the slimmest of chances the race wont be held in Germany, it is so unlikely that it is not worth recognizing that slim chance and simply saying the race will be held in Germany. The other side believes that given the odd nature of Grand Prix titles in the past, and although they too agree there is the slimmest of chances the race wont be held in Germany, we cannot verify through referencing where exactly the race will take place and thus the country should not be represented because of the snowball's chance in hell that it could be somewhere outside of Germany.
Unfortunately edit warring broke out as Eightball believed there was no way his opinion could be wrong on the matter and that a lack of flag in the article was somehow a "lie", and other editors believed there was prior consensus for not including the flag.
I would also note there is prior history of disputes between Eightball and other editors of WP:F1 over minutae, much in the same vein as this dispute. The359 (Talk) 05:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Tvx1
Much exaggerated dispute to be honest. We have had a practice for years that we don't put a flag when a venue is TBA, mainly because MOS:FLAGS advizes us not to use a flag for the nationality of a venue called "TBA". This is a general rule we have always applied and is not by any means Germany specific. The claim that it's guaranteed that one of two venues will host the race in 2015 is completely incoorect. Only one venue is contracted for 2015 and the other one is not required by contract to step in if the other one can't host. It has always been our practice to take the safe option when the situation is unclear and to wait until more information comes available. I don't see why we should start doing otherwise. Where the race is actually going to take place has never been te concern of our argument in the first place. Lastly, if this is no dispute, I wonder why a dispute resolution request has been lodged in the first place? Tvx1 (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Falcadore
User:Eightball added a German flagicon to the calendar table in the article. No other changes, just a flagicon. Another editor removed it. User:Eightball then proceeded to edit-war to keep his edit in place despite opposition from a number of editors, insisting it was his right to edit war because opposing editors were lieing or being vandals by disagreeing. No compromise was even attempted.
I tried to start a compromise by asking Eightball the question; in the table why does German Grand Prix with a flagicon says the race will be held in Germany where German Grand Prix without a flagicon does not. By his own statement the German Grand Prix has never been held in another country. The intent being to show demonstrate how unreasonable his position is. Surely German Grand Prix is sufficient indicator, without having to resort to edit-warring and anti-consensus behavior. User:Eightball has repeatedly dodged my question for him.
I am at a loss to explain User:Eightball's claim how the absense of a flagicon constitutes lieing and vandalism. --Falcadore (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Pch172
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I feel sorry for starting this now, but the flag should be present, as the name is German Grand Prix. Unless there is some source saying that the German GP will not be taking part in Germany, the flag should remain. To be honest, this isn't the most thing at the moment, as there is the constant issue of driver changes. Pch172 (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Scjessey
For goodness sake. I stumbled across the discussion in question quite by accident, saw there was a ludicrously long argument about a trivial detail (which is now ludicrously long cubed), so posted a comment which included an impeccable reliable source in the hope the dispute would be resolved. That has been my single contribution to the discussion. The only point I would like to add is that Wikipedia usually favors secondaryreliable sources (such as the Daily Telegraph I referred to) over primary sources like the FIA. Beyond that contribution, I have nothing further to offer this DR and couldn't really care less how this trivial NothingBurger gets resolved. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Twirlypen
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The whole argument that this editor's stance cannot be disputed with is very unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational. While the original contract signed several years ago states that the German Grand Prix will alternate between Hockenheimring and Nurburgring, it never divulged stipulations should one venue be unable to fulfill their year of hosting, nor did it say that with certainty that regardless of funding, that the German GP MUST be held at either venue or even in Germany - the past does not equate to the future. Clearly either the FIA, the folks in charge of the Nurburgring, or both know something is amiss for the FIA to not even include the venue on a provisional calendar, which isn't even finalized until December. During discussion, I listed 30 instances in the past 40 years that a country's Grand Prix was not hosted in that country. As such, I don't think it's reasonable to presume that it must be held in Germany, or even that the event (the German Grand Prix) must occur regardless if a venue cannot be secured. The FIA is also fully able to simply cancel the event altogether. Therefore, I would put my 2 cents to say that while the German Grand Prix is still scheduled to be held, its venue and location is still TBD. Twirlypen (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Burgring
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I didn't know there was a dispute over this, as such. I saw what I thought was petty, ill-founded and unnecessarily stubborn opposition to the presence of a German flag on the row in a table detailing the 2015 German Grand Prix. As country flags were present for all other 19 country rows in that table, and it is as certain that the 2015 German Grand Prix will be hosted at a circuit in Germany as it is that the 2015 British Grand Prix will be hosted at a circuit in Britain, the arguments that the German flag should be omitted until the specific German circuit is confirmed seemed ludicrous to me. So my sole involvement in this was to add my reasoned opinion to the debate for why I thought the German flag should stay. Burgring (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
2015 Formula One season discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
jam
@Eightball: you need to notify the involved parties of this dispute, using {{subst:drn-notice}}. Unless this is done, I will close this in about 48 hours or so. I would also like to remind you tone it down; If you do not, you risk this being closed and escalated to ANI. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 15:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I have pinged the users who have not yet posted dispute summaries on the talk page in question, with a link to this DRN above it. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
A mostly uninvolved editor's comment: To the volunteer, I am a member of the F1 WikiProject but I have chosen to avoid discussion here because I am caught on both sides. While I believe logic dictates that the flag should remain there, the only good reasons are that Germany has the facilities to host a GP and it is the German GP and that an F1 race has never been taken outside its country when it possible to keep it inside. I believe typical Wikipedia political correctness would in fact dictate that the flag should not remain there, because there is always a chance that it could be held outside of Germany (even though, as I said, that situation has never happened, but there is a first time for everything) and that putting the flag next to the "TBA" may be in violation of WP:CBALL. I will continue to not contribute to the discussion any further unless specifically asked to. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Another note to the volunteer taking on the issue: According to the 2015 Sporting Regulations, Chapters 8 and 9, there is no requirement that the race must be held in the country in of the Grand Prix. In fact, the race can be held anywhere as long as the ASN (the national motorsport federation involved) agrees to it being held in that specific location. Germany, however, does have the facilities required to host the race. —Gyaro–Maguus— 08:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I think I'm going to open this with a policy guideline related comment. Per MOS:FLAG, the actions appear to be against policy. Unless there is another reason why the flag should remain (and I'm on about a very good WP:IAR reason here), I can see no means for it's inclusion at this time. Of course, when the official location is announced, then the flag can be added. There is no rush - at the end of the day, it is only a small 16x16 icon.... --Mdann52talk to me! 11:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more that there is no rush. Although I would like to point out that MOS:FLAG is not a policy. Tvx1 (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
...And that the German flag is (likely) a 24x16 icon... —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Mdann52 You appear to have (kindly) opened this case for moderation. Therefor I've changed the case's status to 'discussion in progress'. If I've misunderstood your comment above please clarify and/or revert my edit. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Mdann52, you say "Per MOS:FLAG, the actions appear to be against policy" – can you clarify which action is against that policy? Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Part of WP:MOSFLAG states "If the use of flags... [is] controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen"., As in this case it has been contested, the best line appears to be to wait for this whole issue to be resolved, which seems to be when the FIA officially announce where the race is going to be held. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It's just that if we're going by MOSFLAG, there shouldn't be any flags in that table, as racing circuits do not represent their countries in any sense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but this is a wider issue, and probably not one to delve into too deeply here; There is a general convention among F1 articles to include the flagicons, so changing that will probably need an RfC to get wider input. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
There's also a general convention among F1 articles to rabidly follow some rules, even, as in this case, unwritten ones that have had no discussion whatsoever, and to flatly ignore others, like MOSFLAG. Here we even have people invoking part of MOSFLAG to prove their point while pretending the rest of it doesn't exist. This case was always a very small point of issue within a much wider problem within the project. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I've only just stumbled across this dispute here, so have no prior involvement. It seems that there is a consensus among editors that there should be no flag until it is confirmed by the FIA which country the race will be held in, even if that country is almost certainly going to be Germany. This consensus is consistent with the project norms and MOS:FLAG. One user dislikes this consensus, insisting that they are self-evidently right and others are self-evidently wrong, going so far as to accuse them of vandalism and lying, and has edit warred and escalated this dispute to try and get their own way because discussion is "impossible". When we have a choice between a consensus of editors, and one editor editwarring against that consensus, it is clear to me that the single editor is the one who needs to either voluntarily disengage from the dispute or be removed from the dispute by something like a topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
There isn't really a consensus among editors; I've certainly never seen any discussion about it in my eight or nine years in the project, and no issue of this exact type has ever arisen before anyway. There has never been a case in the modern era (if ever) of an established GP being moved outside its home country, yet some people like to claim consensus simply because "it's what we've always done", as I say, even in cases that haven't arisen before. Whilst there is one editor edit-warring against a few others, there are those like me who side with the single editor rather than the others. It's just that we have chosen not to edit war. It's very easy to see Eightball being disruptive and automatically take a view against his case. Despite his behaviour, he happens to be right. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It isn't mandatory for a consensus to be achieved through discussion. It is one of the core principles of WP:Consensus, that If an edit is made to an article and it stick uncontested it is considered to have consensus. Tvx1 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, produce the edit you're talking about. One uncontested, undiscussed edit doesn't really constitute a consensus, particularly if the two cases are not the same, but let's see it here anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I had already provided it in the discussion on the 2015 Formula One season talk page, but if you insist here it is:[8]. It deals with the exact same situation as we have now. Germany's venue TBA and no flag. NO objections whatsoever were raised back then. And yes one undisputed, undiscussed edit does constitute consensus. That's the basis of WP:Consensus. I'll be happy to quote the exact sentence from this policy if you don't believe me. Tvx1 (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Obviously, it should be posted here for the benefit of those not involved in the other discussion. At least, I thought it was obvious. It does deal with the same situation, which surprises me. Had I seen it then, I would've objected, because it was every bit as bloody stupid as it is now. It was always going to be held in Germany, and lo and behold, it was. Fancy that, who would have guessed? This does appear to be the same situation, and it will obviously provide the same result. Consensus, of which this has to be the most tenuous I've ever seen in nine years, can change, but you act as if it can never be changed. I don't think the discussion at the talk page is a clear consensus at all. But I doubt you agree. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Where the race will actually take place is NOT the point of the dispute. I have never claimed consensus can't change. Tvx1 (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Where the race will actually take place is the whole point. That's what readers want to know, if it bothers you. Turning it into a case of following petty, amateur rules simply for the sake of it is what obscures logic. "Oh well, I've invented a project rule, so we must follow it, regardless of the nonsense that ensues." All of you have even admitted it will be held in Germany, yet you still persist. The case of displaying Alonso as a nailed-on 2015 Ferrari driver for weeks and weeks after the entire planet knew he was leaving is another case in point. God, I'm glad I ignored that particular farce. Not to mention Sirotkin. No wonder Wikipedia is a joke on the F1 forums. Well, it looks like you have this latest absurd mockery all sewn up, congratulations. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If it is an issue with the application of MOSFLAG, then that is an issue for the WikiProject to discuss because it will affect the entire WikiProject. The issue here is what to do in this single instance (which really should be to go to the neutral non-flag edit pending a full consensus from the WikiProject), but Eightball's lack of participation is stifling our ability to resolve this dispute—and with driver announcements and a WMSC meeting due soon, we need to show progress and open the article up. His actions amount to forum shopping, since he cane here as soon as it was obvious that he wouldn't get his way in the article, on the article talk page, on user talk pages, or over at 3RR. This entire DRN is unnecessary and a waste of everyone's time and effort, and all because one editor would not or could not accept anything other than his preferred edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The dispute is about whether we should have no flag or the German flag in the row describing the German Grand Prix before we know which German circuit will be used. Whichever circuit in Germany holds it, the flag will be the same. So the real issue is what is the likelihood that it will not be a circuit within Germany. As it would be unprecedented for the German Grand Prix to be held elsewhere, it is reasonable to keep the German flag in place. For those reasons I support keeping the German flag in place. Burgring (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved. Wikipedia is being compiled for billions of people of the entire world, not for a handful of editors. So I tried a little experiment in the real world, by asking an adult (who has never before visited Wikipedia) to compare two different versions, number one and number two. She's a smart lady, who teaches media/graphics/design. I set both versions of the seasons calendar side by side on the screen, and asked her to compare the two and comment if she wished. I did not prompt her in any way. She studied the two and it wasn't long before she said-- "I see someone fixed the mistake"? I asked what mistake she meant, and she said that in the second version Germany had been given a flag to replace a nothing symbol in the first version. I explained what the drama is all about, that it happened because of "no venue-no flag". She made only one further comment, "in the media we are supposed to visually inform our audiences, not confuse them with silliness." Moriori (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry. But to be brutally honest, anyone can come here and claim to have conducted a real life expirement. Tvx1 (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
What was that she mentioned about silliness? If you wanted to be brutally honest, not blinkered, you would look at Wikipedia as others see, it not just those who can't see the wood for the trees. Moriori (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If I must. There a clearly a few fundamental flaws with how you set up your example and with how a played out.
1)You set the neutral flag version first as a result of which your lady got prejudiced that the second version was a "fix".
2)You failed to point out to your lady that clicking on the references would help her find out why the German flag was absent in the first version.
3)Your lady has obviously missed the fact that the flags do not result from the "countries" that are named in the race titles. She obviously missed that the Yas Marina Circuit isn't joined by a flag of Abu Dhabi.
To conclude, unfortunately your lady clearly misinterpreted the table and it's meanings, as well as the objective of an edit. Therefore your example is not watertight. Tvx1 (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. She said it looked like a silly mistake, and it did. She commented on how it appears to others, not what caused it to appear that way. You avoid that point, but shoot the messenger. Let me repeat something from my last post which you conveniently ignored. ""If you wanted to be brutally honest, not blinkered, you would look at Wikipedia as others see (it) ....". We write it for them. For the peoples of the world. Not for your preference, or mine. Also, you might like to freshen up on WP:AGF. Moriori (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Guys, please calm it down a little. Now, back onto the subject in hand. As no sources have been produced showing for sure it will be held in Germany this year, why don't we wait for a bit, and when the FIA formally announce it, put the flag in? --Mdann52talk to me! 08:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. That's what I'm trying to point out the whole time. Tvx1 (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved So first off I'd like to thank the users involved here for making me remember why I love wikipedia. This is such a minor thing (as I believe all parties will agree) but getting it right matters to the editors and that's grand. The resolution to me seems obvious. I will quote Eightball to highlight No resolution appears to be possible. My "opinion" as stated above is objectively true and cannot be disagreed with. However, editors continually try to form "consensus" to lie on the page.. The opinion so referred is The German Grand Prix is guaranteed to be hosted in one of two tracks, both of which are in Germany. And that is clearly not a fact. That is a prediction of high likelihood until it is announced by the relevant body. If it was a fact there would be a reliable source for it.
The great thing is though, it doesn't matter right now. Wikipedia has no deadlines. Leaving the flag off doesn't misinform anybody it doesn't include false information. It just doesn't put information into Wikipedia's voice until it's confirmed. My resolution to this would be to hold off until an announcement, then insert the flag.
With regards to the Telegraph source, that almost has me convinced, however a vast preponderance of other sources such as [ the BBC] have the venue as TBC. On balance it would appear reliable sourcing does not have a venue announced officially for the German Grand Prix. Without a venue there shouldn't be a flag. Flag followed by TBA looks weird. As for formatting, I would prefer a gap in the column so that the T of TBA lines up with the rest of the text, but that's just personal preference.
On an editor behaviour note, I think that there has been some bad practice in this discussion but I'm not sure any purpose would be served by raising an issue at AN/I or any other venue SPACKlick (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
That is exactly the stance which I have tried to explain throughout this debate. Tvx1 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Mdann52 and SPACKlick you are missing the main points. It is the specific circuit which is TBA, not the country—the country for the German Grand Prix is always Germany. Because the German Grand Prix is always in Germany, and it is the German Grand Prix we are talking about, the flag can be placed without any need for further citations (see Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed). Indeed it would the exceptional claim that it may not be held in Germany, required to justify the absence of a flag in this case, that requires exceptional sources (see WP:EXCEPTIONAL). Burgring (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I assure you I'm not missing any points. Yes the circuit is TBA. The country in which that circuit is, is tied to which circuit is chosen. The country has always BEEN Germany but that doesn't mean it always will be. We've seen that sometimes national associations book them in other countries. That the Grand Prix is in Germany is not Specific common knowledge, nor is it Subject Specific common knowledge and you can prove this because a large number of people who are into the topic are challenging it. To read the first line of the policyThe English Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for quotations, whether using direct or indirect speech, and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Also, you don't need citations to not include facts, you need citations to include any fact that is challenged. The real question I would ask is who does it harm to not include it? Who is misled? Who is worse off? How, from having the page without the flag, has Wikipedia failed to meet its objectives? SPACKlick (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
A motor sports authority from a country where a Grand Prix has been held has nevervoluntarily moved it to another country. People should probably stop suggesting that this kind of thing has happened before. It's rubbish. It won't happen now either, and there is no suggestion anywhere, in any source, that it might. Pure synthesis. Who is misled? Anyone who might wonder why there's no flag for the German GP, given that there's no explanation there whatsoever. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not synthesis. Synthesis is combing facts from multiple sources into one source. This is justifying the reason why the inclusion is being challenged. I'm also not suggesting that they voluntarily move it out of the country I'm suggesting that there are any number of reasons why a grand prix will be moved out of the country. I would be interested in whether you could explain how the person wondering why the flag isn't there is misled. First off, it's standard not to put a flag against a TBA and also the missing flag next to a TBA is pretty self explanatory, TBA isn't in any country. SPACKlick (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe it is. An assumption is being made, i.e. that the race might not be held in Germany, when no source has suggested that. Some people simply see that the venue hasn't been decided upon, and are enlarging the possibilities to include other countries, when that has specifically not been stated anywhere. I've struck "voluntarily" because I realise that it hasn't happened at all, for any reason, ever. I don't think there are any reasons why a country would hold its GP outside its borders – it would simply be cancelled. Why would they be misled? How on earth would they know that "it's standard not to put a flag against a TBA"? Where does it say that? People aren't mindreaders, and it goes back to Moriori's point: this stuff exists for the people who read it, not for people who make up silly rules and don't explain them. That reader would immediately either assume the flag has been left off by accident, or possibly that there is potential for it to be held in another country, a possibility which only exists on Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
There's no assumption being made, an assumption is being avoided. "The race will be held in Germany" is an assumption until it is announced as such even if you believe it is almost certain. I don't believe the reader is confused by the lack of flag, and I didn't just mean on Wiki it's standard to leave off extra information next to a TBA in my experience. I used to manage some band nights, every band had genres listed in small print next to them on the fliers. Even if we were having a punk night, punk would not be listed next to a TBA slot because even though it was incredibly unlikely we wouldn't book a punk band we might not have and we didn't want to mislead.
So the only confusion you have a reader getting is the subsection of readers who read the page and assume no flag means it might not be held in Germany. The race being held in Germany is the contested fact, they walk away possibly thinking it's slightly less certain than it is. If this fact was so obvious then you'd be able to give an overwhelming preponderance of sources for it. I suggest you read this essay particularly the linked section. SPACKlick (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe the reader is confused by the lack of flag either. In fact, there has been a clear precedent two years ago.[9] No one, absolutely no one questioned that on the talk page back then. An yes, Bretonbanquet, there is a clear example of a motor sports authority from a country where a Grand Prix has been held that has moved it to another country. In the early 50's the ACS has organized a Swiss Grand Prix in the namesake Switzerland as part of the World Championship. When the exact same ACS organized this event twice more in the mid-70's–early 80's (the first one non-championship) the Grand Prix was moved to France. Tvx1 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It's great that you can both speak for our entire readership by saying they won't be confused. I'm sure that will make everything clear to them. Tvx1, I'm sure you don't think I'm ignorant of the history of the Swiss GP. It was not switched, let's get that straight. It was cancelled with no prospect of resumption. Motor sport was banned there, as you know, and that was that. A completely different situation. The fact that a race of that name was held in France over 20 years later is neither here nor there, as there was never any question of the ACS holding a race of any description in their own country. Unless you have some information about motor racing being banned in Germany any time soon, please do us the service of not comparing this to Swiss situation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: The 1982 Swiss GP was held because there was a glut of successful French drivers and it made sense to have another French race. Dijon is near to the Swiss border and the Swiss GP name was not in use and had history; put all that together and you can understand the situation [10]. The 1975 race was non-championship and I have no easy-to-access information on that race. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. All of the Swiss, San Marino, Luxembourg etc GPs were named for pure "flag of convenience" reasons, simply so the FIA could engineer having two races in the same country per season, i.e. France, Germany (oh the irony) and Italy respectively. The European and Pacific GPs likewise. This is utterly and completely different. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Additional note: The 1975 Swiss Grand Prix was, in fact, organised by the Automobile Club of Switzerland [11]. However, GPencyclopedia appears to be correct in its assertion that the 1982 Swiss GP was not simply an ACS-run event, with this source stating that it was the owners of the Dijon-Prenois circuit, who disliked the alternating holding of the French GP with the Paul Ricard circuit. With the race sure to bring a crowd, then the circuit owners asked the ACS to help, which they did. I'm going to say that the Swiss GP example does not help either argument, moreso it hurts the Eightball/Bretonbanquet argument because they show us that races can easily be held outside borders and still be organised by the national motorsport federation involved. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but not for this reason. I maintain that a situation whereby a race is just switched to another country (as this would be) has never happened. More importantly, as I've said before, where's the source for this possibility? Furthermore, there isn't a neighbouring country with both the required standard of circuit, and the required cash, otherwise they'd have a GP of their own... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Breton, you're missing the point. We don't need to source the possibility that the unknown venue might be outside Germany, the burden of proof is for you, claiming it definitely will be in Germany to source that. You can't, and a TBA shouldn't have a flag. Your arguments that it's REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY likely that it will be in Germany fall somewhere between WP:OR And WP:SYN. There has been no venue announced so it's ridiculous to give "unknown venue a nationality" if there was a press release from the German association saying "It will be one of these n tracks" then we'd be having a different discussion because in that case the argument could be made that TBA should have the national flag (and that might be resolved with a footnote) however there is nothing to footnote in this case other than "despite no tracks having been announced we think it's almost certainly in Germany because, well, it always has been and there's no reason for it not to be". That's not a very professional footnote and that's why it's better not to have a flag. You could, without a flag, have a footnote on the speculation, that most sources are speculating it's nurburgring and some are even selling weekend tickets for hotels as F1 breaks which is more wikipedia but still not a good idea.
Long story short. The fact has been challenged. The sources are not forthcoming. No source, no flag. SPACKlick (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Lord, I am not missing the point. It's not even really x8 likely, it's certain. I suspect neither the FIA nor the AvD ever suspected anyone would imagine in their wildest dreams that it might be held anywhere else, so why would they clarify it? So apart from a failure to understand the machinations of the sport, a failure to understand MOSFLAG (brushed under the carpet by those who think it's not relevant – venues should not have flags at all), and a failure to explain petty rules to readers whose only crime is not to be clairvoyant, you're all doing really well. The fact has been challenged, I'll agree with that. The reasons for that challenge are open to speculation. I could provide a source for my theory, but I don't think cyberspace could take the consequences. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm with you on formula one projects weird ignoring of MOS flag. I'd be more tempted to parenthesise the country of each course as inCircuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal, Canada.rather than [flag] Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montrealbut that's a whole other discussion. SPACKlick (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It is, and one I think we're going to have at some point. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Nowhere in the regulations is it stipulated that it has to be a neighbouring country if should be relocated. But if you really want one, does Brno Circuit ring a bell? An by the way, you claim no neighbouring countries have a circuit of the required standards. Last time I checked Austria, Belgium and France were still neighbours of Germany. And they all have at least one track of F1 standards, two of them even currently being on the calendar.Tvx1 (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Zandvoort is closer to German borders than Brno, and is already probably more Formula One suited. But the point is that good tracks exist next to Germany if it came down to it. Twirlypen (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The Dutch can't afford a race, and neither can the French or the Czechs, their governments having so far refused to help. I don't think Brno is suited to F1 anyway, safety-wise. Good tracks do exist, but these countries cannot afford a GP. Plainly, we're not going to have two races at the same track in the same season, ruling out the Austrians and the Belgians. I can't believe you were actually suggesting that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It's about as ridiculous as suggesting that it's impossible for the German Grand Prix to take place outside of Germany, so there's that. Twirlypen (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
If that's what you really think... (?) Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
None of them might be able to afford a race all by themselves, but they should be if they and the Germans join forces. Are you really obvious on just how desperate the French are on having the series return to their territory? Tvx1 (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Why would the Germans help to pay for a race they're not holding? Just to have their name on it? But again, if you really think that, I shan't bother to disabuse you of it. I know how much the French want a race, but I also know how skint they are, and how much Bernie charges. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Gyaro, the reliability of your source falls with the fact that it claims a Swiss Grand Prix was held in 1973 despite no such event having taken place. To the opposers, you're still ignoring the fact that we don't want to claim that the race will certainly take place outside of Germany. That's simply not true. Tvx1 (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
To pu tit flippantly Can I borrow your crystal ball to get the lottery numbers. You've speculated about the financial status required for theoretical agreements by the associations and track owners of three countries. This discussion is an absolute side track. Until you would be happy that the sources show that the race will be held at the Nurburgring (or any other specific track) or that there is a specific announcement that it will be one of several German tracks, you cannot source that the race will be in Germany. Whether or not that's the point of the flag. The sources are against you, consensus is against you, policy is against you. And most of all, it doesn't matter if there's not a flag until a track is announced, it makes nothing significantly worse. You want wikipedia to reflect WP:truth. That's not how it works. Wikipedia require verifiability and you don't have it. SPACKlick (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a crystal ball, only experience of how F1 works, which is all anyone needs. No speculation about the financial status of the other circuits; all that info is out there. This part of the discussion may be a side track, but not one I brought about. Consensus certainly isn't against me, the numbers are roughly even; maybe you should count them up. None of you can talk about policy while you flagrantly ignore MOSFLAG and brush it under the carpet. I don't want Wikipedia to reflect the truth (necessarily), I expect it to reflect reality. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Reality and truth are basically synonyms here. Reality is irrelevant, only what can be verified can be included. Also ou are using a crystal ball to say that no set of events could possibly happen that would lead to a race being scheduled outside Germany without a German venue being announced. That's not something that has been verified by a source it's something you're predicting from experience. Please note, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'd bet the farm that the race will be in Germany, but that doesn't mean wikipedia should say so. SPACKlick (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You're not the only one I'm arguing against who has said they are basically sure the race will be held in Germany, and everyone reading the article will think the same thing, which is why they won't understand the reason for the flag not being there. And it hardly requires a crystal ball to predict something everyone thinks will happen anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Indeed. Wikipedia is an enyclopedia and not a place to predict the future. Furthermore MOS:FLAG is guideline not a policy. The policies you want us to ignore have much higher priority here. MOS:FLAG is actually actually the least issue here. And if I get my maths correct here I see seven editors&moderators agreeing that it should be removed, three that think it should stay, two neutral ones, one that couldn't care less, and one that apparently cares so much that they haven't even submitted their opinion yet. That's not even remotely even. Tvx1 (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to count !votes, it's seven to four or five, depending on whether you count the chap who now says he doesn't care. That is not clear-cut. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You can't count someone who literally stated they don't care. Anyways it's now 8 no-flaggers to 3 pro-flaggers to 1 neutral one (who has actually supported no-flag during the original discussion) and 1 unknown. GyaroMaguus has joined a side. Tvx1 (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Addition/correction to additional note:Just read this. I quote: "The Automobile Club of Switzerland are not allowed to hold motor racing in Switzerland by reason aft Government Order so they came to an arrangement with the owners of the Dijon-Prenois circuit to hold a race there under the responsibility of the Swiss but ministered to by the French, with some Swiss help. To all intents and purposes it was a second French Grand Prix." I quote from earlier in the article: "The Detroit Grand Prix took place by reason of bending all sorts of rules and now we had a Swiss Grand Prix in France without bending any rules, simply because none exist to cover such an arrangement." I hope this can be understood and I hope it aids the discussion in some way. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yet another note: The 1981 San Marino Grand Prix was borne out of the Italians wanting two races, so they went to the Automobile Club of San Marino and asked them to apply to host a race, which was accepted. As San Marino doesn't have a circuit, Imola was chosen. However, this was planned from the start. This purely reinforces what we already know, though by now I am seriously thinking that we are putting the flag on the wrong thing. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
All of this debate is still founded on the mistaken belief by Eightball and Bretonbanquet that the purpose of the flags in our calendar is to denote in which country the races takes place. The direct purpose is to denote in which country the venue is located. As a result of that immediate purpose there should be no flag when the the venue is TBA. And that's a general practice, and not specific to Germany. Tvx1 (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
That's an incredible statement, and the absolute lunacy of it sums up your "argument" perfectly: what you're saying there is that it's not about the country where the race takes place, but the country where the venue is. A round of applause, best laugh I've had all day. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
With an attitude like that we'll never get out of this. Yes. I know the countries will de facto be the same. But for the compliance with policies such as WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:Reliable it makes an important difference. Tvx1 (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
If you're going to say something as ridiculous as what you said above, you cannot be surprised at anyone's reaction. There is no difference between talking about the country in which the race takes place, and the country where the venue is – they are one and the same thing. Surely you see that? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Another misconception by Bretonbanquet is that because the previous instances of Grand Prix happening outside of their country's namesake were under different circumstances/intentionally set up that way means that they do not matter to the discussion - so much so that he vehemently claims that a race outside of the country a Grand Prix is named after has never happened in Formula One history. Intent isn't the issue here - it never was. The reasons have NO impact... they still happened 30 times in the previous 40 season. Twirlypen (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I almost understand that paragraph. I have never said that "a race outside of the country a Grand Prix is named after has never happened in Formula One history", vehemently or otherwise. I suggest you read what I write if you want to comment on it. To say that it doesn't matter at all that the San Marino / Luxembourg (etc) situations were completely different is utterly ludicrous. It's like saying an apple could be an orange, if they weren't completely different. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
A motor sports authority from a country where a Grand Prix has been held has nevervoluntarily moved it to another country.
An assumption is being made, i.e. that the race might not be held in Germany, when no source has suggested that. Some people simply see that the venue hasn't been decided upon, and are enlarging the possibilities to include other countries, when that has specifically not been stated anywhere. I've struck "voluntarily" because I realise that it hasn't happened at all, for any reason, ever. I don't think there are any reasons why a country would hold its GP outside its borders – it would simply be cancelled.
In these two quotes you specifically assert that no grand prix has ever been moved and that there's no reasons a country would hold the race outside its borders. The first claim is irrelevant, it wouldn't be moved because the race hasn't been located yet. But there clearly have been reasons for a country to hold its race outside its borders because they have. SPACKlick (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Look, firstly when I'm talking about moving a Grand Prix, I'm talking about year on year, not gaps of 20 years. I would have thought that was clear, but apparently not. It has never happened. Plainly the race would be seen to have "moved" from the country it was held in the previous year. This kind of nitpicking of words to try and pretend I've said something I haven't does you no credit. Likewise with my last sentence in the quote you highlighted, I am still talking about current annual events – let me put it as clearly as I can for you – holding a race one year and switching it to a different country the following year has never happened. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I apologise if you feel I misinterpreted your words above but that was my genuine understanding of them. You've now added the stipulation of annual events being moved and I agree, that's never happened before (to my knowledge). I also don't think it not happening before changes anything. Before Peary (Or possibly Cook ) no attempt to reach the north pole had succeeded and people claimed it was impossible. Before the invention of the steam train nobody was aware of anybody having survived travelling at 12mph and they thought it was impossible. "It has never happened before" doesn't mean we can verify "it won't happen in this case". That's the key word and the point you never address, what source verifies that the race will occur in Germany? SPACKlick (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
No problem, I may not have worded my comments as well as I could have. I appreciate your analogies, but I don't think they're comparable. There are sources (Telegraph etc) that state the race will be held at the Nurburgring, but these are apparently trumped by the FIA provisional calendar. That's probably fair enough, but the FIA are not as reliable a source as people might think; we have experienced a number of balls-ups in FIA statements in the past. Anyway, it's often very hard to verify (to the tightest wiki standards) something that may be considered obvious by the people involved. I suspect they just don't consider it worth stating that it will be held in Germany, and I'm sure we are the only people in the world talking about it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
It's rarely hard to verify the obvious. You can usually find someone saying it off hand. I was surprised not to see a source that says something like. "The German Grand prix will take place at one of the German circuits. Probably Nurburgring if they can sort out..." however I can't find a source that does that. The only sources I can find stating the German grand prix will be in Germany state it will be at the Nurburgring and seem to source that to the FIA and I think you'll agree it would be premature to state the race will be at Nurburgring. SPACKlick (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, not the issue at hand at all. The issue/dispute at hand in this DRN: "It's impossible that the German Grand Prix can be held outside of Germany!" However 99% likely that it will be held in Germany, the answer is plainly simple. No, it is not impossible. For whatever the reasons, moved or staged or anything else, there are scenarios that can allow it to happen. To suggest otherwise is a total ignorance of FIA regulations. Twirlypen (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
A lot of things are not impossible, like there being no F1 season next year. It's scheduled, but it's not certain. There are scenarios that can allow the cancellation of the season. But thankfully, everyone is rational enough to consider it too unlikely to bother with. I would class the hosting of the German GP by a foreign country in 2015 to be on a par with that in terms of likelihood, and I suspect I'm far from alone in that. Yet we persist with this. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Indeed, and we never claimed that the reason would be exactly the same as those in the past. Just that reasons have existed and that there is no guarantee that no new reasons will emerge. Tvx1 (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
We have sources that the 2015 season will take place. We do not have sources confirming the location of the German Grand Prix. That's a weak argument. Twirlypen (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
We have sources that the 2015 season is scheduled to take place, as is the German Grand Prix. Somewhere an idea has emerged, unsupported and out of nowhere, that it might not be in Germany. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I know I said I'd be neutral but seriously, if the flag represents the venue, and the venue is "TBA", the venue cannot have a flag. That is Wikipedia Political Correctness. I have learnt over the years that logic does not have its place in the 'Pedia. For example, we Italian-flagged the San Marino GP in 2006 because the circuit is in Italy. Now, "TBA" does not have a location. No matter what logic can be involved, you cannot assign a flag to a place that doesn't technically exist. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You say the place doesn't technically exist – not true, we just don't know exactly where it is yet. The important thing is that all the places mooted in reliable sources for this race are in Germany. None is anywhere else. While there is no reliable source for the exact location of the race, there is also no reliable source (or even an unreliable one) for it being anywhere other than Germany. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
There's also no reliable source for it being anywhere in Germany. There's no reliable source for the location, the location cannot be verified so an unlocated TBA is the only encyclopedic way to record that fact. SPACKlick (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, we clearly won't agree anytime soon, although I hope we at least understand each other's arguments. Whatever happens here I am somewhat content in the knowledge that before too long, they'll decide which German circuit will hold the race. That is unless we decide to remove the flags entirely, but that's another discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The German Grand Prix is scheduled to take place, as all the sources indicate. You are correct about this and this only. However, its location is not, also as all the sources indicate. I don't know how to write it any simpler than this. Twirlypen (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it. I'm sure you're not implying that I'm too stupid to figure out what you're saying. I'm not entirely sure you understand my argument, but I'm not going to repeat it ad infinitum. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
My reply earlier somehow found its way off the DRN:
How can assign a flag to a place considering that we don't know where said place is? And if there are no reliable sources for it being either in or out of Germany, how can we legitimately place a flag. To place the flag would result in us needing to place a "Citation Needed" tag. Not putting anything doesn't require it.
Bretonbanquet, I do understand your side of the argument. I just don't think it applies to this DNR. The original DNR lodged was that the German Grand Prix MUST take place in Germany, that's why we MUST keep the German flag for the venue. I respect you as a knowledgable Formula One editor, and we are both stubborn on our points. Twirlypen (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
We are indeed, and thank you for your comments. I do feel we've exhausted all the points we can realistically make, and hopefully we shan't all fall out over it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
And Bretonbanquet, your stance is still founded on the mistaken guarantee that if Nürburgring fails to sort out their apparent contract issues, Hockenheim will have the necessary funds lying around to take over. Anyway, I agree with SPACKlick's opinion is on what the only encyclopedic way to represent this situation is. Tvx1 (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah well, everyone else managed to be nice. No, my stance is not based on that; I've never said anything about Hockenheim having funds to take over or whatever else. Some time ago when you first brought that up, I responded more fully. I'm sure it's here somewhere. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Wait, that didn't mean I don't respect you as a seasoned WP:F1 contributor. Tvx1 (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I think we're done here, we must all have lives to lead, right? Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
We all spend a lot of time on Wikipedia so to claim we all have lives really fails WP:OR. —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Haha! You may well have a point there... Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Especially when you are considering that we are having an extensive discussion over a 24x16 pixel tri-coloured box... —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Current status
Ok, for the sake of clarity, let's make an overview of the current status of the opinions of the parties involved. There are currently nine involved editors and a tenth uninvolved editor who has brought in additional information but wishes to remain neutral.
@Eightball: vehemently opposes removing the German flag.
@Bretonbanquet: vehemently opposes removing the German flag as well and vehemently refuses to accept any wrongness in their view.
@Prisonermonkeys: has the opinion that the there is no rush to include the flag and that we should err on the side of caution until a venue is announced.
@The359 understands both sides of the argument and seems to have a rather neutral stance.
@Tvx1: has the opinion that no flag should be included for any venue that is TBA, no matter which race it is for, per multiple Wikipedia policies such as WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:Reliable, ...
@Falcadore: has the opinion that no flag should be included as the words "German Grand Prix" and the acronym "TBA" are self-explanatory.
@Scjessey: has only supplied a source which they thought to be sufficient, but which has been proven otherwise, and has no further interest whatsoever in the outcome.
@Twirlypen: has the opinion that no flag should be included until a venue is announced.
@Burgring: has the opinion that the flag should stay because it has always been held in Germany and it is impossible that can change.
@—Gyaro–Maguus—is uninvolved and wishes to remain neutral. has the opinion that there should be no flag per the policies after deliberating about the matter for a considerable time.
We have been discussing for a few days now and four moderators have appeared (Mdann52, Keithbob, Thryduulf and SPACKlick). Keithbob has only made a technical announcement which has no bearing on the discussion. The other three agree as well that there should be no flag per the different policies some of which I cited. In addition to all the users I have now mentioned one more, Moriori, has made a contribution. They made a dubious example of how the difference between versions might be interpreted. So how long are we going to keep this dragging on? Tvx1 (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The consensus is pretty clear to me, it seems. Twirlypen (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Why has Moriori been relegated to a "user" with a dubious example? Because he disagrees with you? He is an admin unlike three of the other four moderators you mention. I do not believe a consensus is clear, although the admins have it within their power to etc etc. I will marvel at those who, when the German flag is added, will still claim they were "right all along". There's a word for all this. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, I didn't know Moriori is an administrator. Secondly, I have labelled their example as dubious because of the multiple flaws I have pointed earlier with the way the example was conducted. And I actually forgot the flaw. The mistake version they represented to their lady is not the one we want to enter into the article. I have refrained to count Moriori to either side, because they have not posted a firm opinion which way they prefer. Stop accusing me of bad faith. You have obviously missed that I presented The359 as neutral, despite them having stated their preference to have no flag in the original discussion over at 2015 Formula One season. Tvx1 (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Calm down, I'm not accusing you of bad faith. I do think you believe you're right. I'm not sure you were assuming good faith with Moriori though, but that's for him to deal with if he wants to do so. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Happy that has been cleared. I'm not assuming bad faith of Moriori either. I didn't claim they deliberately set up a situation to produce an example that seemingly helps your side of the argument. That would be bad faith. They just didn't realize they unwittingly compromised the neutrality. That's perfectly human. Tvx1 (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
While I agree that the consensus is pretty clear it would be preferable if the above statement was more neutral. Summary of BretonBanquet, Summary of the 359, summary of Pch172, summary of scjessey, summary of Burgring strike me as having neutrality issues. Summary of your position contains excess editorialising. Summary of PrisonerMonkey doesn't quite strike me as accurate. I would also have used oppose and support the other way round, making the topic inclusion rather than removal but that's either way. The summary I would post is;
Initial Parties
@Eightball:Opposes removing the flag. Because it is Fact the race will be in Germany
@Bretonbanquet:Opposes removing the flag. Because the race has always been in Germany and there is no source suggesting this one won't be
@Prisonermonkeys:Supports removing the flag. Because of "no venue" no flag standard on F1 pages
@The359Neutral. because this issue is created by a plethora of nitpicky policies.
@Tvx1:Supports removing the flag. Because TBA gets no flag and there is no source for the venue.
@Falcadore:Supports removing the flag. Because there is consensus not to include it
@Scjessey:Neutral. Posted that they do not care less how this...is resolved}
@Twirlypen:Supports removing the flag. Because no venue has been announced
@Burgring:Opposes removing the flag. Because it is as certain that the 2015 German Grand Prix will be hosted at a circuit in Germany as it is that the 2015 British Grand Prix will be hosted at a circuit in Britain
Additional Parties
@Mdann52 concluded Support removing the flag. Because of MOSflag, no rush and lack of announcement of venue
@Gyaro–Maguusconcluded Neutral. Because the race will be in Germany but TBA should not have a flag. Concluded Support because TBA should not have a flag.
@Thryduulf: concluded Support removing the flag. Because there is a consensus.
@Moriori: concluded Oppose removing the flag. Because it looks like a mistake without it and is more visually informing with it.
@SPACKlick: concluded Support removing the flag. Because there is a consensus, there is a no flag for TBA standard, there is a no venue no flag policy on F1 pages and there is a lack of verification for the venue.
I would appreciate if anyone feels this summary misrepresents them if they post a suggested version to my talk page and I'll replace the existing one with that or a trimmed version of that. SPACKlick (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
That is at least more accurate, and certainly better balanced, and I appreciate the distinction, SPACKlick. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
My position is not accurate. MOS:FLAG is not all my main concern. It's the policies I have quoted in my overview and the same things Gyaro and Prisoner have raised. Overall I don't see many drastic differences with my overview other than Moriori now being quoted as oppose, which seems reasonable to me, and GyaroMaguus being relabeled as neutral despite having just stated to support removing the flag. Forget that last thing it was already updated. Tvx1 (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I apologise I listed the main point of your initial statement only. Looking through the rest of your posts I'd be comfortable adding there being no source for the location. I'd rather not point to a whole ream of policies because then every summary will become very long. If you'd rather prioritise another point you've made let me know.
That's a good representation of my position. No need to apologize, though. I know you acted in good faith.Tvx1 (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Overall it seems the uninvolved editors support holding off with no flag until an announcement that a venue is scheduled or a significant change is outside sources. Does anyone have an objection to that being the conclusion such that the DRN can be closed?SPACKlick (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to thatTvx1 (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC).
Question on the opener
Is it just me, or has User:Eightball, beyond his initial request of "Admins, please get everyone else to shut up, they are lieing and I'm right", contributed nothing to this DRN?
If so, does this constitute Bad Faith? --Falcadore (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not just you, Falcadore, and not the first time this user has acted in this manner. Also, I do not object to the resolution of this DRN. Twirlypen (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know Eightball very well, but he seemed rather troubled on my talk page, like this argument burned him out somewhat. I see he hasn't posted anywhere since that day, so maybe he's genuinely taking a break from the strife. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Eightball has not been on wikipedia this week. I don't think that constitutes Bad Faith in any regard. The comments themselves may constitute bad faith. SPACKlick (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Pch172, however has been on Wikipedia earlier today and still didn't post their opinion. Tvx1 (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, my bad. Apologies if you are listening Eightball. --Falcadore (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
At this point, I couldn't care less. Eightball was in the wrong from the outset, and this whole sorry mess could have been avoided if he had been blocked as he should have been. In addition to edit-warring, he made it clear that he had no intention of taking part in the discussion, and that he was going to sit on the article and revert edits on sight. I have been blocked for less, but all he got was a warning and the article protected, which to my mind just gives him what he wants and tells him that he can freely abuse the system to get his way. This entire DRN has been a complete waste of time except for Eightball to try and force his preferred edits through despite a consensus.
Here I was thinking that the numbers farce was a lot point for the WikiProject, but no, this stands out as rock bottom, and we're all worse off for having subjected ourselves to it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2014 (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.
2014 Armenian Mil Mi-24 shootdown
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Steverci on 02:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC).
Premature. DRN like all other moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking help and discussion only in edit summaries is not sufficient to satisfy this prerequisite. Please discuss on the article talk page and if no resolution can be achieved through thorough collegial discussion, then seek dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:15, 9 December 2014 (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.
Kheo17 continues to place the word "separatist" in front of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic at every place it's mentioned, including spots where it's inappropriate, like including it in a title, which just makes the writing look bad. He also keeps listing the location as Azerbaijan, which is confusing to the reader because it only has de jure control of the reason, not de facto. I proposed listing the area as Nagorno-Karabakh because it is neutral, this reasoning is used in all pages of countries with limited recognition: 2001 Kodori crisis, [[12]], 1991–92 South Ossetia War, Transnistria War, March 2004 unrest in Kosovo, etc.
Kheo's edits involve enforcing opinions as facts, violating WP:YESPOV. WP:NPOV states that wikipedia tries to remain as neutral as possible on everything.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have explained my reasoning in the edit history, but Kheo17 continues to edit ware and has now threatened to report me for vandalism, although I didn't deliberately harm the content. At this point the only way to resolve this is a third party.
How do you think we can help?
I would like some opinions on whether Kheo17's POV edits are appropriate or not, and for the consensus to be treated as final.
Summary of dispute by Kheo17
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
2014 Armenian Mil Mi-24 shootdown 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.
User talk:Eeekster/Archives/2014/December#Fair_use
Pending in other forum (WP:UNDELETE) and even if it weren't already pending there, deletion and, ordinarily, copyright matters are not within the purview of this noticeboard since they have their own dispute resolution processes, of which WP:UNDELETE is one, followed by WP:DRV if that's unsuccessful. Conduct matters are entirely not within the purview of this noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:06, 9 December 2014 (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.
The conduct dispute is about the admin refusing further discussion, saying "Nothing is going to change" and asking me to "stop posting my opinions" on their talk page. Also, I would like to know how I've come across to see if I myself have contributed to the problem.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussing the content issue; it led to the conduct issue.
How do you think we can help?
I'm not sure, but I would like to at least be able to continue discussing this specific content issue in order to arrive at a consensus solution as well as to raise my specific points for general discussion of the fair use guidelines.
Summary of dispute by
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Eeekster/Archives/2014/December#Fair_use discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Clarification: Thank you for the response, User:TransporterMan; could you please clarify where I would take a conduct matter?
Piotr (Venezuela) (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2014 (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:Pep Guardiola
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Walter Görlitz on 05:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC).
It appears the participants have decided on an RfC though its hard to tell since the DRN volunteer hasn't posted in 8 days, the filing party has not posted in 4 days and no one has responded to my query from 2 days ago asking if there were any objections to this case being closed. Therefore I'm closing this as stale and possibly partially resolved.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:16, 10 December 2014 (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.
Editor user:RangerRichard made a series of edits to the subject's article all pushing his Catalan background. He then added the region to the subject's infobox. I removed the last and only the last. That started badgering, harassment and what I would consider personal attacks, the last of which was stating that I have WP:OWNership of the article. I warned the editor for the last and he took first back to my talk page then to the subject's talk page.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussion on the subject's talk page, where it should not have been posted, and on RangerRichard's talk page.
How do you think we can help?
It's not clear, perhaps clarifying the situation at both the subject article and explaining WP:NPA and harassment to the editor or telling me why I'm wrong on either or both issues.
The copy has been removed as a result of an ANI dispute, but I suspect that this will not be the end of the interactions. Since the other editor has not responded, I'll raise the issue here if anything more comes of it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by RangerRichard
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have never been in such a dispute before, except regard to this very issue with User:Walter Görlitz, so I am a bit confused as to the purpose of this forum. It is the case the copy from the Talk:Pep Guardiola page to which User:Walter Görlitz has objected has been removed. Our discussions, back and forth, have been robust. Though I understand the nature of his former complaint (which was on the same substantive matter), I am unaware of any continuing objections he has except to the very fact of the conflict itself. I would be happy to address anything additional not discussed to date which Walter believes requires our attention.
Meantime, at the risk of turning the tables, I would like to ask Walter in this forum that he stop telling folks about my supposed "Catalan" background or my interest and support for "Catalan nationalism." I am a park ranger from Alaska, a native-born U.S. citizen of wholly non-Spanish, non-Catalan descent, going back to the time my ancestors arrived here in 1680 from England. I could not live in a place less Catalan, nor could I live a life which is less Mediterranean. From my first edit, Walter assumed (I don't know why-- really, I don't why) that I was a "Catalan nationalist" who was "pushing an unacceptable POV" (I had to look up what that meant). Really, as it turns out, I'm just an Alaskan interested in language and geography. I have told him this from the start, but he repeats this odd claim about me all the same. I find it offensive, obviously, but even more than that just strange, and wish he would stop.
As to the article, we have stumbled over when and how sub-national units should be portrayed on Pep Guardiola. I believe the subject's hometown, being unknown, calls out for treatment appropriate to any town in North America-- by adding a second-order geopolitical unit to the infobox, so folks know at a glance whereabouts it is. Here, Guardiola's hometown is Santpedor, a relatively unknown small town in (the autonomous community of) Catalonia. Obviously it were Saskatoon or Seattle, the infobox would by contrast immediately show the name of province or state. That's what I think "consistency" should mean, but obviously Walter disagrees. Though Walter sees strident and "unacceptable" nationalism here, I just see practical geography of the most ordinary (and somewhat boring) sort. RangerRichard (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Pep Guardiola discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Adminstrative note: Welcome User:Walter_Görlitz to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. As the filing party it is your obligation to make certain that all parties are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and link to the DRN page. The easiest way to do tist is add: subst:drn-notice|Pep Guardiola (surrounded by double brackets {{ }} like these) to their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within three to five days this filing will likely be automatically closed. Let me know if you need help or have questions. Please leave a message here verifying that you have read this message and have notified all parties on their user talk page. Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. You can mark it up this way as well {{subst:drn-notice|Pep Guardiola}}. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, Walter, and thanks for that HTML tip. Very handy.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment from uninvolved editor: To both editors @Gorlitz and @Ranger; It would be useful if either one of you could post the disputed sentence(s) here in order that a potential volunteer can evaluate them and decide about possible moderation. @TransporterMan: Neither editor has responded in the last 4 days and if neither responds within the next 24 hrs, then @TransporterMan in justified to assess this matter as stale and subject to being closed. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This case needs a DRN volunteer to moderate the discussion. I'll post a note on the DRN talk page also.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Opened by Volunteer - I'm still reading the relevant material and will come back with comments/questions in about half an hour to an hour.SPACKlick (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz:, @RangerRichard:. Ok so I've read the talk pages, the ANI thread and everything I could find on this dispute. I would like to separate the content dispute from the ongoing dispute slightly to say that while I have an opinion on what the relevant outcome is for the Article I think the process is more important here.
To address Walters "How we can help section". I don't think you should be pointing to strongly at NPA and Harassment, people in glass houses and all that. There has been some poor form on both sides but hopefully we can get past it.
The actual dispute, over whether it is appropriate to add a midrange unit between a small town and a country, is a relatively simple one. The argument for (loosely) is that most people, on reading the article are not informed by reading Santpedor whereas they get more information from Catalonia, Santpedor. The argument against seems to be that it's not standard practice to do that. This sort of dispute is particularly amenable to RFC with outside editors. Consensus can effectively be formed by vote because the balance is More information vs infobox clutter which is a common dispute across the whole project.
If you would like further discussion of behaviours here please let me know. SPACKlick (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the subject itself will only be resolved if it is taken to an RfC.
That's not the issue for the dispute resolution though. It's when the editor intentionally makes false claims. An example is where I comment on the editor using insufferable rhetoric and when the editor responded, the claim is made that I stated that I called the editor insufferable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Now you are straying into behavioral issues which is not under the purvey of DRN. If the decision is to go for an RfC than we should probably close this case. Does anyone object?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:32, 8 December 2014 (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.
Filed by 14.139.128.14 on 04:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC).
Closing case as stale. If the filing party would like to protest this closure they may notify me on my user talk page or open a discussion on the DRN talk page. — Keithbob • Talk • 21:59, 11 December 2014 (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.
Syal caste is found in Khatris, Jats and Rajputs. Despite of many references, [Sitush] is resisting any changes. Also he do not have any reference to prove otherwise.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Lots of discussion.
How do you think we can help?
Please involve other editors. Please look into the references provided and request [Sitush] (who is currently involved in editing the article) to allow the changes. PS: I also dont believe in Dahiya articles or very old articles. Ego conflict must not be teh problem in correction of the article.
Summary of dispute by [Sitush]
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The usual caste puffery based on the usual dodgy sources. The same arguments are trotted out across hundreds of caste articles and they are always rejected, not just by me. Some of those sources have been rejected in discussions at RSN, ANI etc and , I think, there are some past instances of this even at DRN. Do we really have to go through this yet again? Unfortunately, what usually happens is that WP:GS/Caste ends up being enforced on those who are attempting to puff. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
An indication of the difficulties inherent in using Raj sources can be found in the biographical articles for James Tod and H. H. Risley, which I think are the two most developed articles we have that relate to the typical "ethnographer" of the British colonial era in India. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Comment from uninvolved editor; @IP editor, it would be helpful if you could list your eight references here below, and number them, which are being disputed as WP:RS. This would assist a possible volunteer to see if they can offer to moderate. Although it is not required in any way, you might want to consider the possibility of opening a regular user account which might make it easier for any volunteer to contact you if someone offers to moderate this discussion. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment. The editor #2 is right. The Raj sources cannot be used to settle caste and sect disputes. Risley et.al. must be used only by experts. The authentic native expert sources, eg. J.N Bhattopadhyaya 1896, Hindu Castes and Sects: An Exposition of the Origin of the Hindu Caste ... have this caste Sial (Syal, Seal, Sheel, Sil etc.) as superior Baniyas - artisan moneylenders. The current article is shallow and incoherent, and can be safely deleted.
Additional Comment, the editor #1 is correct to the extent that all the tribes of North India listed by him - Khatri, Jat, Rajput would have a Sial caste for goldsmithy, traditional banking etc. Indohispano (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment from uninvolved editor; @TransporterMan, the opening @IP editor has not responded since before 6Dec to provide the list of cites questioned as WP:RS. If @IP editor does not provide some response in 24 hours, then this matter may be seen as stale and it may be closed in 24 hours on this basis. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
If I must :( Would it not be simpler just to link to, say, a past RSN outcome regarding Raj sources and close it? - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Everyone deserves to be heard at least briefly. I'll try to keep things efficient. First step is to see if the IP shows up. User:Indohispano, who commented above, has been blocked. Let's see what happens next. Thanks for your patience. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that this should be closed. The IP is unlikely to return and the whole thing is compromised anyway due to things relating to WP:LTA/IAC. Sorry I cannot elaborate here but there are beans involved. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
24 hour closing notice -- If the IP has not returned in 24 hours this case may be closed without further notice.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:31, 10 December 2014 (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:Himarë#Regarding the removal of the established consensual text in the lead
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Gjirokastra15 on 21:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC).
The case appears to have been abandoned by both the DRN volunteer and the participants. Therefore I'm closing this case. — Keithbob • Talk • 21:37, 15 December 2014 (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.
The Article about Himara is having in the lead the assertion that :``The region of Himarë is predominantly populated by an ethnic Greek community`` , yet the 2011 census was showing the ethnic composition of 60.50 % albanians and 25% greeks in that region . As per wp:lede the phrase that that area is predominantly populated by Greeks could not be put there because the census does show the exact opposite . Thus the best solution was to include both of them in the lead ... and thus a consensus was established to include both of them . Yet user Athenean on a wp:idontlikeit basis decided to remove it (only the 2011 census) using the 3RR card and refused to discuss.
I ask that either all the phrases talking about demographic majorities or minorities get removed from the lead , or the 2011 census results should stay on the lead too .
Talk page discussion , yet user Athenean refused to discuss further
How do you think we can help?
Restore established referenced assertion as per consensus .
Summary of dispute by Athenean
User:Gjirokastra15 wants to have a discussion of the ethnic demographics in the lede of the article, which I find WP:UNDUE and totally against WP:LEDE. That Himara is predominantly inhabited by ethnic Greeks is well-supported by reliable sources, as shown in the article. The Greek character of the region is also part of the notability of the region, as evidenced by the unique Greek dialect spoken by the inhabitants of the region (Himariote Greek dialect), as well as a history of conflict going back centuries, continuing to the present day (Death of Aristotelis Goumas). Thus, I think mentioning that Himara is primarily inhabited by ethnic Greeks is both well-sourced and lede-worthy. On the other hand, the 2011 census, which is discussed in the demographics section, was marred by irregularities and a boycott by the ethnic minorities, following threats by the Albanian government [13][14]. You will also note that in the numbers provided by the Gjirokastra15, there is a missing 15%. Following the official census, the Greek minority in Albania conducted its own census, showing approcimately 200,000 ethnic Greeks in Albania, which sharply contradicts the official census. This conclusively shows that there is something fishy with the census results, and as such it is not a reliable source. In any case, the place to discuss this is in Demographics of Albania, not the lede of this article. The census issue is moreover already discussed in the Himara's demographics section. The fact that Gjirokastra15 wants this mentioned as prominently as possible in the lede I consider POV-pushing. Athenean (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Alexikoua
I need to note that during the discussion Gjirokastra couldn't understand some basic points, for example here claims that the given references don't verify the fact that the census was boycotted, although this is verbally taken from the inline reference (Tirana times). I can only assume that this wasn't checked.
According to the introductory part there are serious wp:undue issues, in order to make a point. I simply suggest to follow wp:lede and avoid wp:undue. In general the detailed results of a census are not part of the lede, especially if this is disputed and the results were affected by bocoytt. Alexikoua (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Himarë#Regarding the removal of the established consensual text in the lead discussion
Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a reminder: It is the requesting party's obligation to make certain that all parties who have taken part in the talk page discussion are listed as parties, above, and are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and must include a link to this section. The easiest way to do that is add {{subst:drn-notice|Himarë} - ~~~~ on their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within a few days — usually 3-5 — after this case has been filed it will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Done , thank you for letting me know . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Since there are some assertions that need clarification :
The 2011 census results is being used by the CIA world fact book , in fact all of the demographic statistics ( on the CIA webpage ) regarding Albania are based on the 2011 census results , the 2011 census was funded and assisted by the EU , and the methodology was based on the Eurostat and UN recommendations for the 2010 Round of Population and Housing Censuses. As per wp:burden you have to prove that it was boycotted , and those 2 articles do not meet the minimum requirements . If such indeed would had been the case , we would have had a minimal reaction from the EU , and the human rights organizations . Yet you will find none , and in fact i challenge you to do so and i will rest my case . The missing 15 % of the population did simply not declare ethnicity , because it was not obligatory to do so , and in fact an Albanian nationalistic party did initiate a campaign to make the population not declare ethnicity , because according to them it was a threat towards Albania's territorial integrity
In addition , for the 2011 local elections the 2 political parties representing the Greek minority in the area of himara did get a 26 % of the total votes , while the 74 % did go for the Albanian parties[1] . A really big coincidence and a perfect match up with the 2011 census results , don't you think ?
As for the so called census of the Omonoia , it was conducted ONLINE and was including the whole ethnic diaspora including the one that lives today in Greece , and all over the world and this is according to THEIR WORDS . So please next time try to interpret the right way the so called Omonoia census results as i see no conflict whatsoever here .
It is true that a great minority of the population in Himara is of Greek origins and they declare themselves an ethnic minority , however as also shown by the 2011 census , they are not on those numerical quantities for claiming that the area is predominantly greek , and it has never been recognized as a minority zone The area was not part of a "minority zone" in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania (1945-1991) [2] , and continues to not to be , simply because the majority there are Albanians .
So either that goes as well , or the census results will be published as well . In fact the text before getting reverted by you was word per word
The text: Secondary sources generally accept that the region of Himarë is predominantly populated by an ethnic Greek community.[3][4][5][6] The area was not part of a "minority zone" in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania (1945-1991) [7] and still is not part of a so-called "minority zone".[8] The latest census in the country (2011), which has been widely disputed due to irregularities in the procedure, as well as affected by boycott,[9][10][11] counted 60.38% Albanians and 24.56% Greeks in the area.[12]
^editor, Jonathan Stein (2000). The politics of national minority participation in post-communist Europe : state-building, democracy, and ethnic mobilization. Armonk, N.Y.: Sharpe. p. 172. ISBN9780765605283. ...excluding important concentrations of Greek settlement ...such as Himara...{{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)
^"Albania: The state of a nation"(PDF). ICG Balkans Report N°111. p. 15. Retrieved 2010-09-02. The coastal Himara region of Southern Albania has always had a predominantly ethnic Greek population.
^editor, Jonathan Stein (2000). The politics of national minority participation in post-communist Europe : state-building, democracy, and ethnic mobilization. Armonk, N.Y.: Sharpe. p. 172. ISBN9780765605283. ...excluding important concentrations of Greek settlement ...such as Himara...{{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)
To make myself even more understood i am categorically against any pov-pushing text in the lede of that article . But since there is one already there and you refuse to remove it , then the next logical choice is to write both sides of the story in the lede , especially when you have a text which is having as sources 4 sources , of which 1 is not working and 1 is from 1993 . And even more when the census results show the exact opposite . Given that , my opinion is that both should go , or both sides of the stories should remain . I absolutely fail to see why your sources merit to remain in the lede , and the factual census result should not ? That's the perfect example of double standards , at least that's how i see it without excluding the option that i might be wrong .Gjirokastra15 (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment from uninvolved editor: @Athenean (talk · contribs) and @Alexikoua (talk · contribs); @Gjirokastra15 has identified the version of one preferred form for the proposed edit currently in bold above, and it would be useful for a potential volunteer to see what version you are putting forward in its place. If you can post your version of the edit, then a volunteer here can evaluate it and possibly consider volunteering for this mediation. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Although all are welcome to comment here....if your not sure whats going on best not to jump in all over - it will break up the flow of whats going on. As has been explained above and can be seen in the edit history....the text above is the disputed addition/removal.... not a change. Glad to see any help....but sometimes best to not get involved all over or do some self investigation prior to commenting. Most would start at Talk:Himarë in this case. -- Moxy (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Asking for a summary or clarification of the issues in a dispute is a well-established and more than acceptable technique of mediation, Moxy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
You are correct but asking the same thing on every thread here is not helpfull overall. That was the point....asking for clarifiaction with no intent to followup. -- Moxy (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Note the ANI cited by the filing party at the time of filing has been archived here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
24 hour closing notice --Unless the parties show up in 24 hours, I'm closing this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:57, 11 December 2014 (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:Acts of the Apostles
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Sfarney on 21:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC).
Futile. One of the two participants in the dispute declines to participate (and participation in moderated content dispute resolution is always voluntary). — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:55, 17 December 2014 (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.
I have edited the Acts of the Apostles to reflect a more neutral point of view, rather than religious doctrine and tradition. JudeccaXIII immediately reverted it, saying those statements were my opinion. I reverted it explaining again my reasons, in more detail. Elizium23 reverted it. I went to JudeccaXIII personal page and explained at greater length why my changes were more in line with Wikipedia policy and philosophy. After some discussion on JudeccaXIII's personal page, JudeccaXIII said the discussion was "over" and I should take the matter to the subject talk page. So I copied the text to the discussion page, and JudeccaXIII deleted it. I reverted the page and added more text, and JudeccaXIII deleted it again. I have since learned that the original text contains whole sentences copied from http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/ntintro/acts.htm
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
1. Explained reasons for edits
2. Discussed on JudeccaXIII personal page
3. Discussed on Talk:Acts of the Apostles page
4. Now that JudeccaXIII is repeatedly deleting the discussion, I have run out of options.
How do you think we can help?
Look at the original version of the page.
Determine whether the original version contains a religious doctrinal view (as I maintain) rather than a historical view (as Wikipedia should maintain).
Look at my changes.
Determine whether my changes move the article toward a more balanced neutral position.
Determine whether the topic talk page is being used correctly by the parties.
Summary of dispute by JudeccaXIII
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Comment from uninvolved editor John Carter
This looks very much to me like a request to judge the appropriate content of an article. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure that this is the best possible venue for such a discussion. I think a more reasonable, and probably more effective, way to get further outside input would be to take the discussion back to the article talk page, and maybe invite outside comment through an RfC with notices at the appropriate wikiproject talk pages and, maybe, noticeboards. I would also suggest that the individuals involved if possible consult the rather lengthy articles in the leading recent reference sources relating to the Bible in general and perhaps the Acts in particular and see what contend they contain and to what weight. I would assume the recent Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible would possibly be the best single source with which to start such a review, although there are any number of other high-quality reference books which would have significant material relating to this subject. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
talk:Acts of the Apostles discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I didn't even receive a DNR participating message, and I'm not participating in this bogus DRN topic anyway. If anyone has any questions, you can message me on my talk page. Also, look under section Was Acts Authored by Luke on my talk page, so the issue can be better clarified. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
If one of the main users involved in the dispute refuses to comment, the case cannot proceed. Would it be appropriate to close this? --Biblioworm 22:43, 17 December 2014 (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.
Sri Lankan presidential_election,_2015
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Eng.M.Bandara on 11:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC).
Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle disputes which are conduct disputes, see instructions at top of page. Conduct disputes should be referred to AN, ANI, or ARBCOM — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:34, 18 December 2014 (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.
Admin [User:Bgwhite|Bgwhite] was involved in a dispute at the Sri lankan presidential elections 2015 article. He had reverted the article 5 times in a period of 24 hours. He removed my contribution including the banner, to which weight of certain reported issues was disputed. I asked for his assistance here [[User_talk:Bgwhite#Sri_lanka_Press_Polls] User User:Obi2canibe later got involved in the dispute and removed my contributions that was properly sourced and cited. I attempted to resolve this issue by asking here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Removal_of_content_by_another_editor I added my material back in, and left messages on the comments section as here User_talk:Obi2canibe#Conduct_section and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lankan_presidential_election,_2015 I received no response and other user reverted my work. As I originally added the work, I reverted his edit and advised him to add his contribution and to discuss his objection to my material in the talk section. This revert caused Admin [User:Bgwhite|Bgwhite] issue be with a block [[15]] The admin used profanity against me and was clearly involved in the dispute. see here [[16]]
I make a request for comments for consideration of referring the admin to the arbitration committee.
Summary of dispute by Bgwhite
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Sri Lankan presidential_election,_2015 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.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.