Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 93 - Wikipedia

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

• ASmallWorld (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mostlyoksorta (talk · contribs)
• IIIraute (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute as to whether or not asmallworld is invitation only. There is an application page on the asw website. There are multiple sources saying they take applications, and asw employees who attempted to edit the page never controverted that it accepts applications. On the other side there are older sources saying the site is invitation only, which it was in the past, no argument from me on that. Me and IIIraute have been having an overly intense back and forth on this point.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A long, extensive, excrutiating talk page back and forth that got very personal on both sides.

How do you think we can help?

Give your opinion of whether or not asw is invitation only or not after weighing the sources.

Summary of dispute by IIIraute

--IIIraute (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mostlyoksorta

I am sorry that IIIraute began with the personalities as that issue was resolved on my talk page(you can read the discussion in the history section of that page), and shouldn't be continuously pounded on. It is certainly worth noting that IIIraute has been blocked from the German version of Wikipedia [1][2] for personal attacks and is currently engaged in a similarly hostile back and forth with Volunteer Marek which you can see parts of in the dispute above. Furthermore, he is the subject of a pending outing hearing.

Be that as it may, I admit that the sources cited by IIIraute were valid, until October 2013, and that he could also easily quote 50 more such sites. However, asmallworld changed from invitation only (it's status prior to October 2013) to an invitation or application membership process in October 2013 as these cites indicate. It should quickly be noted that the first citation link included by IIIraute is incorrectly stated to be www.asmallword.com, when it is in fact a link to https://www.asmallworld.com/membership-features.

First, and most obviously, here is the current asmallworld application page - which clearly is an application for membership - [3]. This is the cite I would use in the article.

Second, and also obviously, the asmallworld about us page states "Membership requires an invitation from an existing member or an approved membership application by our international committee of trustees." [4]

Third, here is an announcement of the change to accepting applications of membership on the Facebook [5]- I know that IIIraute has told me this is not a reliable source, it should be viewed as supporting the primary cite above.

Fourth, "To compliment the re-launch celebrations, ASMALLWORLD was also excited to announce the launch of it’s new Membership Program, thereby extending Open Application in India for interested candidates. Swayed by the overwhelming demand that has remained constant over the last decade, ASMALLWORLD finally decided to accept member applications. A first in ten years, the travel & lifestyle club is ready to begin vetting interested candidates."[6].

Fifth, "Previously by-member-invite-only, ASMALLWORLD is excited to welcome applications from qualified individuals to join its community." [7]

Finally, I find this argument disingenious as IIIraute's own edit of the page states "To join, one must receive an invitation from an existing member, or apply online to be considered for membership" [8]

The continued citation of pre-October 2013 sources and the bold denial of asmallworlds own application and about us page makes me doubt IIIraute's good faith on this topic as does the fact that he began this discussion with the link to disciplinary warning on my page. I want this simply resolved as a content issue. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC))

asmallworld discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Hi am a DRN volunteer. Discussion is open. Is there anything wrong with saying that membership in the social network was originally only by invitation, but now (or "since x date") one can request an invitation by submitting an application? --16:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Bejnar in general I have no problem with that and have proposed something similar to that - I believe earlier versions of the page were along those lines. I think the current state of the page is accurate in regards to the membership situation. I would like to note that I find it a stretch to say that someone 'applies for an invitation' I am not sure if it says that anywhere on the site. But if that is a compromise, its fine with me. My only sticking points are that the site should not be represented as 'invitation only' because it is not 'invitation only' - and I worry that your compromise will lead to further back and forth about whether it is 'invitation only.' (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC))

In that case I think we can close this as consensus, as membership is still by invitation only, it is just that an invitation can be wrangled by submitting an application that causes the board to issue that invitation. Therefore there is no fear of resurgence of this dispute, until and unless the social network changes their policy again. Be careful with your wording, so that it remains clear that an invitation from the board or another member is still required. --Bejnar (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

• Glen Echo Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ontario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Canadian Naturist (talk · contribs)
• 99.238.96.154 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Several of my edits were deleted by an anonymous user without any rationale for undoing them. I believe that what I had done improved the article's objectivity and integrity. I tried posting something on talk but nobody responded. I can't contact the editor directly to discuss it because it was done anonymously. So what do I do now? I've never had my edits deleted like this before. Do I just reverse the deletions? I don't want to start a war where we both keep reversing each other's edits.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Posted to talk - no responses. I would have contacted the editor but can't because they did their deletions anonymously.

How do you think we can help?

Tell me if it is appropriate to just reverse their deletion. I would also appreciate any comment as to quality of the edits I had done. I can't think of a reason why someone deleted them but perhaps I'm not objective enough. If redoing my edits is appropriate, perhaps it would be best if a 3rd party undid the undos.

Summary of dispute by 99.238.96.154

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Glen Echo_Park,_Ontario 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.

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.

---

Fishy IP user

(refactored from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fishy_IP_user) There is an IP user address 172.56.11.104 that is making mostly gun control edits today. This address' first edit (and only edit until today) was 2 March 2014, and that subject is one under which a few (four?) editors were topic banned 30 April 2014 as the result of a looong ArbCom. Something smells fishy to me. Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

(Note: The above was not posted by Lightbreather, but by the IP below AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC))

Failure to Notify

1st Lightbreather failed to notify my talk page and Lightbreather's history indicates they know better. 2nd This is a dynamic IP and a false complaint on lightbreather's part.3rd Lightbreather appears to be making this complaint to further ownership of fire arms related articles. It smells vey fishy to me. Lightbreathers contribution history shows repeat edit warring with many editors concerning these articles and has been here before for edit warring. I would support a ban for Lightbreather on these related articles for awhile to send a message. Lightbreather makes it as difficult as possible for other editors by repeatedly reverting contributions on these issues and now frivolous complaints. lightbreather's reverts strongly appear to be biased and agenda pushing in nature. Please review lightbreather's contribution to see the pattern. My notice on Lightbreather's talk page may not be text book at least I am giving notice. That courtesy was not done by a much more experienced editor even though it is clearly stated above. The filter is busted at other complaint site as it will not allow edits by an IP and thus it is posted here. 172.56.11.104 (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

As is made entirely clear at the top of this page, dispute resolution is intended for content disputes, not complaints about behaviour. Posting here is a waste of time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

• Oscar Lopez Rivera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rococo1700 (talk · contribs)
• Mercy11 (talk · contribs)
• Jmundo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Oscar Lopez Rivera is in prison. I am trying to insert facts about his conviction, using a report from the House of Representatives citing Department of Justice documents. They initially insisted wrongly this is a primary source, and now I do not know what they claim.

I believe the article should give an inkling as to the conspiracy that the members of the FALN were convicted. That information should ultimately reflect the wording of the decision of the court of law, not only what others who disagree claim of the conviction. If you wish I can get into details: the article as it stands states that OLR was never convicted of an act of violence. First of all, that is not true. use of force to commit armed robbery is a violent crime.

But I have left that statement stand awaiting resolution by some other arbitration board. Instead, rather than make statements, I have entered information based on a US House of Representatives report that cites the sentencing reports, UPI stories on the conspiracy that served the basis of OLR's conviction. Just the facts. JMundo and Mercy11 delete this. This leads the article to read as if OLR is a nonviolent political prisoner. There are facts that contradict this, and they are not being allowed into the text.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This discussion goes on and on. Other editors have expressed similar dissatisfactions, and likely tired of the dispute. Previously there was a dispute about whether his nationality was Puerto Rican or he was a US citizen. I agreed to one resolution which avoided including either statment in the text. But here the other editors refuse to allow verifiable facts into the text. Talk page discussion does not help.

How do you think we can help?

My sense is that in controversial articles, there might be portions of the article that are restricted to certain authors, or that certain authors are restricted. For example, if this article has a section titled OLR is a political prisoner I would not be able to edit. But a section titled OLR was convicted as a violent criminal would not be open to MERCY11 and JMUNDO. If not the article becomes a battleground that individuals with an agenda can win, if they persist enough. I am not interested in making the article a screed for anything, but balance calls for the inclusion of information as to why OLR is jailed, if the other authors are going to pour in information of why others think he is a political prisoner, unjustly jailed, etc.

One obvious solution is to have an external author edit this entry. I wish that had been me, but someone had to start the process of inserting at least some of the facts, and find an irrational agenda driven focus by Mercy11, Jmundo.

I think controversy in this subject are bound to arise. I compared this article to the Mumia of Puerto Rico; and wish some of the balance found in that article would apply in this circumstance. I surmise a similar problem occurred in writing about Mumia and other politically-tinged convicts. I would like to see the same balace applied to this article.

Summary of dispute by Mercy11

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Rococo has been pushing an American ultranationalistic POV in this BLP article with a relentless lack of interest to compromise. Rococo is trying to saturate the article with what he calls "facts" but engages in the use of WP:PRIMARY sources for his "facts". This is a WP:BLP and we follow a stricter set of rules when we edit BLP articles. He is arguing HERE that "None of the legal documents list sedition..." Again, we don't use Primary sources, he needs Secondary sources.

The infobox in THIS revision shows -with appropriate sourcing- that OLR was charged with "Seditious conspiracy,[1] weapons violations,[2] conspirancy to transport explosives[2]". However Rococo reverts that edit HERE to push his "forced robbery/violent criminal" WP:SYNTH and in his edit summary HERE accuses another editor of "using spurious logic to justify deletion of material that is appropriately sourced." Simply stated, Rococo makes no sense: accusing others (baselessly) of doing precisely what he is himself guilty of.

Now Rococo is trying to argue that OLR is not a political prisoner. Wikipedia is not the place for ADVOCACY. In Wikipedia we don't attempt to prove or disprove what a person is. Instead we report what others say the person is - and this article cites numerous reputable sources citing reputatble authorities (like Congressman Gutierrez HERE and Bishop Tutu HERE) who state he is political prisoner.

Rococo also argues that a House of Representatives report is not a Primary source. But, per WP:PRIMARY, "Primary sources are original materials that...offer an insider's view of...a political decision". An HR Report is not subject to the same level of independent editorial scrutiny that secondary sources such as published books and newspaper articles are. Such HR report does not belong in a BLP article. Rococo uses primary sources because, unlike Secondary sources, they allow him to create "novel interpretations" that work to support his personal political agenda.

Also, after a consensus buildup against his POV in the OLR article became evident, Rococo yesterday engaged in WP:Canvassing at THIS page, so that his wikibuddies would come to his support of the OLR POV. That act is more evidence that Rococo is here pushing a personal POV.

Rococo's truce proposal above (barring Mercy11 and Jmundo from editing a section on "OLR convicted as a violent criminal" in exchange for his self-imposed barring from a section on "political prisoner") shows how far he is willing to go to push his POV. In Wikipedia all editors are expected to be neutral and impartial: we don't ban any editor from editing only selected sections of an article. Each one of us is expected to follow WP:NPOV.

Finally, I am not sure why Rococo is suddenly using this DR/N to continue to push his "violent criminal" agenda. That matter was closed HERE, 14 days ago, because he was using PRIMARY sources. Typical of Rococo, he offers no secondary sources; his intent is to manipulate primary sources to accomplish his American ultranationalist agenda. Mercy11 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jmundo

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Oscar Lopez Rivera 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.

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

• Juneteenth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JuneteenthDOC (talk · contribs)
• Inayity (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Wikieditor Inayity has removed "National Juneteenth" from the Wikipedia Juneteenth page accussing me of editing an inapproprite link to "National Juneteenth" for self promoting purposes. "National Juneteenth" has always been linked to www.NationalJuneteenth.com, the appropriate and historic site for the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Comment on Inayity talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I don't really know. Unfortuntely wikieditors are human beings with the faults of the society they are from. Being falsely accused is real! Do not allow "National Juneteenth" to be removed from the Juneteenth Wikipedia page.

Summary of dispute by Inayity

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Juneteenth 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.

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

• Suzannah Lipscomb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lw1982 (talk · contribs)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added the following text to the Suzannah Lipscomb page

Whilst studying at Oxford University she taught Lipscomb is studying history at Oxford University at the university's Middle Eastern Dancing school.

Using the following link as the source http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/oct/19/health.lifeandhealth

The user TheRedPenOfDoom is objecting to this because in the article it refers to Suzie. As Suzie is a common known abbreviated firm of Suzannah and the 'suzie' in the article studied at the same university, studying the same subject at the same time as Suzannah then I think it is fair to say this is the same person.

The RedPenOfDoom removed my info and when I reinstated it I was accused of disruptive editing. Can you please advise why my information addition is not valid?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I explained that suzie is a shortened form of suzannah. Other party will not accept this and constantly removes the info.

How do you think we can help?

Decide whether the source info can be used

Summary of dispute by TheRedPenOfDoom

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Suzannah Lipscomb 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.

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

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Talteori (talk · contribs)
• Djsasso (talk · contribs)
• Nymf (talk · contribs)
• Permafrost46 (talk · contribs)
• Archon 2488 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There seems to be great difficulty in achieving consensus on what system of measurement should be used for hockey players. Several users want to use United States customary Units (feet, inches, pounds) for all hockey players in all countries in all leagues. Other users (myself included) have proposed other methods such as players use the system in the country they are currently playing in, or players stick with the system in the country they are born in regardless of where they are currently playing since many players jump between leagues. We find it unreasonable to use inches and pounds for a Russian player playing his entire career in Russia which is a completely metric country. The opposing view is that it is easier to use one system of measurement for all players and that it should be united states customary units since most of the readers of Wikipedia are North American. This view however contradicts the wikipedia manual of style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement which says that Wikipedia should use metric for all non US specific cases. The debate started when I was editing the Swedish Olympic athletes which all use metric and other users reverted it back to united states customary units saying that all hockey players should use united states customary units.

The issue has been debated extensively without any real progress: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive60#Player height and weights

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been extensive debate on the talk page and messages to other users.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive60#Player height and weights

How do you think we can help?

I hope to be able to get outside help in order to set a policy on what system of measurement should be used for which player. Currently those engaged in the debate have firm beliefs and little progress has been made towards reaching consensus. Since this is a policy decision that effects thousands of articles I think it is good to get an official stance with the help of a neutral party.

Summary of dispute by Djsasso

Permafrost46 below sums it up quite nicely. Since both sets of numbers are there anyways, why would we make it harder on not only the editor but the reader (for comparison purposes) to have order changed based on the page. By changing the order based on the nationality (or any other reason) it makes it considerably harder to be maintained, as well as for readers comparing two players at a quick glance. I agree with Permafrost below that the current status quo and the state of affairs for a large number of years is where we should remain. This "dispute" only arrised because Talteori began changing tens if not hundreds of articles to his preferred format. Even when he was unable to gain consensus for his changes as linked to above he continued. The discussions linked all clearly indicated there was no consensus for his changes. The problem with least astonishment as mentioned by Archon is that most (not all) of these players play in a league (NHL) where the majority of people who are going to be reading their pages wouldn`t use metric for height and weight. So for them it would be significantly astonishing to have those numbers instead of imperial. Even then it is moot because we present both sets of numbers. So all this debate really is about is the order of them. Personally I think we should make it easier on the reader and keep the order consistent. -DJSasso (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Zzyzx11:, @Echoedmyron:, @Resolute:, @Ravenswing:, @18abruce:, @184.52.8.162:, @67.215.143.118: Pinging others who were involved in this discussion/dispute. There may be others that I missed so feel free to let them know. But it would be incorrect to exclude some of these people. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nymf

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Permafrost46

This is a tricky situation, as both stances can be justified. Like another user wrote on Talteori 's talk page, "having a consistent format across all biographies on NHL players makes it easier for editors to maintain the articles". In the light of this, I see no reason to switch every NHL-related article from US customary to metric (regardless of the nationality of the player) since the metric info is there anyway (because of the convert template which shows both metric and US customary. The only difference is which is displayed first). I'm really just going with the established consensus here, if it is decided to switch everything to metric first I'd support it, but not a mix of metric first and US customary first. For instance, I'd say it's easier to have Henrik Lundqvist and Martin St. Louis stats both in the US customary first format since they both play for the New York Rangers of the NHL. The other parties would prefer Henrik Lundqvist to be metric first since he is an European-born player and Martin St. Louis to be US customary first since he is North American. But again, this would still be arbitrary since St. Louis is Canadian and the metric system is used there as well. To sum up, I think for NHL-related articles it is better to display everything in US customary first (since it is the current norm). The other alternative would be to switch everything metric first, but not a mix of both. Permafrost46 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: To add more context, the dispute actually stems from Talteori beginning to change stats of Swedish players to metric first and others editors, me included, reverting said changes. Permafrost46 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Archon 2488

In principle, WP:MOSNUM says that an article should broadly prefer metric units unless it is a non-science US-related article, in which case US customary units are used (with metric conversion in parenthesis). This implies that articles on US players should use USC units, but not articles on players from other countries. In case of disputes, the convention is to follow local consensus: an article is (primarily) US-related when talk page consensus says it is – this applies to cases of ambiguity such as players from other countries who play or have played in US sport leagues. The principle of least astonishment would imply that articles on Swedish topics, for example, should use metric units rather than US customary units. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Just a note from a volunteer. I am not going to be taking on this case (others may wish to) and suggest that it may not be the proper venue for this. The WikiProjects create their own standards and style guides. This is not a content dispute. This is a project dispute. --Mark Miller (Maleko Mela)

• I understand your concerns regarding this being a WikiProject dispute. Nonetheless, it pertains to a "content" issue: whether or not to use certain measurements on regular-namespace articles. Disagreements over editing are mentioned in the parties' statements; given the broad nature of this topic, I think it's fine that it's categorized as a WikiProject-level dispute. I would be happy to commence discussion per these reasons. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem Theodore. We are open to all here. I just feel uncomfortable trying to take, what I believe is a project discussion, away from the project itself. There may be a project coordinator who should be notified, but at least the project itself should have a DRN notification in my opinion. What do you think?--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This debate is a bit meta since the players are in several categories that use conflicting measurement systems. The dispute didn't start on the hockey page it started when I was editing other categories according to their project standard. Also there seem to be very strong opinions varying from United states customary units on all hockey pages to that hockey should use the same system as soccer. I think it would be best if outsiders came and helped reach a good policy decision.Talteori (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've perused the discussion thread above, and have also looked at the thread at the WikiProject talk page. I've noticed an argument that measurements should accord to the format most commonly used for articles on each respective nation. Out of curiosity, how would you feel if we did this, but listed the equivalent non-local form in parentheses? For example, the Swedish athlete might have "X meters (Y feet)", and the American athlete might have "X feet (Y meters)." Is there anything especially objectionable about this? If so, why would you prefer to have stronger standardization? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am proposing. I think it is the most reasonable solution2.71.17.135 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good! If anyone else has thoughts on this, feel free to share. If you object to this idea, feel free to do so; my goal is not to impose a resolution, but to find common ground and work from there. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The infobox for ice hockey player's uses the convert template and already provides both the U.S. customary units and metric units. I believe there should be a consistent format across all articles on NHL players, regardless of a player's nationality, and the current format should remain in place. 184.52.8.162 (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What 184.52.8.162 says basically sums up my thoughts. As does what I said above. What Theodore suggests is actually what the debate is about. We already list both forms with one in parenthesis. Basically the disagreement is the order of the two (ie which one should be in parenthesis). As has been argued above having them always in the same order would be more helpful than the reader than switching them back and forth based on nationality. Especially since an equally strong case can be made for the fact that the players live and play in one nation and the majority of their fans/readers will be from that nation. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree here, the solution proposed by Theodore is basically going with one of the sides of the debate, in other words going against the established consensus. Permafrost46 (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a very USA centric view with the NHL in the middle of hockey. For most countries the Olympics and world championship are much more important. If the players only played in North America I could understand it. What about this compromise. Metric (USC) for players currently playing outside the NHL and USC (metric) for NHL players. There is no reason at all to use USC first for players in the KHL, Bundesliga, SHL etc. It is just strange to look up a player who has played his entire career in Europe and see measurements in American units. Talteori (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

But you aren't just seeing American units, both are listed. It seems very much like an anti-American effort to be honest. Why make it harder for everyone anywhere in the world just to make it look less strange to you. What we could perhaps do, I am not sure what the code looks like but I think its possible is remove the brackets around the one value and just put a slash between the two values so they both have equal prominence. But I really think that the values should stay in the same order for players for maintenance and for reading ease because having the order different depending on the individual makes comparisons and maintenance so much more difficult than it needs to be. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The argument that putting American units first for everyone makes it easier for everyone is nonsense. It could make it easier for Americans, but the USA is one of only three countries in the world that hasn't metricated. (The other two are Burma and Libya, and the former has now begun the process of metricating.) So, if any units were to always come first, it should probably be the metric ones. That matches worldwide conventions and trends. To even suggest that the figures for a non-American player who doesn't play in America should be shown in US units first is a sad example of our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

While I understand you point, that isn't quite true. Many countries that are metric still use imperial for height and pounds for weight. The UK and Canada are examples. And the actual argument wasn't that everyone should be one way or the other that it should be based on where they play. Talteori didn't like that compromise so instead I still think its best that we are standard throughout as they currently are since there hasn't appeared to be any consensus to change. And my point was that it would make it easier for everyone because it would be in the same place. In other words people accustomed to feet would always look on the left, people accustomed to meters would always look on the right. How is that not easier for everyone than switched sides based on where the player was born for everyone involved not just Americans. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Not true. 1. The UK does not use pounds for people's weight. It uses stones. 2. Europeans, when looking at details for a European person who plays any other sport but ice hockey, e.g. soccer, would expect to see only metric figures, or metric figures first. (And 3. They spell it metres.) HiLo48 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Being that the participant teams are of international nature, Wikipedia should use the international system, e.g: metric. Cheers, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The teams involved are actually domestic teams not international teams. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Pounds are part of a stones measurement ("11 stone 4" (11 stones and 4 pounds), rather than "72 kilograms"). And metres was actually a typo on my part. Well if there are sports where they are only displaying metres then we should definitely fix them so they show both as part of the MOS requires that. As for the side they are on for a given sport that is not hockey that is rather irrelevant because you wouldn't likely be comparing the heights or weights of a player in two sports which was my point about keeping them on the same side. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm old enough to remember when I knew my weight in stones, before Australia metricated. I never knew my weight in pounds. And Americans won't know what 12 stone 11 means. The 14 times table is beyond most people. They are, in practice, unrelated units. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

If they had played their entire career in the USA it would be one thing. These players have played professionally in their home country and have competed in the olympics and other international tournaments for their country. The NHL might be the biggest tournament where you live but it isn't the biggest tournament in many parts of the world. We also have the issue of the European teams. It is not at all sensible to have United states customary units (metric) for a German player who has played his entire career in Germany. If you look up a European player playing in Europe it is very strange to see united states customary units first. Most people in Europe don't even know what a pound is.Talteori (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Other than looking "strange" what is the actual harm being caused by it being on one side or the other, especially if we remove the brackets so both have equal standing on the line? There are measurable bad side effects of having it switch from side to side based on player. However, when I try to weigh those issues against having it stay in one order on each article so far all I can see in your argument is that it will look strange. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the proper way to handle this DRN discussion, but we are just having the same debate that took place at WT:HOCKEY, where there was no consensus to go against the ongoing standard. Maybe we should stop restating the same arguments and let a third party bring an alternative solution to the table. After all, this is the reason why Talteori filed the request. Permafrost46 (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not restating anything. This is the first I've seen a discussion like this. I didn't think Americans and Canadians could be so parochial when it came to an international sport. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the original discussion can be found here [12]. Also, I'm not quite sure you're helping the debate move forward by blaming it on the nationality of involved editors. Permafrost46 (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Why? It IS only editors from only two nations that want US measurements first. The rest of the world has a different view. It's such an obvious national divide that only non-national reasons should be considered. And so far they have been crap. HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A few points I'd like to make here. (1) As far as I'm concerned, you have no idea about where I come from. (2) It's not like we want to switch every NHL article to US customary first because that's actually the way the articles are at the moment. The discussion is about whether there is strong enough basis to go against this long-standing consensus. As I said earlier, having a mix of both conventions would require going through every single European-born player article and changing values in the infobox. This is a bit tedious, I think we actually have to pick one of two options. Either we stick to the way it is, or someone does some "template programming" to change the infobox template to another convention. That would actually be a lot less messy than changing individual articles. Permafrost46 (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That is a very North American/NHL centric view of hockey. The NHL is the biggest league for Americans but in many parts of the world other leagues are more important. We also have the Olympics and World Championship. I don't think a Russian player who has played several seasons in Russia, won Olympic medals for Russia and lives in Russia can be considered a North American player just because he was in the NHL for a while. Also there is the question of European players playing in Europe. I assume we all agree that Russians playing in Russia should use the metric infobox?Talteori (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No one argued they shouldn't. That is a false argument you keep bringing up. All you are actually arguing is the order of the information. Both are listed so everyone is using metric. -DJSasso (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying taking away United States customary units. I am saying that when looking up a Russian player before a world cup game you expect metric (USC) not USC (metric)Talteori (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Theodore! I think this discussion could use your continued guidance and moderation. Could you please comment when you have time and bring this two week old discussion to a close? Many thanks for all your work at DRN. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to close

24 Hour Closing notice--DRN is not a replacement for the talk page. Since the moderator has disappeared and discussion has waned, I'm thinking of closing this case. Any objections?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Talk page discussion went on forever without a resolution. At some point a decision has to be made. Closing the discussion and continuing forever on the talk page doesn't move us closer to a resolution.Talteori (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave the discussion open for another 48 hours. If you find common ground and come to a conclusion that's great. If not, then I'm going to close and suggest you try an RfC or WP:Mediation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:Oathkeeper#Clear violation (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DonQuixote (talk · contribs)
• Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs)
• Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs)
• Diego Moya (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

‎Darkfrog24 is attributing that a novel doesn't contain a specific scene to the novel itself. I think that this is a gross misuse of citation because the novel doesn't explicitly state anything like that. He's also misinterpreting WP:PRIMARY where it states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" as being every factual statement about the primary source rather than factual statements made by the primary source itself (the point of citing the source).

Similar misuse of citation have been discussed at talk:Breaker of Chains#Novel itself as a primary source

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

At the previous discussion talk:Breaker of Chains#Novel itself as a primary source, a third opinion was requested.

How do you think we can help?

An clear explanation of what citing a source involves and an explanation on using primary and secondary sources properly would probably be helpful.

Summary of dispute by Darkfrog24

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The contested text is as follows:

≈"Content from this episode is also found in chapters X, Y, and Z of the book." (Restored to three articles.)[13]

"The scene at the end of the episode, which shows what the white walkers do with Craster's sons, does not appear in the book." (Restored to Oathkeeper.)

I restored this text, which had been added by a previous editor and deleted on grounds of being unsourced. I also added citation tags for the novel A Storm of Swords and for web-based secondary sources (one of which Jack S has questioned as unreliable). Users DonQuixote and Jack S objected to the citation of the novel, claiming both sets of text are OR and removing the tag, sometimes the whole passage. I believe that the tag should stay because 1. this isn't OR and 2. the novel is where I got the information; the websites were after the fact. There is precedent for using a novel as a primary source in a "differences from the book" passage.[14]

WP:Primary states that primary sources can be used for "straightforward descriptions of facts that are readily verifiable by any educated person with access to the source." I don't see how "[event] happens in chapter X" and "[event] does not occur in the book" are anything but straightforward facts. If this article were about an adaptation of Johnny Tremain, I'd be able to cite the book and say, "This story is set in the 1770s" and "Paul Revere appears in this book." It is no different to say, "This story is not set in the present day" and "George Washington does not appear in this book." The only question is whether the content is relevant. DQ has argued that if I cannot cite a specific page number, then that "proves" that I am "using the source improperly."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

When DonQuixote claimed OR, I reworded the passage so that it no longer claimed that the episode was "based on" the novel but only "contained content also found in" the novel.[15] DQ continues to argue that the reference to the novel must be deleted on OR grounds.

I suggested rewording the section so that it reads, "[specific event occurs] in chapter X" and letting the readers see that the episode and chapter have the same content on their own.

DQ requested a third opinion, and the respondent, DiegoM, agreed with me, citing MoS:PLOT and WP:FICTIONPLOT.[16] A fourth participant, Jack S, did not.

How do you think we can help?

Answer the core questions:

1. Does WP policy allow the use of a novel in an article about material adapted from that novel? Specifically, does it allow statements like, "This episode includes content also found in chapters X, Y, and Z of the novel"? What about "Character A performs action B in chapter #Z"? I'd love it if WP:Primary addressed this issue explicitly because I plan to add more such material to more articles.

2. Is required to continue citing the primary source if another source is available? Is it required that the reference to the primary source be deleted if another source is available? If neither of these things is required, then which is better?

3. Does WP:Primary permit negative statements such as "This scene does not appear in this book" and "This character does not appear in this chapter"?

Summary of dispute by Jack Sebastian

Darkfrog and Diego (another involved contributor in another GoT article with precisely the same problem as here) have been consistently argue that they can compare differences/similarities between the aforementioned episode of Game of Thrones to the source material contained within GRRM's book, A Storm of Swords. The contention that Darkfrog makes is that since the Storm of Swords is a primary source, we can use that to source differences between the episode and novel. Additionally, he proposes using as a source Westeros.org, which has been found, via enquiry at RSN, to be less than reliable and more a treasure trove of fancruft. When these malformed additions are removed as per policy, Darkfrog and/or Diego adds them back again (about least five times over the past three days). They think that the comparison they want to make is free from the citation requirement. Imo, the user cannot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously? It has been pointed out several times to both Darkfrog and Diego our way of applying sources as well as the definition of reliable sources and the problems posed by edit-warring. While the users haven't been rude, they have certainly proven resistant to recognizing our guidelines and policies, and both Diego and Darkfrog had to be made aware of the end consequences of edit-warring in the article. Diego has proven himself willing to treat reverting like a game, which makes him rahter impossible to reason with.
The matter pivots, imo, on Darkfrog's and Diego's understanding of sourcing. The comparison he wants to make needs to be cited to a reliable source explicitly making that comparison. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How do you think we can help? Ideally, Diego and Darkfrog could hear from other editors to guide them in their understanding of both sourcing and BRD. This is occurring in two articles thus far; without education, I could easily see them expanding this misunderstanding to many, many other articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Diego

I want first to summarize my position without intermediaries. Made from arguments grounded on Wikipedia policies, it’s the following:

• The inclusion of plot elements from the book in the episode’s plot is not a comparison, as no relation between both is expressed in words; only verifiable facts are asserted in the notes, and those facts can be found in the source used as reference.
• It is not original research, as every word can be easily verified by the reader with the sources provided. For the only relation that could be inferred from the juxtaposition, the idea that the TV episode is based on the book, we have secondary reliable sources of the best quality supporting it.
• Jack Sebastian and DonQuixote have not convincingly explained how removing those notes would make the article better, so I see no reason for removing it.

I see that Jack Sebastian above thinks (while making veiled and not-so-veiled threats) that I’m playing games by requesting that all editor’s positions are held to the same standards and all arguments are heard. This is unfortunate, as rational discussion and not imposition is how we are expected to proceed to achieve consensus.

For my part, I consider that both are misusing policy by insisting that they are the only ones that know how to read the rules, and anyone disagreeing with them is therefore ignorant. I find that attitude unhelpful for consensus-building, as well as condescending, and I hope they drop it in order to move fordward.

Have you tried to resolve this previously? I participated following a request for a third opinion at Talk:Breaker of Chains#DRN. I have tried a wording that addressed DonQuixote’s expressed concerns about using words in the article that don’t appear in the references, but this hasn’t been enough to reach a compromise.

How do you think we can help? I don't expect this mediation will help arrive to a consensus, as the positions of all editors are too entrenched. I hope that it at least will serve to achieve a thorough mutual understanding of each other’s position, which should be the basis for the next step in dispute resolution, asking for wider input from the community. Diego (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

talk:Oathkeeper#Clear violation discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hello and welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm Mark Miller (formerly Amadscientist). While I have no authority or special powers I can assist in this filing if no one objects. Diego and Dark Frog sounds familiar but may be from other DRN filings of similar subjects. (edit) I have to recuse myself as I declined the Game of Thrones first GA nomination and that makes me involved and explains why the names sounded familiar.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have been reading through the dispute and am familiarizing myself with the discussion but, before I go on I would like to mention that, at the core of this dispute is an interpretation of WP:Primary. This could be something to refer to a number of different boards but since this does also involve original research and perhaps other issues, we might as well at least give some comments. Resolving this to me may be at different levels depending on which editor you are.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

For me, the issue is simple: why not use a secondary source? As primary sources are used to provide "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", we would be on safe round by saying something happened in a book, because the book is the primary source. If we wanted to compare it to something else - and despite the sophistry to the alternative, that is precisely what is occurring here - we would need a secondary source to make that comparison, as per policy. Having that secondary source also avoids most of the questions of triviality and OR (ie. how is this important to the article, and who says it is important?). I submit that primary sources cannot be used to describe differences or similarities between two media, even if one is based upon the other. We as editors are not citable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There was a secondary source. In some cases, there were two. But why not also retain the reference tag citing the primary source? It's where I actually found the information, and it is almost by definition the most reliable source possible. Part of this is less about the text itself and more about you and DQ removing the reference tags supporting that text.

Also, since you've questioned the reliability of the secondary sources, the issue of whether the primary source alone is sufficient backing for the text is relevant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to clutter up the discussion with repeating my points. The only secondary source I've purposely removed (and I'd reinstated the valid two mixed in amongst the wrong ones in one article) is Westeros.org. It isn't a reliable source, as it mostly contains user-driven content. Removing this only leaves you with the primary source we are contesting the usage of. The one from IGN appeared to be pretty nifty; why not use that instead of turning all of this into a knife fight? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually it leaves me with the primary source and the other secondary sources, and you keep deleting the text anyway. If one of the sources is not sufficiently reliable, then that's all the more reason to cite the novel. As for the IGN article used in Oathkeeper, it doesn't list chapters by number. Did you mean a different source? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you insist on making me repeat myself? I do not care if the material is in the article, so long as it is cited to a reliable secondary source. Citing the book is not adequate to the task, as it is a primary source, and requires you to evaluate its usage in the series. I keep removing your usage of the book source as reasoning for you adding chapter to episode articles. You should clue in on that. All we need to resolve this is secondary references from reliable sources that explicitly state what you want them to. If you don't have a source that says that x chapter of Storm of Swords appeared in Breaker of Chains or Oathbreaker, then you cannot say it does. Period. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making you do anything, Jack. In this case, WP:Primary allows us to use a reliable primary source. You may notice that the text doesn't read "The chapter appeared in the episode" but rather "Content from this episode can also be found in." There is a difference between disagreeing with your personal interpretation of the rules and "not cluing in." And yes, I've noticed that you keep removing the citation. You should stop doing that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This will be my last comment on the subject, barring new input. Darkfrog24, this is not about me, so stop making it personal. This is about the policies and guidelines we all choose to follow while editing in Wikipedia. The policy you are only partially comprehending allows us to use primary sources when discussing the source material. Anything outside the scope of say, describing a novel via passages and chapters of said novel, require secondary referencing. You are seeking to conjoin the tv episodes to the books from which they partially came. You need a secondary reference to do that. This is not me saying this; Wikipedia is pretty clear on the matter. It is because of this that I remove the primary source from an article not discussing the subject of the primary source. I will keep doing that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

When your post says, "Why do you insist on making me," and "I keep removing your" and "what you want," and "if you don't," I'm not the one making it personal.

Yes, I used a primary source when discussing source material. I did not perform any analysis, comparison or interpretation. I have repeatedly suggested wordings that would address your concerns. I have found secondary sources that you don't bother to read. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few things that might actually help:

1. Can anyone cite any policies that explicitly state that primary sources may or may not be used in the ways they've been used here? (Participants in this dispute have read WP:Primary and are interpreting it differently.)

2. Can anyone cite any precedent articles? Do other articles about adaptations cite the book for information in the ways under discussion here?

• Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film) cites the novel for a straight fact about the novel's plot.[17]
• The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) [18] [19] negative statement: [20]
• December Boys [21]
• Minas Tirith (not an adaptation, but hit CTRL-F "not in the book") [22]
• Many other articles include "differences from the book" sections that have the book as at a source (and sometimes the only one) but do not have formal reference tags. [23] [24] [25] negative statement "is not in the book": [26] [27]

3. Can anyone cite any precedent disputes? Have there been previous discussions of this issue in which a consensus was reached? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: Wow. Turns out if you plug either "differences from the book" [28] or "is not in the book" [29] into the search bar, a whole lot of stuff shows up. I wish I'd thought of this last week. So I'd still like to see stuff on policy and previous disputes, but is there precedent for interpreting WP:Primary in a way that allows using novels as sources on their own material in adaptation sections and making negative statements? Yes there is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, indeed. Some of the articles including primary sources for comparison include a Good article and a Featured article! So far for these comparisons not being allowed by the rules. Diego (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I would observe that both of the articles cited achieved their respective statuses in 2007, and the GA did not even have the "Differences" section at the time. I think it would be dangerous to assume that the standards that were in effect at that time necessarily still apply. More recent instances would set a better precedent. DonIago (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion at WT:FILM from 2011 and the ensuing RFC might be relevant to the discussion as well. DonIago (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There was also this RFC in 2013, which resulted from a DRN filing. While this one deals with a "Historicity" section rather than a "Differences from novel" section, I believe there might be a reasonable argument that the principle is the same. DonIago (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those discussions - at least this can provide some new perspectives outside this little group. I'll give them a good read. Diego (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all. I hope the situations I linked to can provide some helpful insights. DonIago (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I would submit that no valid examples exist, as they are usually caught and corrected by experienced editors. My resistance to using primary sources to reference book chapters used within a tv series is that it forces an editor to evaluate the episode to determine which chapters of the book were used within the series (initially, some editors used Westeros.org to support this content, but Westeros has been determined to be a non-reliable source^{Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_169#Westeros.org}). Secondary sources "contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". The source that Diego Moya and Darkfrog24 wish top use is the book. Darkfrog24 has admitted to wanting is to compare the book to the episode that contains elements and/or plot points from one or more books. Diego Moya has noted that he has no issue with this sort of analysis:

• "Introducing a comparative analysis of how the scenes are treated differently in both media is original research without a secondary source, but merely citing that something happens in a chapter in the book is not different to writing a plot summary using the work as the primary source…"²
  

This is telling, imo. Plot summaries are exempted from citation as per WP:TVPLOT, usually because the primary source that is the episode itself is eventually agreed upon by editor consensus and pruned over time of any interpretations. To that end, chapter and sections from other sources are in fact prohibited from plot summaries. That leaves the citing of chapter and section in the production section.

DF and DM both argue that the comparisons they are making are simply "observable fact" and exempt from citation, especially since they can use the primary sources of the novels to support their assertions. In my opinion, this is an incorrect application of both our sourcing policy and guidelines as well as WP:NOR. Their disconnect, I think, is that they fail to realize that the mere act of sussing out which chapters were used in an episode is, by definition, an analysis. Determining what is or is not in an episode is a comparative evaluation. These are both explicitly prohibited by NOR:

• "Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."³

As Donlago has noted, our policy has evolved over time, becoming better at utilizing sources appropriately. There may very well be articles that are in need of updating their sourcing methods, and we tend to clean these up over time. That said, our policies seem pretty clear on this matter. Diego Moya, Darkfrog24 and a mysterious IP supporting them need to provide a reliable secondary source. The content they wish to add is very specific; therefore, the references need to be equally specific and explicit in its cited content. Considering the popularity of the series, I cannot imagine this being a huge problem. Certainly not one chewing up the time and noise/sound ratio of several editors for over three weeks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why I didn't just look there earlier, but MOS:FILM does have a section on this that would also seem pertinent: WP:FILMDIFF. I believe the discussion that led to the creation of that section occurred here. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: WP:FILMDIFF says that sections listing differences between the book and its adaptation are "discouraged," but does not list OR as a reason (in the discussion, views were mixed on that point). However, the text under dispute doesn't do that. It merely tells the reader what the source material was. WP:FILMDIFF seems to say that full sections discussing the minutiae of similarities and differences between the TV show and the novel would only be okay if lots of secondary sources did so--not because of OR but because that establishes notability--but it doesn't say, "Don't tell the reader what book or what part of the book was used." So the statement about the white walkers might be out, but what about, "Content from this episode is also found in chapters X, Y, and Z"?

The conclusions I'm drawing from the discussions that have been cited are these: 1. The main issues are relevance, context and presentation. 2. Some people think that listing the differences between a novel and its adaptation is OR and some don't. 3. When providing text on differences between the novel and adaptation, don't use a list; use prose (so the sentences in question would be acceptable as far as formatting is concerned). 4. Using primary sources alone to say why things are different is not okay (but the content in question doesn't do that). 5. Unlike the precedent articles, these discussions do not address the propriety of using primary sources for negative statements, like "X is not in the book."

Jack, don't tell lies about what I did and did not say. I said that I want to show the readers what parts of the book to reread to find the material from the episode. I did not characterize that as a comparison and have repeatedly said that it is not. We are in agreement that primary sources may not be used for analysis. The issue is whether or not, "This episode contains content also found in chapters X, Y, and Z" is analysis.

On a similar note, none of the three comments in that discussion actually say that Westeros.org isn't reliable. I'd agree that the novel itself and other secondary sources used are certainly more reliable, but the question of whether Westeros.org is reliable enough isn't addressed there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to try not stepping on anyone's toes here...I'm trying to limit my participation in this to being an information-provider rather than a more active participant, especially given that I am a DRN Volunteer but don't want to step on the toes of anyone coordinating this situation.

Anyway, it looks to me like we have some agreement in general terms, which is awesome. With regards to a statement such as "Content from this episode is also found in chapters X, Y, and Z", my feeling would be that it shouldn't be included unless a secondary source noted it...and ideally it would be nice if there was some discussion regarding why it wasn't included. When we're adding "differences", we should, IMO, be asking who considered these differences important...and if the best answer we have is that -we- consider the differences important, I don't think we're making a good case for inclusion.

I hope that makes sense on some level and that I successfully avoided anyone's toes in the process. DonIago (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Addressing each of your points, point by point, Darkfrog24:

1. "The main issues are relevance, context and presentation" - this is the disconnect. The main issue is the use of primary sources to make claims that require secondary sourcing. I think you know this, because you use phrases like "WP:FILMDIFF seems to say". You must think there is wiggle room in what sort of source you can use. Your claim that removing the phrases 'comparing' and 'does not appear' changes the intent of the addition is disingenuous (at best), and @DonQuixote: pointed that out to you days ago. You and Diego Moya point to chapters in the book that have correlations, calling them "observations", but that observational analysis is "yours". This is indisputable, since the typical reader is likely to not be aware of the specific chapters as they relate to the episode. Since the episodes are drawn from all 6 (or all, depending on the interviews) of the books, it requires more than just casual observation. Since we cannot use your expertise (as wiki editors are not citable or noteworthy) in All Things GoT, we need sources that talk about these differences.
2. "Some people think that listing the differences between a novel and its adaptation are OR and some don't" - the implication here is that the balance between these two is 50/50, or that it is some sort of gray area of the rules. It isn't; it's listed all over Wikipedia, from the Five Pillars to the various essays on using sources.
3. "When providing text on differences between the novel and adaptation…" - this is truly telling, imo. You have admitted yet again that noting differences is your intent, and not providing the reader additional resources. In point of fact, as the book is a source for the episode, we list it in the 'SeeAlso'. We aren't here to think for the reader.
4. "Using primary sources alone to say why things are different is not okay, but the content in question doesn't do that" - at least two other editors are in agreement that this is semantics. The content is in dispute because it is a comparison and an evaluation. The series draws from a larger body of material than just the published books, as both story creators and writers have openly admitted.
5. "these discussions do not address the propriety of using primary sources for negative statements, like "X is not in the book" - that is because it is of secondary concern. Of primary concern is the use of primary sources to make any statements about the series in an evaluative, comparative manner. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Does WP:FILMDIFF mention OR issues at all? No it does not. Does WP:FILMDIFF mention other issues? Yes it does. The discussion that led to WP:FILMDIFF included people who thought using primary sources was OR and those who did not. Eventually, that group of people decided that OR issues would not make the cut for inclusion in the rule.

2. If any part of the Five Pillars or these essays say that using primary sources in this way is OR, please provide a link and a quote. That would be very relevant.

3. No that is not what I meant by that. I was repeating something that seemed common in the RfCs cited--in which they talk about lists of differences--and giving an example of how it applied to our case--formatting. The preferences for prose over lists means that the formatting of the disputed text is okay or at least wasn't specifically objected to at that time. Please stop claiming that I "admitted" this or that. The words that I actually used are right here on this page. Scroll up if your memory fails you. If you don't know what I meant, ask me.

4. As for my "primary sources alone to say why things are different" comment, it is 100% true. The statement "Content ... chapters X, Y, and Z" doesn't say that anything is different. It says that things are the same.

5. No that is not our primary concern. No one has argued that primary sources should be used to make comparisons or evaluations. The concern is whether "Content from this episode can be found in chapters X, Y, and Z" is an evaluation or not.

Jack, we would get further if you would stop acting as if your views have already been proven or accepted. No one's arguing that primary sources should be used to make comparisons or perform analysis; we all agree that they should not. Your own take on the matter is that the disputed text involves a comparison and from there you jump to "Other people think it's okay to use primary sources to make comparisons." You think that wanting to show readers where to find source material is a comparison, so you jump to "Darkfrog ADMITTED about wanting to make comparisons." That's not what's going on here. It would be as if I said, "Jack says we should never use primary sources for ANYTHING!" That's not really what you're saying and presumably not why you disagree with me. You know how the jury's out on the exact pathogen that caused Black Plague? One of the suspects is Yersinia pestis. If I say, "This patient has Y. pestis," you don't get to say, "Darkfrog said the patient has Black Plague!" We'd need to establish that Y. pestis causes Black Plague first. There's a step in the middle that you keep skipping: We need to establish whether "Content from this episode is also in chapters X, Y, and Z" is a comparison. That is the issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

1. FILMDIFF actually weakens your argument for inclusion of primary sourcing. When you are told something is discouraged, it means you try very hard not to do that thing. It is not tacit approval to proceed. That's like saying, 'green light means go, red light means stop and yellow light means go very fast.' Examples aside, FILMDIFF isn't on point here, as WP:FILMDIFF doesn't allow for primary sources whatsoever (though, curiously enough, it does note that secondary sources are to be used). You are extrapolating/imagining anything else beyond that.
2. You could start with Neutrality; your advocacy of adding comparisons (based upon the personal experiences of having read and viewed both media) without a reliable source in support of them doesn't seem very neutral ("Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."). Then there's No Original Research, wherein, "you can't make a point that hasn't already been directly made somewhere else in a reliable source. You can summarize, but it has to be based in the sources". Of course, who could forget about good old Verifiability? You are using a primary source in support of an argument that the primary source doesn't advocate (unless you can bring forth a statement from any of the books that discusses differences between it and the tv series - or anything about the series, for that matter). I could go into essays, but a great many of them offer differing - and often contrary - points of view. You should feel compelled to bring forth a single essay that advocates primary sources over secondary ones; I'd love to see it.
3. I am not going to make this personal, but are you stating for the record that you never admitted you wanted to compare the two to show the differences for the reader? You might want to check your own posts before answering.
4. Whether you say they are the same or different, or - and this is critical for you to understand - say nothing at all, simply placing the chapters next to events or stating that the episode was drawn from them is in fact a comparison, an evaluation. You cannot do that without secondary sources saying precisely that. Secondary sources can make those claims - you cannot.
5. This is one of the areas where I think you are unaware of how others perceive your use of primary sourcing to add chapter content. You do not see the addition of the material as evaluative or comparative. That is the core of the problem, imo. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

1. FILMDIFF says that the inclusion of full sections describing differences between the adaptation and the original version is discouraged. It does not mention primary sources or their use at all. It does not mention single lines telling the reader what the source material was.

2a. I am not advocating adding comparisons at all. I am advocating adding a single sentence telling readers which part of the book contains content also in the episode and of the use of primary sources as sufficient for this. I am not advocating that primary sources be used to add editors' personal opinions, interpretations, viewpoints or any of the other things you've listed; we are in agreement on those issues. Please stop bringing up matters that are not in dispute as if they were. It's a strawman argument. They inflate the thread and distract people. Your time would be better spent making your case that the sentence "Content from this episode can also be found in chapters X, Y, and Z" is someone's personal opinion, viewpoint or comparison. That is what is disputed.

2b. Similarly, no one is arguing about whether primary sources are better than secondary sources. This is not an either-or issue. The question is whether a primary source A) is sufficient on its own for material like this and B) should continue to be cited alongside secondary sources that later become available.

3. For the umpteenth time, my position is that saying "Content ... chapters X, Y, and Z" is not a comparison.

4. Make your case. Cite policy. Cite an example. Do anything other than state your opinion as if it were fact.

4b. Taking my own advice: Let's use visual images (also allowed under WP:Primary). If I can say "This painting depicts George Washington" and "This coin depicts George Washington," then it stands to reason that I can say "The man in this painting is also depicted on this coin." This is just a fact. It does not advance a viewpoint. It is not an analysis. It does not push any interpretation. I'm not saying that the coin was struck based on the painting or the painting modeled off the coin. I am not saying that Washington looks more resolute on the coin or more handsome in the painting. Similarly, no one's stating that Sansa gets better lines in the episode than in the book or that Jaime looks happier than on the TV show or even noting how the Jaime-Cersei scene is consensual in the novel but not on the show (at least not in that section). Those are comparisons. The disputed text only says that the book has a Jaime-Cersei scene. Open up the pages and there it is, clear as Washington's face on a quarter.

5. I believe I have a reasonable understanding of how you, DQ, and Diego see this matter. You are correct that I don't see this as a comparison. If you want me to, see point 4. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I've made my case. So has DQ. So have you…repeatedly. No one's minds are being changed. Maybe we can all now stick a cork in it and allow some uninvolved folk to weigh in on the matter. Sit back and have a cup of tea. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No, Jack. No one has made the case for why recognition of two things is the same as interpretation of those two things or why stating a fact is the same as making a comparison. No, going "Well it just is" does not count as making your case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I don't think it matters whether one calls it recognition or interpretation, and I feel that may be missing the forest for the trees. I think it's a matter of establishing that the comparison is non-trivial and that individuals other than Wikipedia editors took note of it. We do that by providing sources. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Don. How would you address the George Washington issue? Why do you think that interpretation and recognition are equivalent in this case? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I think they're equivalent; I'm saying that I think dwelling on that is a distraction from more productive ways of addressing this dispute. DonIago (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN volunteer needed

DRN VOLUNTEER MODERATOR NEEDED--This case has no moderator. If one does not show up soon I will have to close this case. DRN is not a substitute for the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be a shame. I'm somewhat tempted to volunteer myself, but under the circumstances I fear I've probably turned myself into an involved party (I was also involved in at least one of the discussions I cited earlier, so it's probably clear that I have some bias). DonIago (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The case has been open for a week. Has any common ground been identified? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. There are two sets of text in dispute. It's been established that one of those two sets, the white walker statement, is subject to WP:FILMDIFF. The issue of whether the statement is OR remains unresolved, but it's been removed from the article--by one of the authors who was arguing for its inclusion. None of the other three authors have commented on this either here or on the article's talk page as of now, which may not be a bad thing, so technically we don't know that there's common ground, but it would be reasonable to guess so.

For my part, I don't consider Doniago an involved party, but I'm not sure how that term is being defined in this case. He is the one who pointed out that FILMDIFF applied to this case, which produced results. He also located a precedent dispute and discussion. I don't see why he doesn't get to give his take on the matter as well. Bias or no bias, he did his share of the work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider Donlago an involved party, either, but I am respecting his decision to wait for a less involved party to help out.

There are several points of common ground, but the ones in dispute are hanging up two different articles, and quite possibly more down the line. Consensus divides within the aforementioned two articles on two points:

• Do evaluative statements concerning differences between the novel and the series (thus inviting comparison) require secondary sourcing, or can primary sources regarding the book be used to note those differences?
• Are we as editors allowed to add this material and consider it important without secondary sourcing?

These two questions have sucked up the resources and time of four different editors. Darkfrog24 and Diego Moya seems to understand that secondary sources are preferred, but are willing to cite the book to indicate (and therefore compare) differences between the book and the series. Don Quixote and myself adopt a 'don't fix what ain't broke' point of view: if you are making comparative or evaluative statements, then you need to cite them.

And thus, three weeks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

My opinion, and feel free to take this as a DRN Volunteer stance if you want to (but I'm not explicitly saying that anyone should)...is that based on the precedents I reviewed, secondary sourcing should be provided. It's not a matter of whether the statements are evaluative; it's a matter of demonstrating that the points being brought up are considered significant not just by WP editors, but also by independent sources. A lot of the time Wikipedia editors only look at sourcing as a means of satisfying verifiability policies, but in many cases it not only can be should be used to establish not just that event X occurred, but that a reliable source considered the event significant in some manner. If a tree falls in the woods and no reliable sources take note of it, neither should Wikipedia.

I'll remind everyone that DRN is a non-binding forum; if you wish to take my stance as a conclusion of any sort (and I'd prefer to hear from at least one other DRN Volunteer that what I'm saying satisfies them, because I'm fairly worried I'm being more than a bit unorthodox here), and it's one that you disagree with, there are always other options, such as an WP:RFC. DonIago (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DonIago for your input. The core of this situation is one where we intended to add basic information to content that was already included without a secondary reference -at least in my case, it's basically an index to locate where the summarized plot points appear in the original media-, just as sentences in the Plot section are allowed to be created. Any decision as to what content is significant for the article has already been made at this point.

What is contested is not that secondary sources are better when available (nobody disputes that), but whether *all content without them should be eliminated*, i.e. whether the rule is a zero-exceptions requirement, which is what you're asking to do here. I don't agree that verifiable facts that are allowed elsewhere should be deleted because they're located at the wrong article, regardless of how benefitial they are. The discussions linked by DonIago show that this is a contentious subject that has been debated from time to time in the past, with several editors making some of the same exact points than Darkfrog24 and I have made, and without a clear consensus either way. There's a twist, nevertheless: those previous discussions concerned with detecting differences between both media, and this situation is about their similarities - reporting that the same content appears in both. The first question that Jack makes might therefore be answered differently depending on the context and purpose for including such content; this particular point (similarities between the film and the book) was deliberately considered different from comparisons with history or other more complex statements at this archived discussion (BTW, I would have agreed with the outcome of The White Queen RFC that the comparisons with history were SYNTH, but my core position has always been that it's an significantly different situation).

The second question ("are editors allowed to add this material without secondary sourcing") is a resounding YES!, as long as it improves the article - we have a policy explicitly created to allow such changes. Jack doesn't seem to understand that rules are not followed for their own sake, but for the benefits they provide when writing articles; all Wikipedia rules are not laws but recommendations, which ultimately amount to "do what's best, and explain why it's the best". The process would greatly accelerate if you recognized that Ignore All Rules is "a standard that all editors must normally follow", acknowledged that rules are considered good practices because of the ways they make the encyclopedia better, and started debating the changes for the benefits or drawbacks they may provide to the article, instead of for their possible degree of compliance with some rules that have never been a hard requirement. I'm afraid that, despite our several requests to explain how exactly their interpretation of the Original Research policy would create an idea that was harmful for understanding the article (i.e. what is the "original thought" introduced), neither Jack nor DonQuixote have provided a reason why the version without the chapter references is any better, other than "because then it would follow the rules". Please note that I'm not arguing here that OR should not apply - I'm saying that you haven't made a good case as for why it should apply. Diego (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Diego Moya:, you should feel entirely free to link those previous discussions that ended in "no clear consensus".

And I'll point out that Jack does in fact understand what rules are for. He also understands what consensus is. If your fellow editors think that you need to supply a secondary source to material, you (Diego) need to understand that it is in everyone' best interest that you find them. If you believe the policy in place needs changing, there are forums to do so (Village Pump, etc.). Not in an article where belaboring the point has wasted over three weeks. Proselytizing is not done within articles.

In answer to the last question that Diego posed, I will respond in the same way that I (and Don Quixote far more eloquently) have previously. The value of the article with chapter comparisons is diminished because there is: a) no proof that such comparisons are important, b) no secondary sourcing that would bring perspective to the importance of said material, and c) it distracts from the material of the article. Throwing in primary sourcing and fighting like mad for its inclusion to add something that you cannot prove has any value to the reader is detrimental to both the article and the encyclopedia. If this material is as important as you seem to think it is, find someone who isn't a Wikipedia editor (and therefore of no substantively citable or reliable value) and reference them saying it. Can't find a reliable source that does so? Then it isn't important. It's really that easy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, that summary makes your position with respect to content clearer. Note though that, by that reasoning, we shouldn't have plot summaries at all.

you should feel entirely free to link those previous discussions that ended in "no clear consensus" I already did that, it's the link to the archived 2011 RFC at WikiProject Film. It shows that several fellow editors don't think that you need to supply a secondary source for referencing key facts, although several others do. Diego (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. As for the generality of the rules, the particulars about this fictional work may make it particularly suitable to benefit from providing an index of chapters. A Song of Ice and Fire is composed of several very long books, with a very complex, non-linear structure; and the TV adaptation is reordering the sequence of chapters, taking content from other later books. Although all the information of what happen where can be verified by re-reading the books, readers could benefit if we made for them the previous work of linking to the point in the book where each plot is located. (And I didn't suggest that we should change policy, so that point is a red herring - please don't be distracted by it). Diego (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the differences between plot summaries and other sections has been detailed elsewhere. Taking a look at those differences wouldn't hurt our discussion. As for the "various discussions" I asked you to post links to, I was offering you the opportunity to post more than one. In all the years Wikipedia has been around, you found a single discussion from back in 2011, and are hanging your hat upon that discussion? You don't see any sort of problem with the fact that from that time until now, the policies and guidelines regarding this topic haven't changed?

There was no intent to offer a 'red herring', Diego; the implication of your initial post suggests that you wish to reinterpret our citation policies and guidelines to allow for the sort of primary sourcing you wish to use.

Lastly, though I've said it before, it bears repeating. I am not arguing that this material might be of use to the reader. It is my sole contention that - in the absence of secondary references lending import and explicit language to the comments - you as an editor are not citable enough to make these connections between the book and series yourself. If these comments are as beneficial and important as you think, there must be reliable secondary sources to back that up. You need to find them, and get off the train of thought that makes you think you can insert them without sourcing them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Jack, stop mischaracterizing our dispute. No one is saying that primary sources may be for analysis and interpretation and NO ONE is saying that editors get to add unsourced material whenever they like. The question is not whether primary sources may be used to make evaluative statements. The question is whether, "Content from this episode can also be found in chapters X, Y, and Z" is evaluative or not. As for whether Wikipedia requires secondary sources in all cases, WP:PRIMARY makes it clear that no it does not. The issue is whether a primary source is enough in this case. A big part of why the issue isn't resolved is because you keep pointing at things that are not at issue. Don't aim your hammer three inches below the nail and then complain that it didn't go into the wood.

Seconding Diego's comments about the particular issue of non-linearity in Game of Thrones. The fact that the writers are not using the source material in order means that a reader can't always follow along from last week's chapters. One of the episodes we've been fighting about has material from book three and book five, skipping book four in between. I wouldn't mind seeing chapters listed in lots of book-to-screen articles, but GoT has more need for them than other TV show and movie articles do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Administrative note: DRN rules specify no discussions without a moderator and that DRN is not a replacement for the talk page. However, practically speaking I don't want to let the 'rules' get in the way of progress. So I'll allow a couple more days for unmoderated discussion but then I'll need to close this case. So please, in the next two days, focus on clarifying any areas of common ground or agreement and start moving the balance of the issues/discussion back to the talk page or to an RfC or WP:MEDIATION. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I've already stated unequivocally that offering that certain bits from 'x' book are used in 'y' episode require secondary sourcing, as per NOR. I've already pointed out that the reason that this is OR is because it is being evaluated by Wikipedia editors as being of importance as well as evaluating the episode to figure out where the material for the episode came from. Particularly because of the non-linearity of the series structure in comparison to the books require us to utilize a source that is reliable enough to use.

What I fail to understand is why - if you understand the importance and difference between primary and secondary sourcing as you say - that you would stop wasting time, find the sources required and simply use them. If - again, as you say - this is so vitally important and notable - finding the required references should be a breeze. We cannot use your Sherlocking as a replacement for valid sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

After finishing re-reading this DRN entry, I realize that I;ve been saying the same thing for over three weeks now. I cannot see DG or DM standing up suddenly exclaiming, "Eureka! Now I get it!" We aren't doing anything more but planting vegetable gardens in our fortified defenses. I suggest we end this DRN process and initiate a Request for Comment, in order to get some independent input. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

While I sympathize with your frustrations Jack, I feel your statement(s) regarding DG and DM are a bit over the line and probably not constructive. I would recommend striking or at least toning down said comments. DRN discussions cannot succeed if the involved editors do not respect each other. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Refactored part of my post. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, it takes one to know one. ;-) I agree that it's time to create an RfC. I believe that it should be centered around the kind of content than can or cannot be included; the policies we all have cited have not provided useful guidance for reaching a consensus, so wording the RfC in terms of policy would merely induce a repetition of the same debate.

The reason why I keep insisting is because your repetitions are not convincing, and I don't feel they reflect in this case the spirit of the policies quoted. Original Research in particular is not concerned with Wikipedia editors assessing the weight to be given to available sources, which seems to be your major worry; that's a concern of editorial discretion, or at most neutrality, but it's different than "a position not advanced by the sources" which is what OR is about. We have provide enough references that "contains the same material" that was included in the article ("collecting and organizing material from existing sources" from RSs is what editors do, and this is what I see myself and DarkFrog doing; it's you and DonQuixote who don't find those sources reliable for the content they supported, not the guideline. Requiring that in all articles about Game of Thrones, all mentions of repeated plot points are attributed to secondary sources would render the index unusable, as it would fail their purpose - to show readers how they can verify them by themselves. Diego (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"Stated unequivocally" only means that you've made it clear what you think, Jack. I read the policies too and they don't forbid the text in question. In fact, they expressly permit straightforward descriptions of facts from primary sources. Thinking that we should change our minds just because our opinions differ from yours is unreasonable.

Jack, I told you why I didn't want to spend more time looking up more secondary sources: 1. because the rules say that primary sources are enough and 2. because when I did spend the time, you repeatedly deleted the content anyway, without even reading the source first. It doesn't look like anything would satisfy you, not even the things that you say you want. When I asked you why you hadn't spent any time looking up any sources, you said that you had "little in the way of time" and couldn't be bothered [30]. I don't see where you get to complain about other people not doing enough work when they're doing more than you are.

Please DO stop repeating yourself. Your opinion is no less good than mine. Show me something other than your opinion, as I have shown you more than mine. Cite policy. Find precedent articles. Find disputes on this issue that were resolved or produced clear consensus. Doniago wasn't too good to do that and it got us some progress. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Final Comment-- I was going to try and leave this thread open for a day or two in case there could be some resolution but the seeing the bickering and personalized comments in recent comments that there is no emerging consensus so I'm going for the close. Please pursue an RfC or Mediation. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

• Saving Mr. Banks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• FuriousFreddy (talk · contribs)
• 96.228.59.201 (talk · contribs)
• Jedi94 (talk · contribs)
• Diego (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

96.228.59.201 (talk · contribs) has moved the article section on "Historical accuracy" to a subsection fo the Plot subheading, stressing his or her feelings that the film's innacurcy should be stressed. In practically every other biopic article that has been referenced as example/precedent, this section falls somewhere after Production or before Reception, and is typically its own section, certainly separate from Plot. from This has also bled into some NPOV-violating editing and three removals/revisions of my own attempts to try and bring a neutral, referenced tone to the section (and several other revisions and reverts to other editors as well).

Looking to have editor's actions reviewed and consensus formally established as to tone and position of section.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussions, revisions to section with references. These have resulted in only partial success, and the section still has not been able to be moved.

How do you think we can help?

-Reinforce/stress rules (NPOV, 3RR), establish a precedent for coverage of Historical accuracy in narrative films in the WP:FILM guidelines & templates, review Historical accuracy for neutral tone that is based in referenced fact and does not take a side (neither Disney's nor P.L. Travers' nor the filmmakers, but allow all sides' arguments to be present).

Summary of dispute by 96.228.59.201

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Jedi94

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Diego

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Saving Mr. Banks discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hello, I am a volunteer here at DRN. While I have no authority or special powers I can make determinations on requests here. This one is cut and dry. There is no dispute. We have a single editor filibustering to get their way. Even the one semi-supportive editor, Diego, suggests the production section as the best "compromise". Let me go a bit further. The IP editor is mistaken when they state they is no rule against placement of a "Historical accuracy" section. Yes, there are several standards or "rules" about writing these articles. Placement is indeed an issue by putting the section within the plot section because the plot section has a specific function and is exempt from the requirement of references as the book or film is the source. Placement of a "Historical accuracy" subsection in the plot section amounts to original research at best and at worst makes the reader believe all this detail is actually a part of the plot, which it is not. The plot section is for summarizing plot of the book with no analysis...period. The outright consensus (not a rough consensus...but an outright consensus) of editors is to place the section within production or other such section such as even "Critical response". This is an ANI recommendation. One editor cannot filibuster to get their way.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:Timeshare tour (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pocketthis (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi, I was making a few edits to timeshare tour, and there's an editor sitting-on/camping the article reverting every change I make. He's also calling me names in the talk page and making unfounded accusations. Finally, he's dismissing points I'm making about the tone and content of the article. I posted on the DRN talk page asking where the appropriate place is to help and Dwpaul suggested that I post directly to the DRN.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

First I just edited the article. Then I tried reasoning that the article should be changed. It's devolved into name calling.

How do you think we can help?

Well he doesn't seem to respect me because I'm "anonymous." Seems to think I'm from the timeshare industry and I'm trying to whitewash the article. So hopefully an experienced editor or two will back me up on the problems of original research, tone, sources, and the locality of the article. Dwpaul already added a multiple issues tag to that effect.

Summary of dispute by Pocketthis

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Timeshare tour discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

(Non-administrator comment) Please see also these conversations with the editor referred to above: [31][32]. These conversations are the extent of my involvement in the dispute (other than assisting the IP in locating the correct noticeboard). Dwpaul ^Talk 17:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If someone can ID an specific content issue then we can take this case here at DRN. But it appears what we have here is a conduct issue which may be better addressed at WP:ANI since this noticeboard does not deal with editor conduct issues.- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

• Naturopathy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Againstbias (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

Under heading "Lack of Scientific Basis" the statement is made as follows; "Naturopathy lacks an adequate scientific basis" with the reference given as; Jagtenberg, Tom; Evans, Sue; Grant, Airdre; Howden, Ian et al. (April 2006). "Evidence-based medicine and naturopathy". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 12 (3): 323–328. doi:10.1089/acm.2006.12.323

The given reference states "Naturopathy has been accused of lacking a scientific basis", but has been misquoted and has thus not represented the given reference. As such, the reference is purported to support the editor's statement, but does not in the original article. As a Naturopathic practitioner who has studied a 4 year science based Bachelor's Degree in Naturopathy at University level, with 2 of the reference's authors being among my lecturers, I can state that both authors would not support the use of their journal article to represent the Wikipedia editor's statement. Despite numerous attempts to rectify this through Wikipedia talk, and via commenting on the misinterpretation of the referenced journal article, editor/s consistently remove my rectification of the comment that truly reflects the original journal article. This would appear to support editor bias, and negates the relevance of the article, risking negative public perception of Wikipedia's reliability. I request that the statement be altered, and remain altered as follows; "Naturopathy has been accused of lacking an adequate scientific basis"

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted to reason on the "talk" page

How do you think we can help?

By checking the original article, and ensuring the given comment on Wikipedia reflects both the original referenced statement of the authors, taking into account my personal understanding of their viewpoint as a former student.

Summary of dispute by

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Naturopathy 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.

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

• User talk:JohnCD/Archive 27#Deletion review for Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mminetti (talk · contribs)
• RHaworth (talk · contribs)
• JohnCD (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I would like to have a deleted page restored to edit the page, and to resolve the issues listed in my rebuttal at the link listed above.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I contested the deletion. I explained with the following text: “The information submitted would be reviewed and edited where Wikipedia is requesting and that the information is good public knowledge information.” Moments later my page was officially deleted.

How do you think we can help?

Please reinstate the page so I can remove the logo, addresses context of sentences as appropriate and suggested by Wikipedia, and shorten/update sources for the context in general. I am currently unable to create another page because the name "Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority" is backlisted, and the page is temporarily removed. I can not work to address any problems Wikipedia wants resolved.

Summary of dispute by RHaworth

• Mminetti (talk · contribs), you are in the wrong place. You attempted to start a deletion review (DRV) on April 23 but you did it in the wrong place and it was promptly reverted by a bot. If you had been watching the DRV discussion, you would have seen it happen. Why did you not do so? Now, you must go to WP:DRV and follow the instructions properly to start a discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by JohnCD

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

User talk:JohnCD/Archive_27#Deletion_review_for_Pennsylvania_Patient_Safety_Authority 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.

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, here.

Location of dispute

• Fractional reserve banking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Reissgo (talk · contribs)
• SPECIFICO (talk · contribs)
• Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue revolves around the relationship between "reserve requirements", "base money" and the "money supply". Currently the page predominantly emphasises a story where "reserve requirements place an upper limit on the money supply" whereas I wish this to have a version with a caveat: "reserve requirements *could* place an upper limit on the money supply if base money was fixed, but in practice they don't because central banks create new base money on demand".

My opinion is backed up by multiple uber-high-quality references, including the Bank of England.

Editor SPECIFICO, seems utterly determined to suppress this information.

A while back I had a discussion on my talk page with Lawrencekhoo where we both agreed that the caveat should be added. He went and added the a brief outline of the caveat to the lede, but nothing in the main body. I then wanted to modify the body so reflect the lede. One problem was that the reserve-requirements-causes-capping statement was made twice. Once in "history", and once in "money multiplier". It seemed silly to say exactly the same thing twice, and history was no place to put such a technical statement anyway. So my idea was to delete the statement altogether from history, and put the caveat in "money multiplier". SPECIFICO undid my edits claiming (falsely IMHO) that I did not have consensus. SPECIFICO then added a heavily watered down and disguised version of caveat to the history section, leaving the other reserve-requirements-causes-capping statement without a caveat.

The issue appears to have reached a stalemate.

There is also a long history of disputes between myself and SPECIFICO.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I attempted to get opinions of other editors by inviting them on their talk pages, but this doesn't seem to have worked.

How do you think we can help?

SPECIFICO, seems very happy to undo my work very aggressively, but I have noticed he becomes better behaved when anyone else becomes involved. This could be because he is topic banned in another economics area and he doesn't want to get further bans. So a senior editor saying, lets resolve this by doing X, would probably work.

Administrative note: Reissgo, Please provide a link to the talk thread(s) where this specific issue has been discussed. So far I don't see one. If one does not exist then I will need to close this case as significant prior discussion is a prerequisite for filing a DRN case. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Now added. Reissgo (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see a link. Can you respond please and include the link in your response? Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I added it in my answer to "Have you discussed this on a talk page?". Now also here -> [33]

OK, thank you, sorry I didn't see it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There was also this remarkably generaous and patient discussion by LK on Riessgo's talk page. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SPECIFICO

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Lawrencekhoo

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by involved (4 years ago) Hipocrite

The fact that reserve requirements do place a limit on the amount of money is true - the same way that the speed of light does place an upper limit on the speed of spacecraft. Neither limit is currently relevant at all. That doesn't make them not limits. Limits do not show up only as they are reached, nor do they not exist because they could be changed - they are in existence regardless of their being the currently limiting factor.

Still further, Ressigo has been tremendously disruptive to the article for literally years. He is an admitted off-wiki fringe activist who has, for years, demonstrated an utter lack of understanding of any concept behind modern banking. Why do we allow off-wiki activists to disrupt internal processes? Hipocrite (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt, I think it's because none of the other editors on the article has the time or patience to document an ANI which would result in a topic ban for Riessgo. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

fractional reserve banking 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.

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

• Richard Armitage (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• KiplingKat (talk · contribs)
• Drmargi (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dramagi and I have gotten into it a couple times over this page. She has now resorted to snarky comments in the editing history while making minor stylistic edits. This is not the first time she has resorted to snarky comments (and name calling), but those times were on the talk page. Now she has taken it into editing. After months of disengagement, she had to give me a slap after correcting a date format of all things. This was uncalled for and unprofessional.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

At this point Drmagi has obviously made this personal.

How do you think we can help?

I have reported her bad behavior before and nothing has happened. I want Wikipedia to talk to her seriously about her conduct and bad attitude towards other editors.

Summary of dispute by Drmagi

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Richard Armitage (actor)

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.

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:Mark Levin (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gameliel (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Admin Gameliel is engaged in edit warring, protecting POV content on a BLP page explicitly repudiated by said LP (pg. 22 of their book, in that respective section), and is removing/reverting this cited material to maintain his preferred version.

Using my user talk take to warn me for edit warring, (likely) enlisting like-minded editors to act in similar fashion.

Fails/refuses to discuss issue on article Talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Cited material. Explained/attempted discussion on article and user Talk pages.

How do you think we can help?

Not sure. I'm nothing but a lay editor.

Summary of dispute by Gameliel

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Mark Levin discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I have requested that User:Gamaliel give his side of the story before resolution begins. Not enough explanation as to where the dispute specifically lies, perhaps other party of the conflict can help specify location of dispute and/or offer further explanation towards said dispute. --JustBerry (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not see a direct issue with any of the edits that User:Gamaliel has made on the article. Secondly, as I have just checked the user's userpage, has been a Wikipedian for ten years and is currently an enwp administrator. I will wait for User:Gamaliel's response to my request for more details on the dispute. In addition, IP editor completely ignored Gamaliel's request to visit WP:NPOV in revision history of article. Gamaliel's experience as an editor and xe's more complete phrasing of the disputed sentence leads me to decide that Gamaliel's version of the phrasing should remain. Furthermore, there is no issue with WP:POV, as User:Gamaliel clearly highlights that it is Mark Levine that refers to the political philosophies that way rather than himself. To me, User:Gamaliel's phrasing is more descriptive and accurate. --JustBerry (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

May I attempt an uninvolved summary of the apparent issue here? Levin is an conservative/tea party talk radio commentator of a fairly extreme bent. One of his preferred claims is that American liberals are not liberals per se, but merely seek to increase the power of the federal government. He therefore considers them "statists", not liberals. As far as I can see, Gamaliel sees no requirement for Wikipedia to adopt this commentator's terminology and framing; he calls Democrats Democrats and liberals, liberals. I agree with JustBerry that Gamaliel is here adopting the more encyclopedic tone preferring well-known definitions to neologisms and preferring a neutral framing to a tendentious one. I would also point out that third-party coverage of Mark Levin appears quite thin, especially considering his access to prime-time syndicated radio; a trip to AfD is not out of the question. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If I may add another comment, I do agree with User:MarkBernstein's statement that there is not enough third-party coverage, which was one of the concerns of the DRN filer. However, Gamaliel has accurately represented the first party reference, so to speak, informing the reader of the subject's claims/thoughts/opinions. I think the DRN filer's issue and Gamaliel's edit are two separate entities - it's not Gamaliel's fault that there is not enough third party coverage - having some first party coverage is fine, so why is he being blamed for the sourcing? I definitely do agree with Mark's summary and think it adequately summarizes the situation. --JustBerry (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:MarkBernstein has accurately summarized my thoughts on this issue. There is no reason that Wikipedia should adopt the language and framing of the polemicist just because it is his article. Since the IP editor eventually provided a source, I thought the best way to handle the dispute would be to attempt to incorporate that source in an NPOV manner. On page 22 of that source, Levin writes " it is more accurate . . . to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist.” The IP editor writes on the talk page "Levin explicitly defines the terms "liberal" and "statist" and uses them distinctly in his books. They should not be confused or conflated in the descriptions thereof, by those whom, it would appear, haven't read them." but I don't see how that jibes with the sentence by Levin. Gamaliel (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Thank you for your input. If you don't mind, MarkBernstein and I wish to wait another day or so for additional input from other DRN members, as it is currently a US holiday (Memorial Day). Thought I might update you on that. --JustBerry (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no objections. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I have already marked the dispute as resolved; Lowercase sigmabot III should be archiving this page in the next day. Thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:Bitcoin#Regarding bitcoin as a .22real currency.22 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Teggles (talk · contribs)
• Minvogt (talk · contribs)
• Fleetham (talk · contribs)
• MonteDaCunca (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Seems to me that we have a rather non-productive and unguided discussion, about the question whether Bitcoin can be unequivocally (in the lead of the article) claimed to be "not a true currency", based on sources that seem to be divided on this question.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

other than discussing it, none yet, to my knowledge. article is currently protected because of edit warring/content dispute.

How do you think we can help?

I am hoping that an "outside" pair of eyes can bring in a neutral perspective on this (admittedly controversial topic), suggest some new ideas how to resolve the question, and helps finding a phrasing that represents a NPOV.

Summary of dispute by Teggles

A statement in the lead of the article is being persisted in various forms. These forms are usually of the following nature:

• "[Bitcoin is] not a real/true currency"
• "[Bitcoin is] not considered a real/true currency"

I have issue with these forms because:

1. The statements are asserted as an agreed, widely held fact/view
2. The two citations for these statements[34][35] do not suggest that their views reflect a wider consensus -- rather, they merely reflect the views of the parties making the statements -- namely (a) the People's Bank of China and (b) Ryan Avent of The Economist's Free Exchange blog
3. In a USA Today article[36], Bill Maurer, director of the Institute for Money, Technology and Financial Inclusion at the University of California-Irvine, states that "There's also still an unsettled debate about whether bitcoin is a currency or payment protocol — a crucial legal distinction that has made regulators especially wary". This reliable academic source clearly contradicts the certainty of what is in the lead.
4. We have a big list of economists on "Economic Policy Journal" divided on Bitcoin as real money or not[37]. Their quotes make it pretty clear that it is under debate, and not certain. While you could question the reliability of this source, the quote by Pippa Malmgren asserting it as real money is also posted on Bloomberg[38] (which is certainly a reliable source)
5. Aside from the above, there are at least four realiable sources that contradict these statements, all treating Bitcoin as a real currency. These are from a U.S. judge conclusion[39] -- and this conclusion is the most important -- but also from CNN[40], US News[41], and India Times[42].

WP:NPOV states that "we must represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The sources given show that it is a significant view that Bitcoin is a real currency. The current text does not fairly, or even at all, cover this view. It implies that there is only one significant view, and this has been demonstrated as false. That is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. My resolution for this matter consists of one of the following:

1. Replace the aforementioned statement in the lead with "While it is debated whether bitcoin is a true currency" (as per University of California-Irvine quote in USA Today), and unlock the article to allow the range of significant views to be covered
2. Remove any statements in the lead that refer to Bitcoin as a real or not real currency, and cover the range of differing views in the body of the article.

Now, it is not my position to speak for the other parties, but it seems as if the key argument against this comes from: (A) The notion that the sources I have provided are entirely irrelevant/insignificant, (B) Their own conclusions for the definition of currency and how bitcoin fits into that. We seem to be unable to reach a compromise. --Teggles (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Minvogt

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Fleetham

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by MonteDaCunca

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

There are reliable sources in the article for the fact that a bitcoin does not meet the generally accepted academic and central bank definition of money being a medium of exchange, a store of value and a unit of account in terms of which it is thus not a "true currency" or "real money". A US Judge ruled that it is a "currency or form of money." There is thus no reliable source for the statement that "bitcoin is a currency or money". There are many reliable sources that show that it is generally accepted by the man in the street that bitcoin is a digital/virtual currency or digital/virtual money. The Chinese Central Bank ruled it is "fundamentally not a currency". The US IRS stated it is not a currency but a property. I support the statement that although bitcoin is not a true currency it is generally described as a digital or virtual currency based on the fact that it is a widely accepted medium of exchange on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonteDaCunca (talk • contribs) 22:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This user is a sock puppet [43]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bitcoin#Regarding bitcoin_as_a_.22real_currency.22 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Yoo-hoo, this is Nadia and I'll be your volunteer today. :-P
Okay, so I read everything on the article's talk page and there are a few things I'd like to point out, followed by an innocent and quick suggestion that I hope will put an end to the content dispute. :-)
First and foremost, I read from one of the comments that were made by "Teggles" (cute name, by the way) that a US judge has ruled the Bitcoin as a currency. I find that information problematic for one major reason: The US legal system is derived from the Common law, which, if I'm not mistaken, basically means that rulings are subject to the judges' personal interpretations of the law instead of a strict application of a set of fixed guidelines/rules that Judges are normally required to follow in other legal systems. What I'm trying to say is that another US judge could come up with a completely different ruling altogether. That's what sets Common law apart from Civil law. Therefore, I don't think one court decision is enough to outweigh an action that is taken by a financial body, the latter of which is more relevant to this particular case. Ultimately, I believe that the opinions of the banking institutions and government bodies are much "stronger" than the opinion of one judge.
On the flip side, there are many reliable sources that define Bitcoin as a digital currency, including CNN, Investopedia and, most importantly, Encyclopedia Britannica.
So this brings me to my suggestion on how the content dispute can be put to an end... I suggest the sentence, regarding Bitcoin's legitimacy as a currency, goes something like this: "Bitcoin is a digital currency with limited recognition." At the end of the day, that's really what Bitcoin is. It is a digital medium of exchange (i.e. a digital currency), but it's not widely recognized as such. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi --Nadia (Kutsuit), We all agree that bitcoin is a "digital" currency, but do you feel bitcoin is "a true currency" or "not a true currency"? MonteDaCunca (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

(aside: Hey Nadia, thanks for volunteering. I opened this dispute resolution request, but unfortunately didn't have much time in the last days to particiapte. sorry for that)

On topic: I understand that this is kind of *the* question that spawned the discussion, MonteDaCunca, but my point would be that we should avoid the entire "true" or "not true" in the lead, because "true" seems like a loaded word.

I understand we have some sources that deny Bitcoin is a currency, some (maybe less in numbers) sources that say it is a (form of) currency, and I simply would prefer if we don't summarize this state in such a loaded way as "not a true" currency.

I admit, my own attempts at finding a better phrasing weren't very successful either (I suggested to bring back the topic to "legal tender", which Bitcoin of course is not), but that wasn't met with, enthusiasm :D, by Fleetham.

Okay, sorry for the slightly unstructured response... My point, summarized, is as follow: can we try to make the basic claim ("Bitcoin is some form of currency, but not that of any country, and there is dispute among economists if it fulfills all requirements of a currency") without using a charged (and somewhat undefinable) term like "true"?

Minvogt (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi folks - I'm Jeff and I thought I'd join Nadia and toss my thoughts in here. I've also read through the discussion on the article talk page, and I think there's a bit of a false dichotomy going on here. As the ongoing discussion has illustrated, it's probably not possible to clearly call bitcoin a "true" currency or not. In one sense, bitcoin could be considered a true currency in that it is an item that could be exchanged for goods or services. In another, it may not be considered a true currency because it is not legal tender in any area of the world. In a legal sense, it depends entirely on who you ask - the American legal system, the Internal Revenue Service, the People's Bank of China, etc. I think that continuing to argue that specific point back and forth is futile as there are completely valid arguments on both sides, and a compromise needs to be found.

To that end, I pose the following question: What do you feel is the definition of a "true" currency? There are some pretty strong opinions flying around here that bitcoin is or is not true currency, and I think that by boiling down what that means to everyone involved this could more easily reach a satisfying compromise.

That being said, I'm also seeing some definite movement toward a solution on the article talk page. (Which is awesome!) Has the discussion on the talk page resolved this dispute? --ElHef (Meep?) 18:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:Dalmatia (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Silvio1973 (talk · contribs)
• Director (talk · contribs)
• Tomobe03 (talk · contribs)
• Bejnar (talk · contribs)
• Joy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing discussion on Dalmatia, a region of the Balkans (today mainly of Croatia), without any administrative or regional recognition but with current historical relevance. 3 archives and an RfC have been filled but consensus has not been found. The last posts have been mainly between two users: User:Silvio1973 and User:Director. Other users left the discussion, probably tired by exhaustion.

The contested matter is the inclusion of some regions into Dalmatia and how to present this historical region. One map, appropriately sourced could be a valid solution to describe Dalmatia but for some reasons Director insists in posting three maps. The necessity of such overdetail was questioned by Silvio1973 because seems only functional to push a POV, but in vain.

Finally, Director particularly insists in using the current administrative borders of 4 Croatian counties to aggregate Dalmatia as historical region (as currently perceived). This superposition of administrative and historical borders has been questioned by Silvio1973, and User:Joy, User:Bejnar but such comments have been largely ignored by Director.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

RfC

How do you think we can help?

Active participation of more users is needed.

Summary of dispute by Director

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Tomobe02

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Bejnar

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Joy

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Dalmatia discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

@Silvio1973: I will address my resolutions as they correspond to the two issues in this dispute:

1. I don't see how having three maps would be WP:POV. The maps that are currently in the article show geographic information about Dalmatia. I agree that the two smaller maps in the article may be repetitive, but once again, I see no WP:POV there. Hence, my resolution is: keep a large map and a mini-map.
2. If I have interpreted you correctly, I believe you are saying that Director has proposed illuminating the four neighboring regions while representing Dalmatia as a "gray region." In this case, I oppose xyr's proposal, as the article's main focus is Dalmatia, not it's neighboring regions, regardless of how much global importance/power it has with respect to its neighboring regions. --JustBerry (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@JustBerry:, the issue has been so twisted that it's difficult now to get its essence. Even difficult to explain it.

1. The issue is that Director describes in the lede map the Municipality of Gracac as sometime sourced as Dalmatia (and inserts it with a different colour) but after in the third map list it plainly as part of one of the four southernmost counties of Croatia. Of course he does not write that the four southernmost counties of Croatia make up Dalmatia (he cannot, because Dalmatia as an administrative region does not exist), but insists in putting the map there. And it is unclear why he posts a map with administrative boundaries there for a region of historical importance. What he wants to imply?
2. I also welcome the same proposal, Director for some reasons does not. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Silvio1973: Okay, I have additional responses/comments.

1. I don't quite see the issue. Director appears to be addressing the parts of Dalmatia. If the administrative region does not exist, what is the issue? Resolution: the map should simply note that this part is "administered," or something along those lines. What do you mean by administrative, exactly?
2. Okay, I would like to hear Director's thoughts. @Director: Please help add details to the issue. --JustBerry (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@JustBerry: I know the issue is quite hidden and posting three maps Director made it even more obscure. The fact is that Dalmatia as administrative regions does not exist. The largest administrative body in Croatia are the counties, regions do not exist. Hence the issue, Dalmatia is an historical region and any link between its modern perceived historical boundarie and current administrative borders of Croatian counties cannot be set. Yes, let's wait for Director's thoughts.

@Silvio1973: Okay. Let me try pinging a few users to get their input as well. @Huon:@GorillaWarfare:@Josve05a:@Gamaliel: I am pinging you for your input on this DRN case. Thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There's really nothing to be achieved by further discussion. Silvio wants something, therefore he must have it. No amount of reasoning will make him stop. This is WP:STICK and WP:ICANTHEARYOU disruption. No doubt he will move these nonsensical demands over to MEDCOM or whatever, until he's finally sanctioned for his conduct. He has falsely represented the position of other users (or probably didn't even read their comments).

@JustBerry. "Dalmatia" as a whole is indeed not an administrative unit, but some sources (presented in the article and talkpage) today define "Dalmatia" through administrative units (i.e. the four southernmost counties of Croatia). The smaller, differently-coloured areas on the infobox map are not "regions" on their own, they are areas "sometimes considered part of Dalmatia", according to this or that group of sources. Silvio1973 simply disagrees with one definition (four counties), and will not allow that it is sourced. He demands that the map in the infobox not show areas included by that definition, and that the map depicting the four counties be removed. No viable explanation has thus far been given, in spite of numerous requests and inquiries, as to how he justifies his position in light of the sources.

The best I have heard thus far, is that Dalmatia is a "historical region" and therefore can not use modern-day administrative boundaries. But a "historical region" is not one that exists only in the past, but simply one defined through common history. Dalmatia very much exists today as such (which is not disputed, or disputable), and it is therefore perfectly justified for scholarly sources to define it through modern-day administrative boundaries (as they do). Further, even if that were not the case, we would still have to represent the view of these sources in the article. The whole thing is just nonsense, not worthy of anyone's trouble. -- Director (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.