Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 247

Archive 240

←

Archive 245

Archive 246

Archive 247

Archive 248

Archive 249

Sales data dispute on Chris Brown article

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Instantwatym on 22:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Chris Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Instantwatym (talk · contribs) theWikiholic (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Myself and another editor by the username theWikiholic have been involved in an ongoing dispute regarding total sales of artist Chris Brown on the following article: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Brown. The issue has already been discussed on the article talk page and in an ANI discussion started by theWikiholic (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1221291435#Usage_of_WP:Circular_sources_and_Disruptive_editing_to_promote_inflated_record_sales_on_Chris_Brown's_page). Our positions on this dispute are articulated well on the ANI discussion; as well as our reasons for disagreement. And there is no consensus either way. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? - Talk page discussion started by myself on the article page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Brown - ANI discussion started by theWikiholic: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1221291435#Usage_of_WP:Circular_sources_and_Disruptive_editing_to_promote_inflated_record_sales_on_Chris_Brown's_page) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Involve other neutral editors with familiarity of music certifications and sales to outline whether or not certifications equate to sales. If not, outline if total certified units (which in and of themselves are not a matter of dispute but rather a fact) can be simply be reported as certified units as opposed to sales in articles (e.g., Brown has certified ___ million units worldwide, as opposed to saying Brown has sold ___ million units worldwide based on his certifications). Summary of dispute by Instantwatym Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by theWikiholic Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Sales data dispute on Chris Brown article Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note: As suggested at ANI, I think you should consider an RfC. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by volunteer (Chris Brown) Various editors have said that a Request for Comments may be the best way to resolve this dispute. Preliminary discussion may determine whether an RFC will be used. Please read DRN Rule A. Do the editors agree to moderated discussion subject to these rules? The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the encyclopedia. Will each editor please state, concisely, what they want to change in the encyclopedia, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Statement 0.5 by volunteer (Chris Brown) Three days ago, I asked two questions, but the questions have not been answered. I will revise and restate the first question. Are the editors interested in moderated discussion subject to DRN Rule D? Chris Brown is a living person, and biographies of living persons are a contentious topic. If you agree to moderated discussion, you are agreeing that the procedures for contentious topics apply to any conduct issues. Second, please specify what in the article you want to change, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It is not necessary and is not helpful to wait until your edit-warring blocks expire. If you want moderated discussion, please answer. If you want this dispute resolved by an RFC, you can request moderated discussion, and the moderator will assist in writing the RFC. After edit-warring and being blocked, it is time for the editors to work with a moderator to resolve a content issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Chris Brown) 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.

Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Avi8tor on 15:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Peugeot 505 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Peugeot 5CV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Avi8tor (talk · contribs) Mr.choppers (talk · contribs) Dispute overview When it was founded, Wikipedia had many discussions in the early years to figure out what units to include or not include in articles, A compromise resulted in the USA and the UK having different primary units from the rest of the world, which seemed like a reasonable compromise. see Wikipedia:Measurements Debate. Editor Mr.choppers seems to think the MOS does not apply because a certain unit was used when a vehicle was initially sold, regardless of the wording in the Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Primary Unit. This problem goes back years, with Mr.choppers reverting every edit I make to do with which unit is primary. This time it stems from editing Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV, Mercedes-Benz Actros and numerous other vehicles going back years, I’d like a decision on what constitutes the primary unit. The next disagreement. The UK and the USA have received exemptions for strong national ties, which no other country has! But what is the criteria for “strong”, it seems to me that any ties to the USA or the UK are classed as strong national ties even if other editors say they may be weak or trivial. In the case of the Peugeot 505, it was exported to the USA and Australia so how do we get strong national ties to the USA? It is a French designed and manufactured car! The Manual of Style is apparently interpreted differently by different editors and needs clarifying. Is a strong national tie 50% or more than 50%? Who decides? Let’s take Tesla, whose cars are made in the USA, China and Germany, all units used in design and manufacture are SI units, so which country has strong ties and which units are primary? Well it is a Company headquartered in the USA, so that would give strong national ties. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Peugeot_505 Units of Measurement. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The manual of style states three options: In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States and the UK. In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units. Can an editor pick and choose something else because of the ambiguity of the remaining wording regardless of the statement "will be SI units"? Summary of dispute by Mr.choppers Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The issue is that there are two kinds of horsepower, metric and non-metric. Most of the world (Europe, Japan, Latin America) uses metric hp, US and UK and some other english-speaking countries uses imperial hp, and a few countries like New Zealand, Asutralia, and South Africa have switched over to SI. There is no recognized standard for how to distinguish metric and non-metric hp (some use the German abbreviation PS for metric hp, but this is somewhat inappropriate for French or Italian cars, for instance). The definitions of these units are very similar, which often makes it hard to tell which unit is being used - sometimes you can tell from context. Non-english sources are almost certainly using metric hp. Here are the conversions, showing how close these units are: {{convert|100|hp-metric|kW|2}} 100 metric horsepower (73.55 kW) {{convert|100|bhp|kW|2}} 100 brake horsepower (74.57 kW) While many countries have officially switched to SI (kilowatts) over the last several decades, this process is by no means complete. Nearly all references, all magazines, all journals, and most manufacturers have held on to metric hp and it is still the primary unit in many situations and markets. I will be happy to provide links and examples if needed, but will limit myself to VW chairman Ferdinand Piëch laying down a target number of 1,001 metric horsepower (736 kW; 987 bhp) for the Bugatti Veyron in 2001. Metric hp is current, it is used industry wide, and I would argue that it remains the most commonly used unit worldwide outside of insurance companies and government offices. Don't get me wrong, though - I do not want metric hp to be the prime unit across Wikipedia. Kilowatts are the default lead unit for most cars of the last two-three decades, while imperial horsepower are still dominant in UK and US. What I recommend is that we always lead with the appropriate unit, instead of using a one-size-fits-all method. The appropriate unit is typically the one used in the car's home market when it was built, or the one used in the majority of reliable sources. It is rare that there is any conflict - the Peugeot 5CV, for instance, was built five decades before there was any thought to use kilowatts. Peugeot uses metric hp to describe it. The US-market Peugeot 505 is a bit less clear; for me, what matters is that the engines were heavily re-engineered for the US market, with federalized cars also receiving different sheet metal and a significant number of other technical changes. Again, all references for the US Peugeot 505 uses imperial hp to describe the car, from factory manuals to period articles to current writings about it. I am not entirely sure what Avi8tor wants to have changed, but describing a French car from the 1920s using kilowatts is anachronistic and in contradiction to MOS since it contradicts the units used in all reliable sources. There are always edge cases, like the US-market Peugeot 505, but those situations can and should be discussed. Avi8tor also has a problem getting metric v imperial hp mixed up with horsepower ratings systems like DIN vs SAE, gross versus net, and often drags in tax horsepower (which does not directly relate to power outputs) as well. Avi8tor has introduced factual errors, like here, where he carelessly changed the output from 110hp/81kW to 109hp/81kW. Minor to some, but still a factual error. Sorry about dragging you all into the bewildering world of horsepower...  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Mr.choppers is quick to blame me for something I did not do. As you can see from his reversion, the stated value prior to my convert template inclusion was hp & kW, He was happy with those the day before with a previous edit until I got involved, I chose kW as the primary unit. You didn't like what I'd done and changed the convert template to metric-hp and kW. Neglecting to follow the manual of style for a European Vehicle which would be kW & PS or metric horsepower, whatever you want to call it. The difference between the two units is about 1 horse. Avi8tor (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC) I just realized that Avi8tor cherry-picked from the MOS above, so here is the relevant text as it applies to older automobiles: In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.) I have shared this sentence with them on numerous occasions but it remains unacknowledged.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on the user talk page. A statement on the article talk page is not sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The template that opens a case does not automatically notify the other editor. It appears that the filing editor reasonably thought that it did, but it doesn't do that. The filing editor must do that manually. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Now done Avi8tor (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (Peugeot) Are the editors interested in moderated discussion, subject to DRN Rule A? If so, I will ask each of the editors to start off by stating what they want to change in the article, or what they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same. I understand that one issue has to do with the units of power. Are there any other content issues? If you are citing the Manual of Style, please state exactly what section in the MOS you are citing, just so that we don't have confusion about what rulebook is being used. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC) The reference is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Units of measurement/Unit choice and order. Shortcut MOS:UNIT or MOS:UNITS about halfway down the page. This debate in a nutshell is how we interpret the MOS. I see "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units", Mr.choppers sees "or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.". Sources can be cherry picked depending on what country they are from. USA all imperial, Australia all SI. I live in France, the owners manual for my two cars give power in kW only, as do owners manuals in the UK. Mr Choppers live in the USA so he'd prefer NON SI units worldwide. I follow the MOS and place SI units primary for countries outside the USA and UK. The MOS needs to be fixed to remove the ambiguity. Less than 50% of Wikipedia users are from the US or UK, all those other countries use SI. Wikipedia is for an international audience. All owners manuals for cars in Europe (including the UK) have kW for Power. I can send a copy of that page. Avi8tor (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Peugeot) First statement by moderator (Peugeot) I will ask two questions that I have already asked, but that were not answered directly. First, do you agree to take part in moderated discussion, subject to DRN Rule A? Please read it (again, if you have already read it). Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. I will ask the questions, and you will address your answers to me and to the community. Be civil and concise. Participation in moderated discussion is voluntary, and it will not continue unless the editors agree to the rules. Second, please state briefly what you want to change in the article, and where, or what you want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change. If you want to change the units of measure of the power, specify all of the locations that you want to change. Do not, at this time, explain why, only what you want. We can discuss why later. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Peugeot) 1) Of course. 2) I want the units of power to reflect the units used in reliable sources on the topic. For the Peugeot 505, that is kW/metric-hp (I would prefer to lead with metric-hp but it doesn't really matter) for all markets outside of North America, for the federalized cars I believe it should be non-metric hp and kW. This was the existing state of the article until 31 May 2024.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 1. Yes. 2. I think the manual of style needs to be more specific in that the primary unit outside the USA should be SI as stated in the MOS. Consistency of the displayed unit is important. The unit/s following can be non SI. This would include RPM, hands or whatever is used in that field. I believe this way every English speaker on the planet will understand the unit they are used to. Avi8tor (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Peugeot) The Peugeot 505 article currently lists the power for all engines primarily in CV, which is metric horsepower, and also provides kW, and hp (imperial hp). The Peugeot 5CV article lists power primarily in hp, and also in kW. The SI unit of power is kW (kilowatts). (That is, the watt is the basic SI unit of power, and automobiles have power that can be measured in kilowatts.) I am asking that any editor who wants to list the power primarily either in CV or in hp should provide a reason. One editor referred to cars made for the US market, for which hp is the standard unit of power, but I see no mention in the article of any cars that were specifically made for the US market. So my question is what reason is there for using any measure other than kW as the primary measure. Are there any specific suggestions for how the MOS should be changed or clarified? Are there any other issues than the units of power? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Peugeot) I think the primary problem is some editors read the statement "or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic" as meaning if they can find a source with their preferred unit, this gives them free reign to use a source unit other than kW, which I believe is not the intent of the MOS. Equally some argue that SI was not in existence so we can use the original unit. If a way can be found to more forcefully state the intent of the MOS or equally remove the statement that appears to give free reign. The other item not yet addressed is the "strong national ties". I see no strong national ties of this Peugeot model with the USA as it was still made in France and also exported to Australia. Reading the MOS on strong national ties, strong national ties has more to do with language and spelling in different countries. Avi8tor (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Both the CV (this is one of many abbreviations in use; there is no recognized abbreviation for metric hp) in the 505 article and the "hp" in 5CV refer to metric horsepower. Leading with kW works for me for the 505 but is historically incorrect for the 5CV, which was designed and sold and only ever discussed in terms of metric horsepower. Using both horsepower units would have a silly result, since the difference is only 1.4 percent: {{cvt|11|hp-metric|kW hp}}: 11 hp (8.1 kW; 11 hp) Here are a few references for the 5CV; all use metric horsepower: [1], [2], [3], [4] (5CV cars in general, no mention of kW), [5], [6], [7], The MOS is fine as is; it reads In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.) (underlining mine). Reliable source discussions are exclusively metric hp for the 5CV, mainly metric hp but also kW for the 505 (excluding North America). Leading with kW for the 505 is fine, incorrect for the 5CV. I would still argue that the 505 is primarily a metric-hp design, which is why you see nice, even, marketable power outputs of 110, 130, 150, 160, and 180 hp (m). In the 1980s, European manufacturers typically released both DIN (metric horsepower) and EEC (kilowatt) ratings, see period technical description, pages 16 and 17. They lead with metric hp, FWIW. The section Peugeot 505#North America is limited to North American-market cars - federalized cars were significantly re-engineered, due to the completely different regulatory environment in the US, and there is almost no overlap in content between this section and the remainder of the article. All power and torque figures are different and are specific to US market models. There are currently seven cited works in this section; every one of them uses imperial hp exclusively. Unlike British or Australian market models, the US 505 was not merely an export model, this version has strong ties to the US. I am not saying that I get to cherrypick because I managed to locate a single reference which uses one unit or the other - when reliable sources, period or current, do not use kW at all, then it is anachronistic and misleading to lead with kW. Metric market cars built pre-SI should not lead with kW. Examples include Mercedes 15/70/100 PS, which is literally named after the metric-hp power output. In 1962 the power of the Mitsubishi Minica increased from 13 to 13 kW (17 to 18 hp; 17 to 18 PS) - this looks ridiculous if you lead with kW. The Fiat Uno 75 (and all Fiats of the era) is named for its output in metric hp. The VW Golf TDI 140 is named for its output in metric hp (as was the rest of the lineup). Avi8tor has already been debating this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Power_and_Torque_units, where other editors agree that leading with the appropriate unit as per references is the correct option. But while the rest of the world continues to use metric hp as well as kW (with kW dominant for newer cars) to describe cars, Avi8tor is trying to create a one-size rule which will not make anyone happy and, which while meeting a particular reading of the MOS, violates other WP rules. The MOS leans towards SI units (which I agree with) but it also includes a carveout for using the units used in reliable source discussions. This is as it should be, because Wikipedia's purpose is also to reflect the sources as per WP:V. As per WP:SOAP it is not for us to ignore the units used by the manufacturer and by reliable sources (period and current), in an effort to advocate for SI adoption.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Peugeot) Is this disagreement only about which unit of power is mentioned first? Is there agreement that kW will be mentioned? If so, is it really that important which unit is mentioned first? When I said to read and follow DRN Rule A, I forgot to restate Rule A.1, "Be civil and concise", and in particular I didn't emphasize rule A.1.2, which says to be concise. I didn't ask for a 660-word explanation of why we should lead with CV. An editor writes: I am not saying that I get to cherrypick because I managed to locate a single reference which uses one unit or the other - when reliable sources, period or current, do not use kW at all, then it is anachronistic and misleading to lead with kW. Metric market cars built pre-SI should not lead with kW. When an editor says that they are not saying that they get to cherrypick, they usually mean that they are defending their cherrypicking. The Peugeot 5CV is pre-SI. The Peugeot 505 is not pre-SI. The Manual of Style provides for project-specific style guides, and the style guide that applies to automobile articles is: Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Power and torque. I will ask each editor to state concisely whether they agree that we should follow the conventions used by the WikiProject, or whether they think that the conventions should be changed, or whether they can provide a reason to deviate from the conventions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Are there any other content issues? Third statements by editors (Peugeot) I did not know of the existence of the WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions until you listed it. I had only the MOS to follow. It appears to be well written and covers what we have discussed, even if a little dated especially with the convert template where there is no need to have abbr=on or off, cvt does the former and convert the latter. But that can be fixed via the talk page. I think the Manual of Style WP:UNITS should be changed to read as follows (below) outside the United States and perhaps the United Kingdom (it appears that power in owner manuals in the UK lists power only in kilowatts) to avoid ambiguity (my suggested change in Bold). In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, secondary units can be non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.) I'm making an assumption that strong national ties refers only to language ties as written in (MOS:TIES)? And would take the main corporate office location for manufacturing ties. Avi8tor (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC) I defended myself against cherry-picking because Avi8tor twice suggested I was doing so, that's all. I agree that we should follow the project guidelines - and the example table provided has "100 PS (74 kW; 99 hp)" included as accepted practice, which is also in line with WP:MOS. As per my first and second statements, leading with kW for the 505 is fine except for the US-market 505s, which are universally described in terms of imperial hp. If it is unacceptable to use two formats in one article, then I suppose every mention of power output will have to use all three units, however awkward. Leading with the unit used in reliable sources is common practice (as long as the unit is not obsolete). Note: if this discussion is going to affect the long-standing formatting of many thousands of articles, I believe there should be more people than the three of us involved.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (Peugeot) I will repeat a question that I asked at the beginning of moderated discussion. Exactly what in the article does each editor want to change, or exactly what does each editor want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change? Also, am I correct that the only issue is what units of measure to use for engine power? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Peugeot) I'm happy working with Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. Due to differing interpretations, I would like to see the Manual of Style: Unit Choice and order amended to the paragraph below. Changes in Bold. In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, secondary units can be non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.) Avi8tor (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC) The Peugeot 505 article is fine the way it was antebellum and fine in its current state. There are plenty of good reasons for leading with kW for markets outside of the US and I remain amenable to that.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC) I believe the only issue is engine power, but I didn't start the DR. No one particularly cares about torque figures, which is why the SI unit (Nm) has fully displaced the pre-SI kgm almost universally.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator (Peugeot) I am not sure that there is any remaining content disagreement between the editors. Are we in agreement that the article will specify kW as the primary units, except for vehicles made for the US market, and will list both hp (customary horsepower) and CV (metric horsepower) as secondary units? Are we in agreement that, for vehicles made for the US market, the article will specify hp (customary horsepower) as the primary units, and will list kW as secondary units. If so, we can close this dispute as resolved, and can then discuss whether to change the style guide appropriately. Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Thank you for your patience and in clarifying this issue, I'm happy to working with the WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions Avi8tor (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Peugeot) Yes, in agreement. Am I correct in interpreting your opinion as only relating to the 505, whereas the pre-SI 5CV will remain in metric hp with kW as a secondary? Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC) My understanding is we use Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions, specifically for power and torque the section: Power and torque. Avi8tor (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2024 (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.

List of South Korean girl groups

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 98Tigerius on 07:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute List of South Korean girl groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 98Tigerius (talk · contribs) Hotwiki (talk · contribs) Ravinglogician (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A disagreement about why putting an end year to some active group just because they don't have group activity this year. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#Year active How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? To have a consensus whether to put an end year or put "present" instead to those active groups. Summary of dispute by Hotwiki Some editors in that talk page are arguing why the present year for the girl group - Blackpink isn't included. That girl group has ZERO group activity in 2024. When I asked those two editors to give a 2024 activity for the group, that would warrant being labeled as an active group in the present year, they couldn't give any. Its purely misinformation, to change it to "2016–present", when the girl group hasn't been active in the year 2024 yet.Hotwiki (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ravinglogician One type of information that this page provides for the listed groups is their period of activity, usually of the form “‹start year›–‹end year›” or “‹start year›–present”. Typically the former indicates that that the group officially announced its disbandment or some kind of extended hiatus, while the latter indicates the absence of such an event, i.e. the group is still active. Recently however a few of us noticed that one editor has unilaterally declared a different standard to ascertain active status, namely “has the group performed a group activity in the calendar year in question”. I think this is problematic for a number of reasons: The editor in question claims that they check the group's social media accounts, search for articles about them etc, thus determining that no such activity has occurred. This is effectively Original Research, instead of relying on a reputable outside source making the claim that the group is not active. The main pages of these groups still list them as “‹start year›–present”. I believe having such inconsistencies between pages is undesirable, and the way to resolve them is by deferring to the subject matter experts, i.e. the editors maintaining a group's main page. This standard is unlikely to be applied consistently even within the page itself, due to the laborious and inherently unreliable nature of determining it. Finally I believe this editor's standard of activity defies most people's expectations, as evidenced by multiple editors disagreeing with them on the talk page; by the editors of the groups' main pages obviously using a different standard; and by frequent attempts to modify the page to the commonly accepted idea of a group being active, that the editor in question then reverts. This dispute has mainly revolved around Blackpink, with Mamamoo and Girls' Generation also having been brought up. Ravinglogician (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC) List of South Korean girl groups discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by volunteer (Korean groups) I am ready to assist in resolving this dispute, and in particular to determine whether moderated discussion may be in order. Please read DRN Rule A. Be civil and concise. When I ask questions, you should address your answers to the moderator (me) on behalf of the community, not to each other. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. It appears that the content issue is when and whether an end date should be listed for groups. So I have four questions. First, do the editors want moderated discussion in accordance with DRN Rule A? Second, are there any other article content issues besides whether and when a group should have an end date listed? Third, should the article begin with a rule stating whether and when a group should have an end date listed? Fourth, if so, what should the rule state? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Korean groups) First, I'm fine with a moderated discussion. Personally speaking, I think I've been civil regarding this topic. Second, I don't think the article has any other issues that need to be addressed, based from the talk page of the article. Third/fourth, I think there should be a rule in that article. A girl group should only include "present" in the "years active" column, when a girl group already had activity in the present year (2024) - the activity could be a public appearance as a group or a new music release with the girl group doing promotional activities for the release. Girl groups like Twice and Red Velvet have done those in this present year (2024). It cannot be said yet (from January 1, 2024 to July 3, 2024) to girl groups like Mamamoo, Blackpink and Girls' Generation.Hotwiki (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC) First, I agree with a moderated discussion. Second, no other aspect of the article needs dispute resolution at the moment. Third, I think there should be a rule governing this; no strong opinions about whether the rule should be stated in the article itself. Fourth, I would be happy with either of the following two rules: The group's period of activity in this page should mirror the group's main page. The group should only have an end date if the group's main page contains a reference to a reliable source regarding the group's disbandment or otherwise temporary or permanent halt to the group's activities. (I.e. no need to weigh down this page with such references, as long as the main pages of the groups have them.) Otherwise the group should be listed as “…–present”. Adopting either of these rules would result in all of Blackpink, Mamamoo and Girls' Generation to be listed as “…–present”, based on the contents of their respective main pages as I'm typing this. Ravinglogician (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC) First, I'm all for a moderate discussion. Second, none only this content issue. Third, yes there should be a rule regarding the end date of any group. Fourth, a reliable source must be present about the group's inactivity/hiatus on their main page to mirror in the list article otherwise indicating it is pure original research. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 10:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC) First statement by volunteer (Korean groups) If I say to be civil and concise, I do not mean that anyone has not been civil. Reminders that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia are sometimes routine reminders. It appears that there are two different ideas as to what the rule should be about end dates. Some editors say that an end date should be listed if a reliable source says that the group disbanded or has a hiatus. Others say that only years in which group activity has been reported by reliable sources should be listed. I will comment that applying such a rule to the present year, especially in the early months of the year, could falsely cause groups to appear to have disbanded or been on hiatus. Is there a third idea for the rule about end dates, or should we choose between those two rules? I am asking each editor to specify what rule they support, the first rule, the second rule, or a third rule. We can then either reach consensus, or request community input via an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Korean groups) 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.

Norse Deity pages

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Dots321 on 02:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Thor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Odin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Baldr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Sif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Horagalles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Dots321 (talk · contribs) Bloodofox (talk · contribs) VeryRarelyStable (talk · contribs) Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The inclusion of infoboxes, I saw that the Norse deity pages didn't include them when pages from other mythologies did like Greek, Roman, Canaanite, etc. But Bloodofox is against said inclusion of the infoboxes despite their inclusion on said previous articles. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thor#June_2024 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Either the removal of the deity info box template and subsequent removal from any pages using them or the inclusion of infoboxes for all Norse deities Summary of dispute by Bloodofox Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Every so often, a user will come by and insist that we have infoboxes on these articles, demanding that since other articles have them, we must have them too. This always gets rejected as pointless (For example: 2008: "Infobox": Clear consensus against, 2011: "Infobox": Clear consensus against, 2017: "Infobox redux": Clear consensus against, etc.) This time the user insisting we use infoboxes has now so far been reverted by two editors: myself and @Yngvadottir: (who the user did not tag here). Our Norse myth-related articles have a long history of being not only some of the very best-sourced mythology related articles on the site, but the editors who built them consistently reject these as being unhelpful and misleading to the reader: gods are complex, with contradictory and/or source-dependent information surrounding them and no shortage of theories associated with them. Meanwhile, infoboxes treat them like some kind of car model or Marvel Comics character. They are at best redundant with the first few sentences or paragraph of these articles. Typical of these infobox demand flare ups, the user demanding we use infoboxes also insists that we bundle them with misinformation. Here the user has shown a poor understanding of the material they're editing about, insisting on misinformation Sif as "god of wheat", Baldr as "god of light", Odin as "god of wisdom, and so forth, like some kind of shoddy 19th century grade school text. As for invoking other (terrible) mythology-related articles as a defense for why we need infoboxes: Most of our myth and general folklore articles are unfortunately still awful and badly need to be rewritten from scratch but our Norse myth articles are fortunately in a much better state than most. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by VeryRarelyStable Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Although this discussion has been ongoing, a comment of mine on Talk:Thor (following edits by Dots321 on Thor) has become the kernel of the current dispute. Thor and the other Norse mythology articles have a long consensus, if consensus it be, of disdaining the use of infoboxes as suitable for (for example) cartoon characters or cars or other "simple" subjects where all the facts are known. My opening comment pointed out that this attitude mischaracterizes the usage and purpose of infoboxes. That point is being ignored on the talk page now, where it is once again being asserted that infoboxes are not suitable because this is not a simple subject where all the facts are known. I tried to make clear that my comment was about the usage of infoboxes generally, but the ongoing dispute has (understandably but frustratingly) returned to the most recent specific infobox added to the page. —VeryRarelyStable 03:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Norse Deity pages discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I'm not sure whether I should post to this page, or whether if so, it should be here, but Dots321 has also not mentioned that their infobox addition at Thor was first reverted by still another editor, TylerBurden, on grounds of lack of sourcing. Dots321 is focusing only on Bloodofox, but both in the past and currently (at Talk:Thor—as I recall, there have been past discussions also at the talk pages for Odin and Loki), Bloodofox is merely one of the editors who have discussed infoboxes in relation to Norse mythology articles and determined that there is no compelling reason for consensus against them to change. (The last of Bloodofox's discussion links above is wrong: the 2020 "Infobox, redux" discussion is here.) Dots321 suggests a ruling that Norse mythology articles must use the infobox, or else that the infobox must not be used anywhere. That's clearly outside the scope of this noticeboard, and it's an extreme false dichotomy (or maybe simply begging the question of whether infoboxes should be used consistently in deity articles). Before responding in the ongoing discussion, I reviewed the past discussions and I see no indication that the issue has been dismissed or that editors arguing for infoboxes have been treated disrespecfully, in the past or now. Also, while Dots321 is not alone on the talk page at present in advocating an infobox, at this point Dots321 is edit-warring in the Thor article. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC) The idea that I'm currently edit warring is false and in fact stopped on my second round of reverts to open this dispute. I didn't bring up TylerBurden because the incident with them is irrelevant to this current discussion. Tyler burden assumed what i added was not on the articlse when in fact they were, I even went as far as finding and linking a source that was already present on the Sif page see [[8]]. I will also note to Bloodofox and potentially Yngvadotir that it is not allowed to comment on the contributor on this noticeboard but only their contributions. Bloodofox is very much allowed to comment on the quality of my contributions but the needless attacks against me like "Typical of these infobox demand flare ups, the user demanding we use infoboxes also insists that we bundle them with misinformation. Here the user has shown a poor understanding of the material they're editing about, insisting on misinformation Sif as "god of wheat", Baldr as "god of light", Odin as "god of wisdom, and so forth, like some kind of shoddy 19th century grade school text." are very much unwarranted and uncivil in discussion. Onto about my proposed resolution I am someone how likes things to be standardized which is why I implemented infoboxes in the first place. So the resolution I proposed was very much steeped in this philosophy. Even though I am aware that the first proposed resolution is out of the scope of this noticeboard I proposed it to at least start some discussion about the subject my bad on my end. I will now discuss why I think infoboxes are beneficial. Bloodofox and Yngvadottir dislikes the use of infoboxes as they claim that they are redundant and over simplify the subject. While i do agree that infoboxes simplify the subject as that is their purpose, I disagree that they are redundant. As although they can just implement information already said at the beginning of the article, they can also bring information from further down the article. Like if a god is the equivalent with another god from a different mythology, as those are generally further down an article. And thus only readers who read the whole article or those that would read the subsection would know about that subject. Thus if an infobox was implemented readers who aren't those types and would just read the summery would be informed on a subject they would otherwise not know of. Although infoboxes are simple if the reader is interested enough they will read the article for a more detailed summery. Dots321 (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC) If you don't know what you're talking about, expect to get called out on it. Don't try to insert misinformation in Wikipedia articles. Learn about a topic before you write about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Here you go again straight to uncivil discussion about the contributor. The misinformation I supposedly inserted into the article was that the gods were gods of something which you say they aren't I can go on about If a god is heavily associated with something that would mean they are the God of it. But this is all meaningless to the inclusion of infoboxes and purely semantics. You seem hellbent on trying to discredit me in a way filled with passive aggressive remarks that are very uncivil and do not have a place in civil discussion. Dots321 (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Luckily for our readers, when users such as yourself apply garbled misinformation to these articles, it's swiftly reverted. This included your desire to insert that Sif is "god of wheat" among several other typical infobox simplifications to the point of misinformation. You're not helping the project with that, you're harming it. If you detect that you have a poor handle on what you're discussing, ask on the talk page first. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC) I believe the consensus against infoboxes on Norse mythology pages is based on a misreading of the use and implication of infoboxes. If anything their purpose is the opposite of what is being asserted: to take a subject complex enough the article itself cannot be reduced to a simple list of facts, but sufficiently entangled with other subjects that a reader might need to quickly look up one fact about them without having to wade through a complex article, and present a bullet-point version of such facts as are known about the subject. I must also question Bloodofox's assertion above that "our Norse myth articles are fortunately in a much better state than most". The Norse myth articles are in a terrible state. They appear to be written solely for the benefit of readers who are already scholars, as they take familiarity with the intricate procedures involved in folklore scholarship as a prerequisite for reading the article. I don't believe this is the intention, but they are being curated by people who are familiar with scholarly procedure and have apparently forgotten that not everyone is. —VeryRarelyStable 03:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Most of our Norse myth-related articles are written to WP:GA standards by way of the tireless efforts of our editors—one of the few on the site that care about the quality of folklore-related articles—and are objectively heads and shoulders above all other mythology-related articles on the site. They are by and large written using the highest quality sources available. Just about every other group of myth-related articles on the site are poorly-referenced opinion pieces, often with terrible sourcing. From the sounds of it, this is a you problem: you might consider less time on talk pages and more time getting familiar with the basics before commenting. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC) From the sounds of it, this is a you problem: you might consider less time on talk pages and more time getting familiar with the basics before commenting This right here is very much unwarranted and goes against This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. Dots321 (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by volunteer (Norse mythology infoboxes) A preliminary discussion is in order to determine whether DRN will be useful in resolving this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D. Please read the first infobox ArbCom case and the second infobox ArbCom case. The discussion of whether to have infoboxes in articles is a contentious topic, and, by continuing in this discussion, you acknowledge that disruptive editing is subject to Arbitration Enforcement. The opening statement by the filing party displays an ignorance of Wikipedia policies concerning infoboxes and global and local consensus. The statement asks for: Either the removal of the deity info box template and subsequent removal from any pages using them or the inclusion of infoboxes for all Norse deities In other words, there is a demand to apply the same rule to Norse mythological deities as to Greek and other mythological deities. The use of infoboxes is governed by local consensus. If there is no local consensus, then the use of an infobox is based on an article-by-article choice. I have two questions for each editor at this time. (There may be more questions later.) First, are they willing to take part in moderated discussion, at least briefly, subject to DRN Rule D? Second, what does each editor think should be done with respect to infoboxes in Norse deity articles: 1. Strongly encourage infoboxes? 2. Permit infoboxes on an article-by-article basis, to be decided by article talk page discussion, or article talk page RFC? 3. Strongly discourage infoboxes? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Norse mythology infoboxes) As the Editor that opened this dispute I agree that Either the removal of the deity info box template and subsequent removal from any pages using them or the inclusion of infoboxes for all Norse deities isn't reasonable. It wasn't made out of ignorance as I know a sweeping change such as removing infoboxes from a whole subject can't be resolved on DRN which is about solving more local issues. But it was made to discuss the topic more, it isn't a good way to start discussion. And I will admit that this is a shortcoming of mine. Referring to the first question I would be willing to partake in moderated discussion. Now about the second question. As someone who very much likes things to be standardized. Another reason for my proposed resolution, even if I knew one of them was an unreasonable resolution for DRN, my bad on my part. I am in favor of 1.Strongly Encourage infoboxes and to a lesser extant 2.Permit infoboxes on an article-by-article basis, to be decided by article talk page discussion, or article talk page RFC or 3. Strongly discourage infoboxes if the majority of other mythology article were to sometime in the future remove their infoboxes, although this is a hypothetical scenario and not my view point right now. Dots321 (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)) For me the primary concern is the readability issue; I feel an infobox would go some way towards mitigating that. The article might be a turgid sea of jargon, but at least people visiting it seeking one reference to use in some other context would have somewhere to look without having to wade through it all. (Readability is the #1 criterion given for GA status, separate and prior to accuracy and the quantity or quality of sources. I don't believe the page would pass that test if it were to be reassessed.) I note that since 2008 the basis of the consensus against infoboxes has been that they "are suitable for things like statistics and disjoint facts about cities and countries"; that they "pigeonhole" things; that they "may be good for baseball cards" but not for subjects with cultural depth. What I would most like to see from this discussion is a statement, from a party with knowledge of broad Wikipedia practice but disinterested in the outcome of this particular discussion, as to whether this is, generally speaking, a fair site-wide characterization of the usage, purpose, and connotation of infoboxes. If it is, then the consensus has an outside authority to bolster future arguments. If not, then that consensus should be reconsidered. —VeryRarelyStable 03:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC) If we thought infoboxes would help or be appropriate to these articles, we'd have already added them. The only requests we see for them appear to be from users who would prefer complex deities from the historic record were discussed like car models, baseball players, or comic book characters: there is no 'canon' and every aspect of these figures is complicated, with descriptions and other data often varying by source, time, and place. It doesn't help that the users demanding infoboxes don't seem to have bothered with the basics on these topics. If they had, they'd know very well what a pointless discussion this is. Of the several editors have worked on these article over the years, most of them scholars in historical linguistics or folklore studies, the overwhelming consensus has 'infoboxes for these articles are pointless at best and promote misinformation at worst'. Hopefully we'll get specialists who know what they're talking about in other folklore areas of Wikipedia because right now Wikipedia badly suffers from poor coverage of these topics beyond northern Europe. Meanwhile, we've got a few editors here who contribute nothing to the article but seem to have a tireless appetite for demanding that we insert infoboxes on the article. Wikipedia has a lot of problems that need solving: attempting to get infoboxes on some of the site's best myth articles isn't resolving any issues but it is wasting our time. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC) It doesn't help that the users demanding infoboxes don't seem to have bothered with the basics on these topics. If they had, they'd know very well what a pointless discussion this is. Meanwhile, we've got a few editors here who contribute nothing to the article but seem to have a tireless appetite for demanding that we insert infoboxes on the article I've pointed out countless times that snide remarks against editors like these isn't allowed on DRN. But yet you still persist against me and even VeryRarlyStable. You didn't need to insert that "these editors don't know anything" multiple times but you did anyways. DRN is a place for civil discussion about the subject, not some internet forum, where if you discredit the other user in this passive aggressive way you win. Dots321 (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC) These "snide remarks", as you put them, are crucial for understanding what's happening here. In short, we have a couple of editors here with a very poor handle of the material demanding that we add infoboxes to some of Wikipedia's best myth articles. They want to treat complex figures from myth like they are cars models, comic book characters, or similar, while our leads already handle these matters perfectly well, employing nuance. These infoboxes are redundant and misleading and show a very poor understanding of the material they're supposed to reflect. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC) First statement by volunteer (Norse mythology infoboxes) Read DRN Rule D again. Please pay particular attention to sections D.4 and D.6. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to the community and the moderator (me). One editor wants to have the same practice with regard to infoboxes for Norse gods as for other mythological gods. Do they have a reason, other than the general principle of consistency, why they want to specify a standard practice across different mythologies and pantheons? I have looked at the documentation of WikiProject Mythology and have not found a style guide or similar standard, and in particular have not found a guideline about infoboxes. If any editor is aware of a guideline about infoboxes that is applicable to mythology, or specifically to Norse mythology, please identify it. If there is no project guideline (and I haven't found one), then a decision on infoboxes is made on an article basis. It appears that articles on Greek gods or Mesopotamian gods have infoboxes because the editors of those articles have chosen on an article-by-article basis to have infoboxes. It appears that any editor who wants infoboxes for Norse gods can either discuss them on an article-by-article basis, and possibly have RFCs on an article-by-article basis, or can work at the level of WikiProject Mythology. What does each editor want to do now, or think should be the next step? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Norse mythology infoboxes) Standardization is a part of my reason for the inclusion of infoboxes, but is not the sole reason. I feel like infoboxes can bring up information scattered around the article into an accessible summery, like equivalent gods. On Thor's page the section where it discusses Thor's connection with different gods from other mythologies, is quite far down thus less likely to be seen by readers who'd just read the summery, or skim the page. An infobox can take this information and make it accessible to these types of readers. Any other points I feel like can be better explained be VeryRarelyStable. Dots321 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Accessibility is key. For deities that have largely ceased to be worshipped, the Norse gods have a relatively prominent position in present-day culture – close to par, I would say, with the Graeco-Roman gods. Consequently, like a scholarly article with many citations, they are being referenced on the peripheries of an increasing number of formerly unrelated areas of culture. Whether we like it or not, this means that people will increasingly be coming by to seek small snippets of information about them. We can ask them to drop what they're doing and read the whole article instead, but they're not going to. In many cases, they will have received some misinformation and be seeking to confirm whether it is true or not. If they can't find the information, some proportion of them are going to decide that the misinformation is true (since they can't find a clear statement to the contrary), and repeat it. If we care about misinformation we need to care about accessibility and readability. Which, as I have already said, is my main concern with regard to infoboxes. It would take me beyond the scope of this discussion to expand upon this point, but while experts in a given subject are obviously the most qualified people to judge the accuracy and reliability of articles on that subject, they are, by reason of their very expertise, the least qualified to judge the readability of such articles – because the technicalities and terminology are all familiar to them and they do not see how daunting, or baffling, they are to non-experts. Lay reader contributions are essential. So I would be less concerned about the absence of infoboxes if someone were to rewrite each Norse mythology article thoroughly, from the ground up, to the point where they lead non-expert readers gently from familiar concepts to unfamiliar, instead of throwing them into the scholarly deep end and letting them sink or swim. No factual point need be lost, but much of the terminology would have to be simplified. While we're waiting for someone to volunteer to do that, I suggest we use an infobox for accessibility in the meantime. As regards standardization, I think there's a case to be made for consistent usage of the {{Infobox deity}} template across the mythology and religion articles, which might need to be raised at the relevant WikiProject. It's not simply consistency for aesthetics' sake, but that consistency lends aid to coherency. Speaking for myself, I think I tend to subconsciously read the size of an infobox as a quick proxy measure of the importance and scholarly depth of its topic. I suspect I am not alone. (I mean, of course, the size of an article's infobox as compared to the infoboxes of comparable articles. I don't compare the infobox for Aphrodite to the infobox for Dunedin, but I do compare it to the infobox for Enki.) —VeryRarelyStable 12:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC) "Accessibility is key...We can ask them to...read the whole article instead, but they're not going to...we need to care about accessibility and readability." I'm sympathetic to encyclopedic articles being accessible to non-experts. Additionally, every element of an encyclopedic article should present concise information that is factually unassailable . An infobox is useful when it advances at least one of those two objectives without degrading either. Non-experts can and should be expected to do some work to engage with encyclopedic material. Nobody has to read an entire article to acquire desired information. Text search functions are available to everyone on every device and every browser. "...I suggest we use an infobox for accessibility in the meantime." There seems to be a difference in opinion regarding the practical consequences of inserting an infobox into Thor. The best course of action is to construct a prototype, present it on the Talk page, and find out if prototype iteration survives scrutiny. Take it to other interested Talk pages if it is met with intransigence. Chino-Catane (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC) Second statement by volunteer (Norse mythology infoboxes) Two editors have made statements that support the inclusion of infoboxes for Norse deities. The editors who oppose infoboxes have not made statements. However, it is clear that the editors who want infoboxes can take either of two approaches. The first is the article-by-article approach. They can develop infoboxes, one at a time, for Norse deity articles, and insert them into the articles. The editors who oppose the infoboxes will revert their addition, at which point the proponents can submit RFCs on whether to include the infobox. The infobox should be developed before the RFC is submitted, so that the community will know what they are voting for or against. The second approach is the subject-wide approach. The editors who support infoboxes can discuss at WikiProject Mythology, and can develop and implement a style guide that provides that infoboxes should be used for articles on deities. Alternatively, a style guide can be developed that provides that infoboxes should not be used for articles on deities. Please let me know which approach will be taken by infobox proponents. Are there any other questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Norse mythology infoboxes) First, there is a consensus that infoboxes are at best useless and at worst bearers of misinformation for this topic. Consensus has always been squarely against infoboxes on these articles, as demonstrated quite clearly above. Given the lack of consensus for infoboxes (are we really debating this?), none of us who are opposed to this should be dragged further into this discussion. Keep in mind that we're dealing here with a duo of editors who are insisting we add phrases like "god of wheat" to our Sif article and "god of wisdom" to our Odin article, displaying not only ignorance of the topic but a lack of concern for nuance or sourcing. Edits like that are routinely reverted on sight to avoid article quality decay. Second, there's zero reason to apply infoboxes to these articles. These are not car models, comic book characters, or train types we're discussing here but complex figures from myth. A core group of motifs remains consistent among them but there are many unknowns and some material about them varies by source, and those sources come with their own complex considerations. The data we have can on deities can change over time as for example deities develop into different roles or in difference spaces (a matter our Classical myth articles are for example painfully bad about communicating to our readers). Frankly, none of our myth or folklore articles should have infoboxes: they're totally pointless for them. To be correct, the lead must cover the material with the nuance and variation required of the topic. Third, the few editors who demand here that we add these infoboxes have demonstrated a very poor understanding of the material they're discussing. They haven't taken the time to become familiar enough with the topic to discuss it, much less demand that we treat it in any specific way. Suggesting that there's a need for infoboxes on all folklore articles appears to be a suggestion made out of 'I've been reverted!' spite to push back on the rest of us, a problem not unique to Wikipedia but all too present in the project. Obviously, there is not and should not be any requirement for infoboxes on our articles, and edits and comments from these editors have demonstrated that they are not in a position of familiarity with these topics to even imply as much. It's petty and unhelpful. Look, this discussion is not constructive. Wikipedia has many problems that need assistance resolving and a lack of infoboxes is not one of them. We need more hands to help with improvement on our folklore coverage beyond northern Europe, not time wastes like this. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Well, I think it's pretty clear what the outcome would be of an RFC. A consensus is not a consensus if it defines its community to exclude all those who dissent. I see infoboxes yet again being dismissed as suitable for "car models, comic book characters, or train types" as if it were already agreed that that is all infoboxes are good for. This is an example of the logical fallacy known as begging the question. My initial comment on Talk:Thor was made simply and solely to raise that question. I do not agree that infoboxes imply that a subject is simple and cut-and-dried, and no argument has been advanced to support the claim that they imply any such thing; that claim has now been asserted without support, by my count, six times in this discussion alone. That being the case, I support seeking standardization with guidance from WikiProject Mythology. I have said what I have to say about readability; I do not feel my concerns have been addressed, but my repeating what I have already said will add nothing to it. —VeryRarelyStable 08:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC) I agree with VeryRarelyStable and support seeking guidance from RFC or WikiProject Mythology. Although a bit unrelated to the sole inclusion of infoboxes I would like to raise the question what does it mean to be the god of something. If a deity is associated with something, doesn't that mean that deity is the god of it? But this question is best continued elsewhere like WikiProject Mythology. Dots321 (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC) I've been following the back-and-forth at the Thor article and Bloodofox is right. This ill-begotten quest is an unproductive time sink and a waste of energies that should be devoted to improving the article rather than dumbing it down with the gross oversimplification of a worse than useless infobox that harms the article's integrity. Carlstak (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Norse mythology infoboxes) I don't think that compromise is likely. Some editors are strongly opposed to infoboxes, and some editors are strongly in favor of them. The status quo is that articles on Norse gods do not have infoboxes, and articles on gods in other mythologies have infoboxes. As I have noted before, the proponents of infoboxes can work in either or both of two ways. The first is that they can develop infoboxes on an article-by-article basis and submit RFCs for the community to decide whether to add the infoboxes. The second is that they can discuss at WikiProject Mythology, and can develop and implement a style guide that provides that infoboxes should be used for articles on deities. Alternatively, a style guide can be developed that provides that infoboxes should not be used for articles on deities. If there are no other questions or comments, I will close this thread as being discussed on article talk pages and at a WikiProject. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Norse mythology infoboxes) I support both options of requesting RFC or seeking help at Wikiproject Mythology. I feel like the infoboxes I developed for the pages were sufficient enough, even with the supposed "misinformation" that was calling the deities a god of something. Although I am biased about my contributions. Dots321 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC) As I say, it's pretty clear from this conversation what the outcome of an RfC would be; if the opposing party don't so much as notice that we have raised points not covered by the stock responses they've been using for years, we can't hound them for answers. That being the case, WikiProject Mythology would be the next step. Some time in the next week, when I get time, I will formulate a proposal for standardizing the {{Infobox deity}} template. Something gives me the feeling, however, that any outcome except "delete the template altogether" will be disregarded at the Norse mythology pages. If that is the outcome, or if not, when the standardized infoboxes are removed from the Norse pages anyway, I guess it will fall to me (as the one who has noticed the problem) to undergo the more time-consuming task of rewriting the Norse pages from the beginning to the point that they can be read by non-experts. This concludes what I have to say on the matter. —VeryRarelyStable 04:18, 10 July 2024 (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:Taylor Swift

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Gsgdd on 09:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Taylor Swift (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Gsgdd (talk · contribs) Ippantekina (talk · contribs) FrB.TG (talk · contribs) Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview i think intro is written in fan point of view. i tried to change it. involved editors repeatedly revert my edits. i tried to place tag POV lead - so that i can get opinion from uninvolved users - but that was also reverted too. I already have several editors agreeing to the issue, even supporting placing the tag. What is the best option to get consensus. Can this tag be placed? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Swift See last topic How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please place POV lead tag - so that uninvolved wiki editors can review and contribute to fix the issue Talk:Taylor Swift discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. The filing editor is required to notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Notified @Robert McClenon Gsgdd (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Are you serious right now? There’s literally an ongoing civilized discussion on how to improve the lead and all you care about is sticking that godawful tag in a featured article, one that is supposed to represent the best of Wikipedia. Also, you need to stop with this aggressive approach. First you got involved in edit-warring with multiple editors and repeatedly accused other editors of being biased when you should be commenting on the content and not on the editors. Maybe constructively engage in the talk page discussion instead of obsessing over a tag. FrB.TG (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC) @FrB.TG I wanted to express my concern about your revert to people’s edits based on arbitrary rules, such as prohibiting “ugly tags” on featured articles. I initiated a discussion on Talk page before making any edits and waited two days ( no one replied) before proceeding. However, my edit was reverted with the explanation that consensus needed to be reached. When I then placed a tag, it was reverted again for being “ugly.” The only person opposing the topic is a Swiftie User:Ippantekina who primarily edits Taylor Swift pages. Like i said - placing tags gets attention of uninvolved editors - help improve the article. I dont think there is a rule - it cannot be placed on feature article. Please respect others’ time and feedback. Reverting should not be used as a tool to discourage and punish editors from making improvements to articles without any valid reason. Gsgdd (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC) @FrB.TG And if you are accusing me that i only care about placing that tag - its so incorrect. I tried to fix issues. But was reverted aggressively by involved editors. And you did not have any opinion on the matter ( ie its fan point of view or not ) All you care about is not placing any such tags and reverting edit's preventing improvements. Look at your actions first. Gsgdd (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC) That tag may no longer be needed. We now have lot of editors making comments. But at that time only person objecting was User:Ippantekina. You were just reverting without participating in Talk and you wrote the intro. So maybe you did not want it to be changed. Its was so easy for you to revert - but maybe adhere to wiki standards first and please stop playing wiki god. Gsgdd (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2024 (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.

African diaspora

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kyogul on 01:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute African diaspora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kyogul (talk · contribs) Xuxo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I noticed other countries' populations included multiracial figures and so I included it for Brazil as I'm most familiar with sources for it and gave almost five sources, many being genetic studies showcasing Pardo/multiracial Brazilians across the entire country having significant African ancestry and made notes distinguishing the amount between people who identify as preto/black vs. pardo/mixed. @Xuxo has a problem with this and has made claims such as not all pardos have African ancestry despite multiple (genetic) studies I linked showcasing otherwise. He says stick to the census, and I then provide him an article that talks about "African-Brazilians being the majority" in which the IBGE (Brazilian census) comments on the trend. He then proceeds to say the source is afro-centric and dismiss it when it's from The Guardian, a reputable international source. He continues to make claims and misrepresent my sources and when pressed for sources, he is extremely obstinate and either refuses to give any or refuses to give any relevant ones. He also does not understand what the term afrodescendant means as he thinks it's a synonym for black person. I explained multiple times already that afrodescendant does not mean someone has to be predominately African. He also has a history of white-washing other Latin American pages and has been warned about it. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have proposed to only include people who identify as black for all countries, not just Brazil. I have said this to Xuxo multiple times and he has refused it and just wants to whitewash Brazil's population. He also has a history of doing this on other Latin American pages [9] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Hopefully talk some sense into him because I've explained it very simply and he refuses to listen Summary of dispute by Xuxo Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. African diaspora 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.

Kylie Minogue

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by PHShanghai on 19:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Kylie Minogue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved PHShanghai (talk · contribs) Hotwiki (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Whenever I try to edit this article to fix wordy hard-to-read text or to re-add missing information, it always gets reverted with comments like "not needed" and "stop trying to change it." I try to take it to the talk page to reach a compromise, but it always reaches an impasse because all arguments essentially whittle down to "Keep it as it is." and "It is not an improvement in my opinion." It also doesn't help that whenever I reply, I get like 5 more replies saying that even things such as basic grammatical copy/editing are "not improvements" and "too drastic changes". How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kylie_Minogue#Tension_critical_acclaim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kylie_Minogue#Contemporary_sources_for_%22Princess_of_Pop%22 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I do want to reach compromise and be more constructive and eventually work on more of the article, but the filibustering is whittling me down. I would like a third or fourth opinion on the whole situation. Summary of dispute by Hotwiki @PHShanghai: has a pattern/habit of everytime they come across the article of Kylie Minogue, they would drastically change the lead section of the article, to the point they've been called out for misformation several times.[10] They claimed that Minogue's first four albums were teen pop albums which were false.[11] When I brought it up, in the talk page, they admitted that they haven't listened to those albums in a long time. They claimed other singles from Minogue's albums Fever had the same chart success as "Can't Get You Out of My Head" which was false, since the other singles didn't enter the top 20 of Billboard Hot 100 and weren't number-one singles in Australia and the Uk.[12] They claimed that certain singles "Dancing", "Say Something" and "Magic" were critically acclaimed yet those singles didn't win any awards.[13] At one point, they claimed that the singles "Say Something" and "Magic" made a significant noise, yet those singles failed to chart in the top 40. The editor also made a RFC request in the talkpage - their proposal to the lead section, and no one really agreed to their proposal.[14] They also had an issue with the infobox picture, to the point they've changed it to two different files.[15] The 2nd file, when someone cropped their uploaded file [16], they wouldn't let that cropped version remain in the infobox [17] The changes they've made in July 2024, a grammatically change wasn't needed and it wasn't an issue to begin with.[18] They were the only one who is activitely trying to alter this sentence "She has been recognised for reinventing herself in music as well as fashion, and is referred to by the European press as the "Princess of Pop" and a style icon." The issue with PHShanghai, goes beyond grammatically change. Every once in a while, they would alter the lead paragraph specifically. There were several times, they made it more wordy when the lead section should be brief. A lot of their changes in the lead section aren't really needed "in my opinion" and they had a history of posting misinformation in the article. Other issues are already discussed in the talk page/talk page archive, and there are more issues there that were brought up, regarding PHShanghai's lead section contributions.Hotwiki (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Kylie Minogue discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by moderator (Kylie Minogue) I am ready to act as moderator if the editors here want moderated discussion as the way to resolve any content disputes. Please read and agree to DRN Rule A. I will restate a few points in the rules. First, be civil and concise, which means to be concise. Overly long posts may help the poster feel better, but do not always clarify the issues. Second, comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Those two statements say the same thing, which needs repeating. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I will ask a two-part question. First, does each editor agree to DRN Rule A? Second, what specifically do you want to change that the other editor wants to leave the same, or what do you want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change? Do not give general answers. Be specific at DRN. We need to know what we are discussing. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Kylie Minogue) I have read and agree to DRN Rule A. I am only here regarding my concerns about the quality of the prose of this article, which given that it is a featured article that was last reviewed in 2009, may need a WP:FAR to reevaluate the article quality. I want to maintain the article's FA quality (with regards to references and text quality, once again) but given the constant stonewalling, it has been admittedly hard to do so. Specifically, I would like to make the article more concise by whittling down the lead paragraph's word count from 450 words to 400~ words, and clean up the article body to be under 6,000~ words (right now, the word count is currently at 6,700 words.) There's information there that can be moved to other sections (regarding Minogue's businesses outside of music), in addition, every article section all have 5 paragraphs each; I'm confident it can be consolidated to a more MOS-friendly 3-4 paragraphs. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Kylie Minogue) The filing editor has replied with a general statement. The other editor made an introductory statement but has not replied to my request for a more specific statement. Since neither editor has been specific at DRN, I will wait about 48 hours to see if the editors provide enough detail about how they want to improve the article for further discussion to be useful. If one editor wants to trim the lede section, they can develop a draft lede section in a sandbox and replace the current lede with the draft version. If that is reverted, the community can be asked to choose between the two lede sections with an RFC. The same approach can be followed for any section of the article. The other editor is encouraged to comment and discuss, but otherwise we can follow the sequence of Bold - Revert - No Discuss - RFC. I will wait for about 48 hours to see if there are any specific suggestions, or if the sequence of BRNDR is in order. Are there any other questions or comments at this time? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Kylie Minogue) No other questions, my zeroeth statement outlined all of the issues I currently have with the article. Thank you. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2024 (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.

Serbia men's national basketball team

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Wikiacc321 on 19:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Serbia men's national basketball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Wikiacc321 (talk · contribs) SpinnDoctor (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have edited the Competitive record section of the article to include data such as point differentials, winning percentages, head coaches, to add another sub-section which includes all major tournaments in one table, etc. User SpinnDoctor keeps removing my work without even the slightest attempt at compromise. He seems particularly opposed to me putting the Olympic Games record first, and the FIBA World Cup record second, which is the case with many national team pages. In order to avoid this, I even tried accepting his wish on this issue, but even then he only responded by deleting all of my work, including the completely uncontroversial parts. I am forwarding the issue to Dispute Resolution since he has shown no will for even slightest compromise, and I have put in enough effort to find deleting my work unacceptable. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have discussed the issue on the edit summaries with him, but it is pointless given that his immediate reaction is to delete all of my work. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Warn him against further vandalism. Summary of dispute by SpinnDoctor Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Serbia men's national basketball team 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.

Primavera Capital Group

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by WorldPeace888 on 06:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Primavera Capital Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved WorldPeace888 (talk · contribs) Amigao (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hi there, An editor named 'amigao' has repeatedly and successfully undone an edit aimed at balancing a paragraph on the page, which currently seems biased. Current paragraph: "In September 2023, Florida governor...." The part "Fred Hu denied any membership in the CCP" was added by another admin in an attempt to find a middle ground without consultation. The main issue is that this statement is factually incorrect. According to the updated Financial Times (FT) article, it is Primavera, the firm, that denied his membership with the CCP, which is quite different. Additionally, repeatedly mentioning Fred Hu on the company's page is unusual. If Fred Hu is notable, he could have his own page, rather than being mentioned throughout this topic. I had proposed two options for editing the para to the other editor, when the editor reverted the edits the first time around. Details for the options provided can be found on the 'talk section' of the topic. However, in reply the editor seem to have checked an incorrect link (an archived article) & came up with a random question, even when the correct links were provided on the talk page. I believe the editor obstructing these edits may have a certain bias or perspective. Therefore, I would appreciate it if other neutral third parties could help resolve this. Thank you for your assistance! How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [19] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please help ensure: the content on the page remain on the topic of the page and not any specific person. Also, if there is a real justification for the content being 'undone' & replaced with 'factually incorrect' content. Summary of dispute by amiago Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm okay with a WP:THIRD here. It seems that this issue stems from some misunderstanding of this particular statement from the Financial Times: "Primavera Capital, the firm later founded by Fred Hu, has subsequently stated that he is not a member of the CCP or any other political party and was not a CCP member at the time when he was an executive at Goldman Sachs." After WorldPeace888 brought this updated Financial Times article to my attention, I summarized it in the main article. The proposed "Option 1" below omits this statement entirely and "Option 2" misconstrues the FT's statement to the point of being factually incorrect. - Amigao (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC) @Amigao: So do you wish to participate in this mediation or would you like to seek a third opinion (might be better)? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC) WP:THIRD would be my preference. Thanks. - Amigao (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC) @Amigao: Then feel free to list it at WP:3O and I will close this case. Thank you. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC) @Amigao, could have easily given the same reply in the 'talk section' & I would have explained 'again' the objectives behind the edits. The idea is to have a balanced & a well read statement, either by using 'The Guardian' or Financial Times' while proving that even references used have balanced articles and they republish/update them to make it balanced, if needed. Option 1: explains the facts in simple language while using a 'credible source'. Also, why is one of the founders given so much importance on the page? It's not his page, its a company page. Also the company denied on his behalf. So, why does the edited/current ver. say 'Fred Hu denied'. @Kovcszaln6 WP:THIRD however is non binding, may be that's why it's being opt'ed. What if @Amigao still after the verdict (if not in his favour) doesn't allow the edits? It was due to his subborness of 'not replying' on the talk page + reverting the edits without justification, that I had to open the WP:DRN in the first place. Why can't we resolve it here? I am ok with whatever the final judgement you provide. WorldPeace888 (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC) @WorldPeace888: DRN is non-binding and completely voluntary. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC) Sounds like I need to focus on editing tonnes of articles, get more rights & then I can bully anyone by undoing any content, I don't like. Got it! thanks WorldPeace888 (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC) Primavera Capital Group discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note: I'm not sure whether the parties would like mediation or the opinion of an uninvolved third-party. For the latter, please see Wikipedia:Third opinion. Please clarify which one you would like. Thanks Kovcszaln6 (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) I have opted for mediation, since my edits were 'undone' twice. The second time around no justification given (there is radio silence from the other end) for reverting the edited content even after proactively reaching out. After undoing my edits (second time) the other editor added a 'factually incorrect' statement. Point being: How can a correctly edited sentence edits are undone, without any reasoning? Also, the current sentence does not sound well, so why can't it be reworded with the same meaning and updated information? WorldPeace888 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (Primavera) After looking through the case, I am willing to moderate this dispute. I would like to ask the editors involved to state whether they are willing to comply with Wikipedia:DRN Rule A; and specifically what changes they wish to make (or what they wish to leave as is) and briefly explain why. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by editors (Primavera) @Kovcszaln6 Thanks for opting in for moderating this case. I agree to comply with Wikipedia:DRN Rule A. Change the below (current) statement: In September 2023, Florida governor Ron DeSantis announced that voucher programs for four private schools owned by Spring Education Group would be ended due to alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) via its majority owner, Primavera Capital Group and its CEO Fred Hu. Fred Hu denied any membership in the CCP. Proposed updates: OPTION 1: "In September 2023, Florida governor Ron DeSantis ended voucher programs for four Spring Education Group schools, citing concerns about ties to Primavera Capital Group. This was one of the measures against the Chinese Communist party in the state of Florida. However, as per The Guardian the action taken against the four schools was without evidence." OPTION 2: "n September 2023, Florida governor Ron DeSantis ended voucher programs for four Spring Education Group schools, citing concerns about ties to Primavera Capital Group, though as per Financial Times the firm denied having political connections with China's ruling party." Reasons for edits: Financial Times (FT) updated it's article with more neutral content, which is one of the references for the above para. Overuse of the name Fred Hu. This article is about Primavera. If Fred Hu is notable he can have his own page. The para sounds biased. Wiki is a neutral platform and the content should be neutral. When you read the sentences, they don't read well. WorldPeace888 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2024 (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.

Benevolent dictatorship

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Banedon on 03:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Benevolent dictatorship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Banedon (talk · contribs) LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Me and LokiTheLiar (and some other editors, but mostly the two of us) have been engaged in a long-running dispute about whether to include examples in the page. We've gone through RfCs and pings to WP:Politics, but never got anywhere; in fact the latest dispute suggests we even interpret the close reason for the previous RfC differently. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [20] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I don't believe more discussion between me and LokiTheLiar will lead anywhere; we simply disagree on a fundamental level and there's no prospect that will change. Any further discussion will just be rehashing old arguments. Weighing in on how to interpret the close reason would be a good start. Summary of dispute by LokiTheLiar Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I interpret the close of the RFC a year ago to mean that dictators that are foundational to the concept of a benevolent dictator, like Cincinnatus, should be included with attribution, and that no other examples should be added even with attribution. I also think that this is a correct editorial decision as someone who started and participated in that RFC. Note that I wouldn't necessarily mind brief mentions of specific people, but I definitely think that organizing the page as a series of examples is very bad. Loki (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Benevolent dictatorship discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. PS: Courtesy ping to Tayi Arajakate as the closer of the RfC (although as far as I can tell, they are inactive). Banedon (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship) I am willing to try to work on this dispute to see how to try to resolve this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A, which will apply to our preliminary discussion. Be civil and concise. I see that there was an RFC about one-and-one-half years ago, and that the RFC did not resolve the disagreement, and now there appears to be disagreement about how to interpret the close of the RFC. Since the RFC was more than a year ago, and had disagreement at the time, a new RFC is probably a better idea than moderated discussion aimed at interpreting the RFC. So I have a few questions. Address your answers to my questions to the community and the moderator, not to each other. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion of the answers. First, do the editors agree to accept DRN Rule A? Second, are there any other content disagreements besides whether to provide examples? Third, does any editor have any objection to another RFC? We will probably have another RFC anyway. It will probably be preceded by discussion to define how to word the RFC, such as the inclusion or non-inclusion of specific examples. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship) 1) Sure, DRN Rule A looks reasonable. 2) There're no other content disputes that I'm aware of (LokiTheLiar might have a different interpretation). 3) Sure, we can have another RfC - but how will you do it different such that it can resolve the dispute? Banedon (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC) First statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship) One editor has asked a question. The other editor has not yet made a statement, and is still invited to make a statement. One editor asks: Sure, we can have another RfC - but how will you do it different such that it can resolve the dispute? The first problem with the previous RFC is that some editors thought that the close was wrong, and disagreed with the RFC They ignored or disregarded the RFC rather than challenging the RFC close at WP:AN. This meant that the RFC was an empty exercise. If the result of the second RFC is in any way contentious, it should be reviewed in WP:AN, rather than ignored. Then, after any challenge of the RFC at WP:AN to the community, editors who edit against consensus persistently should be partially blocked. Unless there is a reason why there should not be a second RFC, a draft of the second RFC will be prepared,. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship) Second statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship) I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Benevolent dictatorship/Draft RFC. Please review it and comment on it. If there are no significant comments, I will move it into the article talk page in 24 to 48 hours and activate it. Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship) I don't object to the wording, but since it's effectively the same RfC as the first one how is it going to resolve the dispute? We can predict that it'll result in a 50% include and 50% do-not-include result, which still leaves things unresolved. Banedon (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Third statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship) Do you have a different suggestion? Do you think that a revised wording is more likely to work better? In particular, should examples be provided in the RFC? If there are constructive suggestions for how to improve the RFC, we will continue to work on the RFC. Otherwise I will activate the draft RFC. Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship) I'm okay with another RFC but I sort of share Banedon's concerns about this RFC not actually resolving the issue. I do think it's better to try it than not though. Loki (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Considering the arguments for inclusion and non-inclusion are multi-faceted, it might make more sense to link the diff directly (this one) and ask if the removal is appropriate. Respondents can then say yes, the material should be removed and no similar material added, or no, the material is good/can be salvaged, etc. Banedon (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC) I'd personally prefer the RFC as-worded. I don't think "Here's a diff that removed most of the content on the page, is it good?" is better than "Should we have examples of specific benevolent dictators?" Loki (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC) How would that lead to a different result compared to the RfC a year ago? Banedon (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC) It probably wouldn't, but I'm fine with that, since my goal from the beginning is to implement the result of the RFC. I don't feel any pressing need to change the consensus. Loki (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC) And that I would strongly disagree with, since I think you misread the close reason. Banedon (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC) I'm pretty confident I didn't misread the close reason, as the person who started that RFC in the first place. But if nothing else, a new RFC will have a new close reason that will presumably be harder to misinterpret. Loki (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC) I missed Robert's question about examples in the RFC, and I do think some specific examples might help, since there was a difference of opinion last time about examples crucial to the concept (like Cincinnatus) and just random dictators who have at some time been called benevolent by someone. I also think that, because of the way the RFC was closed last time, we should at minimum include the status quo of the previous RFC (namely, "only if crucial to the concept AND with attribution"), in addition to "yes" and "no". But I wouldn't object to more options than this. Finally, I think that it might be relevant how examples are mentioned. I can say for myself that I feel the example section in the article previously was big WP:NPOV problem: giving Castro or Tito a whole section in benevolent dictators implies very strongly that they are benevolent in Wikivoice. However, I have much less problem with inline mentions with attribution: Source X calls Fidel Castro a "benevolent dictator", while sources Y and Z disagree. Loki (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Fourth statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship) Each editor is asked to propose improvements to the RFC. I am not planning to publish the RFC in the form of asking about deleting anything. So if you think that there should be examples, propose specific examples (and be aware that the examples may be controversial). If you think that the question should give a choice other than Yes and No, state it. I intend to put the RFC in the form that I think is most likely to resolve the issue. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship) My preferred RFC question: Question 1: Should this article include examples of benevolent dictators at all? Option Y: Yes. Option A: Only with attribution. Option N: No. Question 2: If Options Y or A, which of the following examples that were included in a previous version of this article should be included? Cincinnatus, the legendary dictator of the ancient Roman Republic. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the modern Turkish state. Josip Broz Tito, head of communist Yugoslavia from 1953 to 1980. Lee Kwan Yew, influential leader of Singapore. France-Albert René, dictator of the Seychelles from 1977 to 2004. Thomas Sankara, dictator of Burkina Faso from 1983 to 1987. Question 3: If Options Y or A, should the examples be each in their own separate sections (as per the status quo) or only inline? Option S: Separate sections. Option I: Inline. Loki (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC) I'd rather give specific diffs illustrating the differences. Question: Should this article contain examples or not? Banedon (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC) Fifth statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship) Exactly what is meant by "Only with attribution"? Does that mean in the form that "A considers B to have been a benevolent dictator of country C?" I infer that is what is meant, but want to be sure. I have revised the draft RFC to include the With Attribution option and to provide proposed examples. Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship) That is what I meant by "With Attribution", yes. But I'd also like to say I don't really like the separate Possible Examples section, and that I'm fine with Banedon's two diffs version. The point of the different sections was to settle all the various subquestions that were brought up by participants in the last RFC. (Back then it was clear that many editors had opinions that were not "yes" or "no", especially around with/without attribution and whether Cincinnatus in particular was different from other examples.) While I'd prefer to vote on them directly, I think that if they're just going to be hanging around, Banedon's version with the two diffs is a better way to do that than just listing them. Loki (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC) Again I'd rather give example diffs, because the version right now promotes responses like "___ shouldn't be listed, because ...", which are not helpful with resolving the core issue. After resolving that, if the result is "yes", then one can argue whether ___ should be listed. Banedon (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Sixth statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship) Any editor who has a different idea about the RFC is invited to develop their own draft RFC. Maybe I don't understand something. I am willing to consider other ideas, but it's someone else's turn to write the next draft RFC. Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship) I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for - both LokiTheLiar and I have given preferred wordings above. Banedon (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC) In addition, I even said I was okay with Banedon's proposed wording. Loki (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC) Would you object if I start the RfC using my wording? Banedon (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC) Go ahead. Loki (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2024 (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.

Voice of Reason (political party)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Michalis1994 on 18:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Voice of Reason (political party) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Michalis1994 (talk · contribs) HighDunker (talk · contribs) Dispute overview It seems HighDunker keeps removing controversial statements made by the leader without any explanation. They claimed to have sought consensus, but no agreement has been reached on removing this content. Additionally, there have been persistent attempts by IP addresses, likely related to the same user, to remove content from the article in an effort to whitewash and sanitise the leader's views. Another argument is that the leader's views don't represent the party, but the party is focused solely on culture wars, and the leader's name appears in the party's name: Voice of Reason - Afroditi Latinopoulou. Any assistance would be very useful. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Voice_of_Reason_(political_party)#History_of_Latinopoulou How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A neutral user is needed here to decide whether the content should be removed or retained. The information is supported by reliable and high-quality Greek sources. Despite previous claims that it was not reliably sourced, which were misleading, additional sources have been added to substantiate those claims. Summary of dispute by HighDunker The information that the other editor tried to add multiple times is both unrelated to the party (alot of it is personal statements, some not even political in nature but just personal squabbles, of the party leader *before she founded the party that the article is all about*. It both bloats the article unnecessarily and serves no purpose in explaining the ideology of the Voice of Reason party itself. There was also, with me and another editor, a consensus reached to not include that information until, without trying to mediate his changes through this very dispute resolution system, the other editor in this dispute proceeded to just revert our changes anyway. I tried explaining that such a revert needed consensus to be reached first, but to no avail. Voice of Reason (political party) 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.

Etan Ilfeld

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Cheburasha on 12:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Etan Ilfeld (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Cheburasha (talk · contribs) LuddWrites (talk · contribs) CarlNord (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An editor named LuddWrites inserted a subsection titled "Investments in Israeli Artificial Intelligence" to the Wiki bio page of Etan Ilfeld, with the text: "Since late 2023,[7] Ilfield has been a venture partner at Remagine Ventures, an Israeli VC firm investing in Generative A.I. and supporting the wider "Generative A.I Landscape" of the Israeli Technology Sector.[8] Remagine, with Ilfield's investments, openly hires Israeli intelligence officers,[9] including from Unit 8200, the branch responsible for developing the A.I. systems "Lavender", "Habsora" [English: The Gospel], and "Where's Daddy", the latter of which aims to "track the targeted individuals and carry out bombings when they had entered their family’s residences".[10] Ilfield, as a partner of Remagine, co-signs their "Monthly Pulse" newsletter, which endorses the secondary newsletter Firgun, in support of the wider Israeli A.I. sector and the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces.[11]" This text was deleted by another editor ("CarlNord") for mischaracterising Reimagine's hiring policies and Ilfeld's political beliefs. As carlNord explains (and I am inclined to agree), LuddWrites creates an indefensible association between Ilfeld and the "support of the Israeli Defence Forces" based on citations that provide no backing to such claim and, worse still, based on tenuous associations that he draws between Ilfeld and a newsletter named "Firgun". The latter not only does not support the Israeli Defence Forces but also has no connection to Ilfeld himself. Furthermore, LuddWrites' claim that Ilfeld's venture capital firm, Reimagine, "openly hires" Israeli "Intelligence Officers" is similarly backed by a citation that provides no support to such a claim. I myself have weighed in on the conversation and attempted to point out to LuddWrites all these weaknesses, but he remains undeterred and has since reposted the said paragraph. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LuddWrites#Watkins_Books_edits How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like you to have the said paragraph removed, or at least amended to remove the evidence-free mischaracterisations of Reimagine and Etan Ilfeld contained in it. Summary of dispute by LuddWrites Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by CarlNord Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Etan Ilfeld 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.

Cyril Ramaphosa

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by JoshuaJ28 on 12:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Cyril Ramaphosa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved EthanRossie2000 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Nov 2022 Dispute over the selection of lead image. I prefer the "Nov 2022" image as it have higher resolution but the other user disagree with it and trying to replace it with a lower quality one (Jul 2023). Unless a recent image with higher quality is found, I think it's better to keep the "Nov 2022" image. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Cyril Ramaphosa#Infobox Image How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I hope the administrators would give clear guidance on whether the quality or recency is preferred over the selection of lead image. Summary of dispute by EthanRossie2000 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Cyril Ramaphosa 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.

RRR

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by SaibaK on 06:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute RRR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SaibaK (talk · contribs) Jayanthkumar123 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Movie RRR gathered praise from international filmmakers such as Steven Spielberg, James Cameron etc. which is highly unusual for an Indian movie. Such praise has been widely covered in media and a section was made to list the international filmmakers which praised it with detailed citations. However, some editors are deleting it again and again saying that it can't be included despite it being newsworthy and notable. We have discussed this extensively on the Talk page over the months, but the dispute continues. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RRR#Inclusion_of_acclaim_by_filmmakers_for_RRR How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Kindly provide comment on a) how whether or not the section contains notable information, b) is well cited or not c) should be entirely deleted or not despite being notable and well cited Summary of dispute by Jayanthkumar123 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. RRR discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Notification on the user talk page is a required step in requesting dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Hi @Robert McClenon Thanks for pointing that out. The user has now been notified on his talk page: User talk:Jayanthkumar123#Dispute resolution notification. Apologies for missing this step earlier. On a side note, this has also been earlier notified through the talk page on the topic to the user: Talk:RRR#Inclusion of acclaim by filmmakers for RRR We look forward to your kind thoughts towards a resolution. Thanks. SaibaK (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible moderator (RRR) So far, only the filing editor has responded. Rather than close the case due to lack of response, I will provide one more opportunity for the other editor to agree to moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule E and state whether you agree to follow those rules, and whether you understand that the contentious topics procedure is in effect because the subject matter is about India. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Please specify what changes you want to make to the article, including what paragraph and what wording, that the other editor does not want, or what you want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change. If both editors reply within 48 hours, we will begin moderated discussion. Otherwise I will provide advice to the filing editor on what to do next. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC) Hi @Robert McClenon Thanks for the note. Yes, I agree with following DRN Rule E and understand that the contentious topics procedure is in effect. ------------------- As you advised above, am including below the change that I would request for inclusion in the wikipedia article of RRR (note: citations for each are giving in the section after that). ------------------ Reception by international filmmakers Steven Spielberg praised RRR, saying "I couldn't believe my eyes – it was like eye candy...it was extraordinary to look at and experience." Rajamouli said in response "I can almost get up from the chair and do a dance – it means a lot to me." [1] (citation in section below) James Cameron said that he liked RRR so much that he watched it twice and praised the screenplay, direction and music direction of the movie. [2] (citation in section below) JJ Abrams said that he loves the ‘fever dream madness’ of RRR as he introduced SS Rajamouli at LA’s Chinese Theatre.[3] (citation in section below) Edgar Wright said that RRR was "an absolute blast" and said it was "The only film I have ever seen where the intermission card itself got a round of applause." [4] (citation in section below) Christopher Miller has praised RRR, describing it as "like Michael Bay and Baz Luhrmann and Stephen Chow teamed up to make a movie. It was 3 hours long but it could have been 4 hours and I would’ve still enjoyed it." [5] (citation in section below) Adam McKay publicly expressed support to RRR for the Oscar awards race. [6] (citation in section below) James Gunn said that about RRR that he "Totally dug it." [7] (citation in section below) Russo Brothers have publicly expressed their appreciation for RRR and its director SS Rajamouli . Joe Russo mentioned “I’ve seen RRR, and it’s amazing." He further mentions "What I think is so amazing about [RRR] is the emotion it evokes, combined with the spectacle."[8][9] (citation in section below) Scott Derrickson tweeted "To celebrate my birthday last night, my wife, kids and I watched @RRRMovie — what an awesomely outrageous roller coaster of a movie. Loved it"[10] (citation in section below) Joe Dante called RRR a brutal portrait that depicts the horrors of British colonisation and said that "I bet you’ve never seen anything quite like it" [11] (citation in section below) Jason Blum expressed his expectations that RRR could win Best Picture Oscar 2023 [12] (citation in section below) Daniel Kwan lauded the film, saying "While a lot of the blockbusters we're making in the states tend to have self aware, cheeky characters trapped in self-serious filmmaking, RRR was all heart-on-its-sleeve sincerity wrapped up in the most ridiculous over the top execution. So much to love." [13] (citation in section below) ---------------- The citation for the above [1] Ramachandran, Naman (10 February 2023). "Steven Spielberg, S.S. Rajamouli Talk 'RRR,' 'The Fabelmans': Watch Video (EXCLUSIVE)"Variety. Retrieved 14 July 2024. [2] "James Cameron praises RRR, asks SS Rajamouli if he wants to make Hollywood film" Hindustan Times. 21 January 2023. Retrieved 14 July 2024. [3] "JJ Abrams says he loves the 'fever dream madness' of RRR as he introduces SS Rajamouli at LA's Chinese Theatre. Watch". The Indian Express. 10 January 2023. Retrieved 14 July 2024. [4] "Baby Driver, Scott Pilgrim director Edgar Wright praises SS Rajamouli's RRR: An absolute blast". Hindustan Times. 14 August 2022. Retrieved 14 July 2024. [5] Miller, Christopher (15 June 2022). "Christopher Miller on RRR [6] "Don't Look Up director Adam McKay calls India's RRR snub 'a travesty', pledges support for SS Rajamouli film". The Indian Express. 22 September 2022. Retrieved 14 July 2024. [7] "Marvel directors James Gunn and Scott Derrickson praise RRR: 'Loved it'". Hindustan Times. 17 July 2022. Retrieved 14 July 2024. [8] "Joe Russo heaps praise on SS Rajamouli's RRR, calls it a 'well done epic'". Hindustan Times. 23 July 2022. Retrieved 14 July 2024. [9] "Russo brothers and 'RRR' director S.S. Rajamouli on the 'universal language' of action movies". EW.com. Retrieved 14 July 2024. [10] Derrickson, Scott (17 July 2022). "Scott Derrickson on RRR". The Indian Express. Retrieved 14 July 2024. [11] "Gremlins director Joe Dante calls SS Rajamouli's RRR a 'brutal portrait of British colonization': 'You've never seen anything quite like it'". The Indian Express. 19 July 2022. Retrieved 14 July 2024. [12] "Hollywood producer Jason Blum predicts RRR will win Best Picture at Oscars: 'Mark it down, please'". Hindustan Times. 9 January 2023. Retrieved 14 July 2024. [13] "'I'm working in the wrong country', says Hollywood director Daniel Kwan after watching RRR". Hindustan Times. 20 October 2022. Retrieved 14 July 2024. -------- Other links: The change can be seen with the proper citation in the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RRR&oldid=1235982253#Reception_by_international_filmmakers That contribution has since then been completely deleted by the other editor Jayanthkumar123 and discussion about the same can be seen in the talk page of RRR. ------- Thanks a lot for your time and consideration regarding the moderation. With regards, SaibaK SaibaK (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (RRR) 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.

Jagtar Singh Hawara

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Write&Publish on 22:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Jagtar Singh Hawara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Write&Publish (talk · contribs) GSS (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Revert by user GSS because he had an issue with the lead section. However, I revised it to reflect his concern. My edit contains generally the same content, and I have improved the grammar and updated the references with reliable sources. GSS says he has an issue with other areas of the edit; however, after asking which other sentance, he has not yet specified. If there is an issue with a particular sentence, it could be revised. Why revert the entire edit, which took me considerable time to contribute? I'm trying to resolve this in good faith; however, it does not seem the same from the opposing side. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Jagtar Singh Hawara#Revert by GSS User talk:GSS#Jagtar Singh Hawara How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? My contribution should be respected, and if there is an issue with a particular sentence, it could be revised, I am open to compromise. Summary of dispute by GSS Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Write&Publish is attempting to whitewash the article by pushing the same narrative that user "1forever&ever" had previously promoted. When asked to explain why they removed crucial information from the lead section, they failed to provide a convincing answer, responding instead with "In my opinion." Additionally, the user removed essential content from the infobox and other parts of the article and added content without proper sourcing. This behavior mirrors that of user "1forever&ever," who was blocked just three months before this account was created. Given the similarities between their contributions and those of "1forever&ever," I have filed a SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NZMann). Thank you, GSS 💬 05:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Jagtar Singh Hawara 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.

Washtub Bass

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by DaveCW on 22:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Washtub bass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved DaveCW (talk · contribs) TaipeiScene (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is an edit war for "Washtub Bass" page. An unknown player has been added to the Notable Players section. I say unknown, because provided citations list multiple washtub players in one band, and do not correspond to the player name given in the article's text. Merely playing an instrument does not rise to the level of notability. No citation makes note of any specific player. No citation makes note of the instrument beyond a simple list. No citation makes note of any proficiency on the instrument. No citation links to a recording with notable playing on it. The provided citations also list guitar and mandolin among other instruments, but no one would accept this as proof of notability in the Wikipedia articles on guitar or mandolin. Particularly egregious was the original deletion of the clarification that "Grammy nominated" refers to the packaging design. This is an important qualification for readers - important enough to be deleted by an obvious self-promoter. Deletion of this potentially embarrassing qualification is indicative of the promotional stance of TaipeiScene, and their unsuitability as a judge of notability. The nature of the instrument seems to invite commercial and band promotion. Some geographic locations might only have one band with a washtub. Such bands often have a rotating slate of washtub players, suggesting that serious practice time is not involved. For example, the Quarry Men had 4 players, none of whom rose to notability for their virtuosity - rather they are notable because of the extraordinary history of Quarry Men and the Beatles. There were multiple bands in the UK with tea-chest basses, including bands that Ringo Star and Van Morrison played in, but also many more. They cannot be listed as notable because there were so many. This band appears to be the only one in their area - not enough for notability outside of their locality. I have responded in the form of giving reasons for reverting, and on the article's Talk page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Washtub_bass How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? This edit war is not going to end until someone steps in. I have put to much care into this page to see it descend into self-promotion, and I have been consistent in this for years. Summary of dispute by TaipeiScene Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Washtub Bass discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. It appears "Washtub bass" is the correct spelling of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveCW (talk • contribs) 22:41, 30 July 2024 (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.

RRR

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by SaibaK on 00:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute RRR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SaibaK (talk · contribs) Jayanthkumar123 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Movie RRR gathered praise from international filmmakers such as Steven Spielberg, James Cameron etc and is widely covered by Indian and international media such as Variety, Times Of India, Hindusan Times, Economic Times etc. To cover this had a section was made to list the international filmmakers which praised it with detailed citations. However, some editors are deleting it again and again saying that it can't be included despite it being newsworthy and notable and being covered by national and international newspapers. We have discussed this extensively on the Talk page over the months, but the dispute continues. I had also opened another dispute resolution page but the warring editor avoided participation in it. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [21], [22],[23] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Kindly provide comment on a) whether or not the well cited that has been covered by national and international media qualifies as containing notable information, b) is well cited or not c) should it be entirely deleted despite being notable and well cited because of another editor's personal preferences? Summary of dispute by Jayanthkumar123 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Before having a discussion here, it is better to have a discussion on the article's talk page. I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page. [24]--Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC) We've had the discussion in the talk pages for a long time but @Jayanthkumar123 has been avoiding official moderator view (he evaded participation in the previous dispute resolution here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#RRR ) and is avoiding summarizing his position here again because he's not following Wikipedia's official policy of including 'notable and verifiable' content. I will request a moderator's/volunteer's neutral third party's view on this topic,through this dispute resolution please. SaibaK (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC) RRR discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by moderator (RRR) I am ready to moderate this dispute if the editors are ready for moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D and agree to it. This discussion will be subject to contentious topic rules because the movie was made in India. Discuss edits, not editors. Be civil and concise. In particular, be concise, and discuss article content, not each other. I will ask each editor to state or summarize, in one paragraph, what they want to change in the article that the other editor wants to leave alone, or what they want to leave alone that the other editor wants to change. Be specific at DRN, which means to say what sections and paragraphs of the article you want to change (or leave the same). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Thanks @Robert McClenon . I agree to DRN Rule D . In one paragraph my position is as follows: I'll request for the section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RRR&oldid=1237751973#Reception_by_international_filmmakers or at least the information contained within to be retained because this is highly pertinent to the reception of the movie and is covered in headlines by international and national newspapers/magazines such as Variety, Times of India, Hindustan Times, Economic Times etc. as can be seen from the citation. SaibaK (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC) There are many other editors who have contributed to the article, they might participate in the discussion. Seems like you are not interested in having a discussion with other editors. For example, see here [25], during the time, only you and other editor have discussed, that too he didn't agreed with your decision to add the section, but you have the discussion citing "As per the discussion in this wiki's Talk page." The discussion was done by only two, that too he didn't agree with your edits, but yet you said as per discussion. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC) So, you think you're following the wikipedia guidelines correctly @Jayanthkumar123 ? In that case you have no issue with agreeing the dispute resolution process by the moderator here, right? SaibaK (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC) UPDATE: on RRR talk page, acting administrator, @Isabelle Belato has noted that @Jayanthkumar123's actions seems like WP:STONEWALLING SaibaK (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (RRR) First statement by moderator (RRR) Read DRN Rule D. I said "Comment on content, not contributors" (D.4). I also said "Discuss edits, not editors" (D.4.3), which is the same thing, in order to repeat the rule. I have collapsed complaints by each editor about the other editor. Rule D.5 says not to edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Both of you edited the article after I stated the rule. You were both correctly rebuked by User:Isabelle Belato. SaibaK wrote, in an edit summary: User @jayanthkumar123 is ignoring two wikipedia dispute resolutions and vandalizing the article.. If you believed that the other editor's edits were vandalism, why didn't you report them at the vandalism noticeboard? If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. If, after thinking, you think that the edits were vandalism, you still should report them at AIV. If vandalism is reported, I will close this dispute as failed, because DRN is for content disputes, and vandalism is a conduct issue. I am placing this discussion on hold until you both acknowledge re-reading DRN Rule D again, and until I get an answer about vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC) Hi @Robert McClenon. Thanks for your comments. You're right, I shall strive to follow rule DRN rule D better. I acknowledge re-reading DRN Rule D and accept it. About vandalism: after closer reading, I now think that this isn't a case of vandalism but I do think that my well researched and well cited content is being stonewalled and I'd like to request dispute resolution on whether or not that content is 'notable and verifiable' and should be included. And thus I request your kind mediation. Thanks. SaibaK (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (RRR) Second statement by moderator (RRR) I am still waiting for an acknowledgement about DRN Rule D from one editor. I had said that if you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. My conclusion is that User:SaibaK has not been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism. If you have not been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is and what is not vandalism, do not make the allegation of vandalism, and certainly not in an edit summary. However, I will go ahead to what appears to be a content issue. It appears that SaibaK has added a section on Reception by International Filmmakers, and that Jayanthkumar123 has reverted that addition. Are there any other content issues? If there are no other content issues, or if this is the principal content issue, I will develop and submit an RFC asking whether to add the Reception by International Filmmakers section. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Thank you for developing and submitting the RFC. SaibaK (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC) If there are any other content issues, please state what they are. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC) None from my side. Thanks. SaibaK (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (RRR) Third statement by moderator (RRR) I have created a draft version of the RFC at Talk:RRR/RFC on International Filmmakers. Your comments are welcome. Please do not vote in the RFC yet, because it is not active. I will copy it from the subpage to the main talk page and activate it after review. Are there any other content issues or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Looks good. Thanks for your kind help. SaibaK (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Third statements by editors (RRR) 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.

Draft:Marylee Graffeo Fairbanks

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Childrenandart on 19:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Draft:Marylee Graffeo Fairbanks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Childrenandart (talk · contribs) CFA (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I believe that a Tony award winning producer of a hit Broadway show deserves to have a wikipedia page. This is an accomplished person with a hit podcast with iHeart radio and 100 episodes, in season four, and production company with fellow well known actors and producers. In the Broadway community this is considered quite notable. The Boston Globe has recently done a piece about this person and per the editors request all past work has been removed so as not to seem like a "resume". there are several YouTube interviews which mention her partnership in the production as well. I am unsure why this editor has deemed that winning a Tony Award isn't "notable". How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? User talk:Childrenandart How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think a third party should decide if this is a "noteworthy" submission. Summary of dispute by CFA Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Marylee Fairbanks discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Comment: by relatively uninvolved editor who has been trying to guide the filer: This is an Articles for Creation editor/reviewer discussion, which will likely be resolved by resubmission and another reviewer. This does not appear to me to be the correct venue. WP:AFCHD is more likely to bear fruit. User talk:CFA#Who is CFA? is mildly instructive. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:34, 6 August 2024 (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.

Existential risk studies

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by JoaquimCebuano on 16:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Existential risk studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved JoaquimCebuano (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I started this article in August 2, building the content on my draft. My purpose was to rectify what I had previously exposed in Talk:Global catastrophic risk as a confusion "between a hypothetical event, diversely imagined and theorized along history (both in religious thought and outside it), with a specific (yet not monolithic) framework that emerged in the very recent period and became known mainly as 'existential risk', especially in philosophical literature". I decided to create this article as rigorous as I could, using mainly sources that explicit stated the intellectual history of this field, which I found a sufficient amount. I then put the draft in the review process, in which it was soon approved and published in the mainspace. From that very moment I started to receive dismissive statements in the article talk page, the first section of which was, symptomatically, named only "What?", from which the editor started to insist on some points that, frankly, could only come, I think, from someone that didnt take the time to read the article and neither the sources. This user, for example, stated both that "this article discusses none of this: the history of the term, who uses it." and also that "I don't know why we would redirect Existential risk to this article, which is essentially taking a historiography approach.". Confusing and contradictory. Given the space, I cant really cover the whole discussion, but I would like to make clear that i invited the users multiple times to provide sources which minimally contradict the presentation of the topic, and until now none has been presented. Its extremely frustrating to see that I took all the effort to based the article on reliable sources and somehow I am loosing against superficial analogies, ad hoc rules and a kind of questioning which has no openness to answers. I really wish that a independent editor could review the article and the discussion to help us find a solution for this. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? The discussion has mainly evolved around one section Talk:Existential risk studies#What?, but today I found out that one user has created another section proposing the move of the article to the draft. I engaged with every point, and used the sources available to substantiate my position, as well as reviewing the article which is considered to be overlapping with this one. I tried to engage with one user in his talk page, but they didnt answer at all User talk:GreenC#Existential risk How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am having a hard time even understanding what is the point of the discussion beyond the attempt to discredit it. But I think that some flashing point are the quality of the article, its reliability on the sources to state what it states, and also the relation of 'existential risk' to 'existential risk studies'. If we are to believe in the sources, then existential risk is a concept of existential risk studies, which means that the redirection should be changed to it, but my edit was reverted. Existential risk studies 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.

Ashfield Independents

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by NottsPolitics on 21:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Ashfield Independents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved AshfieldPoliticss (talk · contribs) 208.169.86.177 (talk · contribs) 74.222.67.162 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Criminal Charges section, since renamed Charges of fraud, election offences and misconduct in public office. No other political party in the UK has this section, but each party in the UK has members who have had these issues. Therefore, it is not consistent with other Wiki articles about political parties in UK. The section was included out of political motivation during an election campaign period, made very prominent, and mainly used to deliver a smear campaign via social media during the election period. Either add the same section for all other parties in UK or remove it from this page to be consistent across all wiki pages about political parties in UK. When I have previously removed the section it was added straight back and lies where then published on wiki naming me as Tom Hollis/Ashfield Independent, which is not true. As per talk section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashfield_Independents Criminal Charges How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? As per talk section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashfield_Independents Criminal Charges NB - Criminal Charges section, since renamed Charges of fraud, election offences and misconduct in public office How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Remove the section entitled 'Charges of fraud, election offences and misconduct in public office' Or add this section for every other political party in the UK mentioned on wiki. Then stop this article from being vandalized. Summary of dispute by AshfieldPoliticss Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 208.169.86.177 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 74.222.67.162 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ashfield Independents 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.

Existential risk studies

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by JoaquimCebuano on 21:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Existential risk studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved JoaquimCebuano (talk · contribs) WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk · contribs) GreenC (talk · contribs) Alenoach (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I started this article in August 2, building the content on my draft. My purpose was to rectify what I had previously exposed in Talk:Global catastrophic risk as a confusion "between a hypothetical event, diversely imagined and theorized along history (both in religious thought and outside it), with a specific (yet not monolithic) framework that emerged in the very recent period and became known mainly as 'existential risk', especially in philosophical literature". I decided to create this article as rigorous as I could, using mainly sources that explicit stated the intellectual history of this field, which I found a sufficient amount. I then put the draft in the review process, in which it was soon approved and published in the mainspace. From that very moment I started to receive dismissive statements in the article talk page, the first section of which was, symptomatically, named only "What?", from which the editor started to insist on some points that, frankly, could only come, I think, from someone that didnt take the time to read the article and neither the sources. This user, for example, stated both that "this article discusses none of this: the history of the term, who uses it." and also that "I don't know why we would redirect Existential risk to this article, which is essentially taking a historiography approach.". Confusing and contradictory. Given the space, I cant really cover the whole discussion, but I would like to make clear that i invited the users multiple times to provide sources which minimally contradict the presentation of the topic, and until now none has been presented. Its extremely frustrating to see that I took all the effort to based the article on reliable sources and somehow I am loosing against superficial analogies, ad hoc rules and a kind of questioning which has no openness to answers. I really wish that a independent editor could review the article and the discussion to help us find a solution for this. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? The discussion has mainly evolved around one section Talk:Existential risk studies#What?, but today I found out that one user has created another section proposing the move of the article to the draft. I engaged with every point, and used the sources available to substantiate my position, as well as reviewing the article which is considered to be overlapping with this one. I tried to engage with one user in his talk page, but they didnt answer at all User talk:GreenC#Existential risk How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am having a hard time even understanding what is the point of the discussion beyond the attempt to discredit it. But I think that some flashing point are the quality of the article, its reliability on the sources to state what it states, and also the relation of 'existential risk' to 'existential risk studies'. If we are to believe in the sources, then existential risk is a concept of existential risk studies, which means that the redirection should be changed to it, but my edit was reverted. Summary of dispute by WeyerStudentOfAgrippa Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by GreenC Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Alenoach Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Existential risk studies 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.

Jessica Nabongo

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Log6849129 on 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Jessica Nabongo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Log6849129 (talk · contribs) Valereee (talk · contribs) BubbaJoe123456 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The page is continuously edited to include incorrect information that are not even supported by the references the editors use. I listed the facts with countless high-quality references, but these were all ignored. A previous attempt by someone else to add the authors book to the description was removed due to "self promotion". This page is clearly run by people who seem to have a personal issue with the subject. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [26] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Review sources, remove unsupported statements from the page Summary of dispute by Valereee Ongoing COI with socking has been an issue at this article. I recommended that this editor go to Teahouse, but they decided to come here. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BubbaJoe123456 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Jessica Nabongo discussion I've pulled the name of the other woman out of the lead, as I think that may be what this editor is most objecting to, and it probably isn't strictly necessary there. Valereee (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Jessica Nabongo) I am ready to conduct moderated discussion about the Jessica Nabongo article when the conditions are satisfied for moderated discussion. The listing of parties appears to be problematic. One of the editors who is listed does not appear to have been involved in the controversy. On the other hand, an editor who has edited the article has not been included. The other editors have not been notified. It is not necessary to notify Valereee, who has made a statement. All editors who have either made disputed edits or taken part in the discussion should be listed and notified. Please read DRN Rule D and indicate whether you agree to follow these rules and whether you want moderated discussion. DRN Rule D is used when the topic is a contentious topic, and the article in question is a contentious biography of a living person. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. If you agree to moderated discussion, please state concisely what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. If the conditions for discussion are met and the parties agree to moderated discussion, we will then continue with further discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Nabongo) There are only two pieces of information in the article that are crucial to the lead: the assertion, and the fact the assertion is disputed by Spotts. At minimum, the fact the assertion is disputed needs to stay in the lead. The support for the fact it's credibly disputed was removed in this edit by BubbaJoe123456 who had come in to do a copy edit and, while agreeing the content should be included in the lede, didn't think it needed to be cited and attributed there. I'd argued at the time that this piece of information needed a cite/attribution in the lead to a highly reliable source (an academic in a peer-reviewed journal) because it was that piece of info that was being edit warred over by COI/SPA editors, but agreed to let it go as a third editor, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, also thought it didn't need to be cited/attributed in the lead. Valereee (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC) First statement by possible moderator (Jessica Nabongo) So far only one editor has responded. I will begin moderated discussion when at least two editors reply, and those editors agree to the proposed rules and answer my content dispute question, and then only if there is a substantive disagreement between those editors. Please state what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. Also, please state that you agree to DRN Rule D. If there aren't at least two statements by editors who are ready for moderated discussion, I will close this dispute as abandoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Nabongo) 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.

Chechil

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Lemabeta on 09:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Chechil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved0 Lemabeta (talk · contribs) Vanezi Astghik (talk · contribs) Spinney Hill (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute over the origins of cheese Chechil. Vanezi Astghik argues that the source he used is an absolute truth and that the Dr.Catherine Donnellys(who is a Nutritionist professor) opinion needs to be taken as an undoubtable fact and without questioning the expertise of a Nutritionist professor in her opinion of Caucasus and the origins of the cheese. while rejecting the opinion and reasoning of historian and an ethnologist specializing in the fields of Caucasus or an agroculturists or other sources. Meanwhile also disregarding the geographical indication registration that has been placed on the Chechil and not leaving any room for negotiations. sources that mention that the origins of the Chechil are from Georgia source of the registration of geographical indication on the Chechil --Lemabeta (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[27]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Middle ground needs to be found to reach consensus over the origins of Chechil Summary of dispute by Vanezi Astghik Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I specifically asked the user to not involve me in a DRN because the user is currently being reported in AE. I guess the user just ignored my comment on their talk page, similar to other talk pages. I don't intend to repeat, I won't involve myself in a DRN with a user whose AE case and future in these topics is yet to be determined. Vanezi (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Spinney Hill Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Chechil discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. References 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.