Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 53

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:37, 10 November 2012 (Robot: Archiving 2 threads from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55→Archive 60

White Terror (Russia)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

EverlastingGaze under at least two identities is trying to write crude Bolshevik propaganda and refuses even the most modest amendments to "his" precious article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I appealed three times to the NPOV page and several times on the Russia Group Talk page, to no effect.

How do you think we can help?

EverlastingGaze needs to be told firmly that he does not own the White Terror article and to edit from a NPOV and to accept incremental improvements to the page. Alternatively, best to delete all and start fresh.


Opening comments by ‎InformedContent

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Cwmacdougall

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by EverlastingGaze

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by 75.51.167.249 (same as EverlastingGaze?)

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by ‎Darkness Shines (same as EverlastingGaze?)

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

White Terror discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the 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.

Deftones

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Trascendence removed nu metal from the article claiming consensus without one existing. Discussions began on the talk page where myself, Fezmar9 and WesleyDodds agreed that it should be included due to the published sources already included in the article in support. Trascendence provided some sources, 7 against, while I found 22 sources in favour. When the discussion went stale (Trascendence hadn't edited the article in 17-18 days) I restored the genre. However, he has since reverted the changes and started another discussion, claiming they go against policy.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Multiple discussions on the article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Helping to put to bed a topic that has been done to death. Consensus is clearly in favour with evidence provided. Trascendence has also been involved in a number of genre-only topics regarding Deftones. [1] [2]

Opening comments by Trascendence

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

This started when I removed the genre nu metal in base of an agreement i had with the editor Wesleydoods and a silent consensus from the other two editors involved, it lasted two weeks, one week ago Hrz brought sources that aparently supported nu metal, but he stated that he haven't read all of them, and that when he did so, we will weight the sources to see who has the final word.[3] However he didn't weighted the sources as himself said, neither discussed it further, he just came and added nu metal again, because i have many verifiable sources that refute the idea of the band playing that genre I removed it again. That's the reason of the actual discussion. Anyway, I already balanced the sources, with the result being against nu metal 6#Nu_metal_again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trascendence (talk • contribs) 04:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Fezmar9

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

I think we've been far too civil, lenient and patient with Trascendence. Genre debates with this user go as far back as April 2012[4] and continue today. We have plainly and clearly explained why his edits are against various policies for the last six months. His opinions about what Deftones' genre is boarders on a fringe theory—no mainstream publications or articles agree with his claims, only minor opinion pieces. While I personally hear a lot of other genres in their music, it's impossible to ignore the overwhelming and widely held belief that Deftones is a nu-metal band. There is a clear consensus among editors of Deftones who understand wiki policy and guidelines that it makes sense for nu-metal to be listed in the infobox. The real heart of the issue here is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by WesleyDodds

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

I came into the talk page genre debates that have been occurring on Deftones kind of sideways. I have barely edited the article and have no vested interest in what the band is referred to as (also, in my opinion debating over what goes into the infobox is small fry, for the infobox is intended to be a summary of the article's contents anyway). In this debate and the previous one about post-metal, one of my main goals has be to try to guide everyone to means of finding suitable sources to back up their viewpoints. I have tried my best to deal with everyone in good faith, but I feel it's become more and more apparent that Transcendence is primarily focused on pushing and enforcing his point of view on the article, even if no one else agrees with him (which no one has). Furthermore, he has misrepresented sources he provides to back up his viewpoint (my most recent post on the talk page addresses this), he brushes aside our comments about the quality of those sources he provides and focuses instead on the overall number (which under scrutiny becomes a smaller number), wrongly invokes WP:CON in what appear to me to be attempts to game the system, and with the statement above where he says "This started when I removed the genre nu metal in base of an agreement i had with the editor Wesleydoods and a silent consensus from the other two editors involved" he's either grossly misunderstanding what occurred or outright lying, as I never agreed with him, and in fact pointed that out to him on the talk page already. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Deftones discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Saluts and welcome to DRN. As far as I see, the main issue here is the addition/removal of the "nu metal" music genre from the Deftones article. Also, I see some civility comments over Trascendence. We will be solving the first issue here by now. From what I read above, seems like Trascendence understood (?) that he was uncorrectly adding the genre and now he removed it. I checked the article and this seems to be solved. Is this solved by now? Or there is any other action or issue to be analyzed? — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I believe this is resolved, because no one of the editors involved have replied in the talk page or here. Althought something like this happened the last time: two weeks quiet and without any problem, but then the same issue pops up again, althought this one seems to be more definitive than the previous discussions. Trascendence (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The issue is not resolved. The consensus and preponderance of evidence is in favor of including nu-metal in the infobox. Trascendence is under the opinion that it's widely believed that Deftones don't play nu-metal, and that because no one noticed that he previously removed nu-metal, that we were all clearly in favor of its removal. Neither of these statements are true. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The references were weighted two days ago, the result favors the deletion of nu metal from ythe infobox [5], all the editors noticed that i removed nu metal and I even gave advise in the talk page, also, looks like you just forgot (again) what consensus is. Trascendence (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
The issue is still not resolved. Since the last reply on the article talk page, it has been shown that there are more sources in favour of the genre. Trascendence is prone to making assumptions as well about editors ("all the editors noticed that i removed nu metal," "i had with the editor Wesleydoods and a silent consensus from the other two editors involved") when he has been told otherwise. It has also been pointed out to him that WP:SILENT is not a policy or guideline, yet he invokes it much the same. The only resolution he has spoke of is waiting for their new album to come out and, ergo, more sources (through reviews) but that doesn't comply with WP:CRYSTAL. HrZ (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Just so everyone is clear, I'm going to refrain from further discussion on the article talk page and instead comment here until this matter is settled, as I don't see us resolving the deadlock without the aid of a third party. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this is probably the best way forward. HrZ (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added more sources to support my statement in the talk page, however, very probably i won't be online tomorrow, (I'm saying this because i don't want my abscence to be confused with some kind of consensus). Trascendence (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I also want to point out to any dispute resolution volunteers who wade into this debate that I take issue with Trascendence's attempt to shut down discussion in his favor while this dispute resolution is ongoing. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Okay, sorry for the delay guys. I was kind of busy but I am back here. So, as far as i can read again, seems like consensus has not been reached whether to add or remove nu-metal. Now, how did you weight the sources and how did you reached the assumption that it was indeed in favour of removal? I will take a look at all the discussions again to illustrate myself more into the context; while I am at it, I beg you all to please answer these brief questions i left- Thanks- — ΛΧΣ21™ 07:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    Okay again. I think i got it: Merely mentioning "nu-metal" in the infobox is, in my opinion, either pointless and useless. They have been categorized as nu-metal in the past and several good sources destroy this claims with good rationales and musical and historical studies, comparing the band's work with other famous rock groups like Korn or Limp Lizkit. I would recommend the avoidance of the addition of the nu-metal genre in the infobox and heavily expand on this information in the respective section. It would make a very interesting read to know how the band was first "miscatalogued" as nu-metal and then several sources discussed the accuracy and debatability of this. — ΛΧΣ21™ 07:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for the feedback. My general impression of the sources is that most of them who don't outright say Deftones are a nu metal band either say they are an unconventional nu metal band (1, 2, 3) or moved away from the genre (1, 2, 3). I need to reexamine the sources, but as I recall only one source (1) claims they were "miscatalogued". WesleyDodds (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    Well, i was just giving a general comment and "miscatalogued" is OR from me :P. What i tried to say is that it would be better to explain how they have been considered nu metal and then how they weren't considered nu metal and such. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    I agree that such a thing belongs in the prose, but given how so many sources discuss the band as nu metal (indeed, one of the genre's more noteworthy bands) wouldn't that be a good reason to list the genre in the infobox? I'm not pushing the point; I'm curious as to what your honest assessment is considering the sources provided. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    I consider that this is a delicate issue. Naming a band to belong to an specific genre of music is not easy. Also, this is not a matter of how much sources are there; it is how much sources there discuss the topic. In my personal view, I see [from several aleatory sources] that they were catalogued as nu-metal in the beginning, but then moved into other genres while they were developing their music. You may have two options: adding the genre on the infobox [because they have released works considered inside the scope of the music genre] or leave it out and cover it on the appropiate section using prose. I ave no personal choice, but I can develop more solutions :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • There are far more sources saying that they were lazily dumped in the nu metal thing than sources saying that they're "unconventional-nu metal" i consider the idea of ΛΧΣ (the idea of explaining how they were miscatalogued and then moving away from the labe) as a good alternative, i can write that down this week if we reach a consensus. Trascendence (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    ΛΧΣ and the other involved editors, do you agree that "There far more sources saying that they were lazily dumped in the nu mtal thing than sources saying that they're "unconventional-nu metal" based on the information provided? I don't, but I'm open to having my mind changed. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    Can't say I agree, but I will look at the sources again. "it would be better to explain how they have been considered nu metal and then how they weren't considered nu metal and such" - I could be wrong (feel free to point out if I am) but something like this was suggested before in previous discussions. As WesleyDodds pointed out, they were one of the more noteworthy bands of the genre and would like to know what ΛΧΣ thinks. HrZ (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    Actually, I am not an involved editor but the volunteer giving a had to solve this heated issue :). As I said some lines above, it "is not a matter of how much sources are there; it is how much sources there discuss the topic" which truly matters. Also, I can add: "what will/would be better for the article? Just listing the genre on the infobox? or expanding the genre coverage and such as prose? or both?" — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    My answer to "what will/would be better for the article? Just listing the genre on the infobox? or expanding the genre coverage and such as prose? or both?" would be "Both". WesleyDodds (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    Well, another option would be, if [when consensus between] all of you agree to add it to the infobox, you could put something like this: "genre 1, genre 2, nu-metal[a]" and add a note with something like this: "The band has been considered a nu-metal band by several sources throughout their career,[1][2] although such status has been heavily disputed in recent years.[3][4] For a detailed overview about the band's genre designation, read the appropiate section above." It may also work. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    I would really hate to tell a reader that there's a conflict or dispute about nu-metal when one might not truly exist. Per WP:WEIGHT, "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." Before this DRN, Trascendence's evidence that there is a large following of people who disagree with Deftones' labeling of nu-metal was poorly supported and seemed to be largely his personal opinion. After opening the DRN, he has since flooded the talk page with new links supposedly supporting his opinion. I've been very busy lately and haven't had time to check all of these new sources, but the two I randomly selected from this list weren't terribly convincing. I'll check out the others this weekend. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Guy Fawkes#Addition_of_V_for_Vendetta_Reference

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I inserted a reference to the movie V for Vendetta on the Guy Fawkes page. This was quickly removed. I then started a section on the Talk page, and asked that people discuss the matter there, rather than remove the reference. However, an edit war resulted, with little discussion of the matter on the relevant section on the talk page. This resulted in me getting a ban, so as per wikipedia guidelines, and to avoid further edit warring, I have opened this WP:DR


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

As mentioned, tried to get some discussion with Malleus Fatuorum, Parrot of Doom on the relevant section on the talk page, with little luck. I have posted in two other editors talk pages who I have seen have been involved in the discussion previously, asking them for comment. I've also looked at the history of the discussion int he archives.

How do you think we can help?

I think anything that could get some mediation and talk happening between the editors involved, and to get some discussion happening rather than just a constant edit war. Thanks for your help.

Opening comments by Malleus Fatuorum

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Parrot of Doom

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Comment by ~uninvolved Kiefer.Wolfowitz

There has been an extensive discussion of the comic/film in the archive, and you may try to understand that the writers of the article are tired of discussing old business.

In similar cases, editors of featured articles are more likely to respond if you seem to have read the archives and make a new argument for including a discussion of the comic/film. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Explanation by "Christ on a bike is this argument still going on?" Iridescent

The issue here (which is poorly explained in the previous discussions) is that Wikipedia isn't in the business of literary value judgements. The Gunpowder Plot is one of the formative events in English history; and thus by extension world history—17th-century England as a Roman Catholic Spanish puppet-state would have meant no United States, no British Empire, and probably no Treaty of Westphalia and thus no concept of "nation" as distinct from "realm". Because of this, it's very widely embedded in English and English-speaking culture, of which V for Vendetta is a relatively insignificant part. Because it's not down to Wikipedia to decide which literary works are relevant to readers, an in-popular-culture section needs either to include the whole of Gunpowder Plot in popular culture, or none of it. (The festival of Guy Fawkes Night is an exceptional case, as that's a 400-year-old widely celebrated festival which largely shapes modern perceptions of Fawkes.) In cases like Daniel Lambert where the popular-culture element is small enough to be manageable this is practical, but incorporating every significant cultural depiction of Fawkes would swamp the article, while incorporating V4V without giving equal weight to Guy Fawkes (novel) or Equivocation (play) is a value-judgment of the type that's inappropriate on a project that tries to be neutral. By (re)adding the section the coverage is tilted away from WP:NPOV, and thus however good-intentioned can reasonably be construed as disruption. – iridescent 22:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I was going to voice my support of a VFV inclusion, Iridescent is entirely correct, and I support the above statement entirely.--ɱ 01:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If the case is such as above, and we could be looking at a situation where the play and the novel are not included, while V for Vendetta is, why not include *the main items* in a section on "Guy Fawkes in popular culture"?. The spirit of Wikipedia is to include all viewpoints, so people can make up their own minds, not too exclude them because they may offend...and I think this extends to cultural works that reflect on the nature of a person. IMDB lists 11 productions that feature Guy Fawkes....but clearly they aren't all major productions, don't all have the same cultural significance, and all 11 don't need to be listed. Same with the novel and the play. The reality is - people will continue to come to this page and add V for Vendetta to it, expecting it to be there - as I did. It's a natural inclusion (as is also the novel and the play...but V for Vendetta is probably more well known because of its recency). Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not encourage including all viewpoints. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#"Giving equal validity" discuss this extensively. Viewpoints must be given due weight, in proportion to the significance of each viewpoint. As a recent meme, highlighting it may unduly emphasise recent events, without considering the overall historical view of the subject.--xanchester (t) 02:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Guy Fawkes#Addition_of_V_for_Vendetta_Reference discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

This case should be closed; the prior discussion is only a day old and is not extensive. Although consensus can change, the argument has been not to include the popular culture reference because of due weight. Guy Fawkes is a significant historical figure. V for Vendetta, the comic book that spawned the Hollywood movie that spawned the internet meme, is only indirectly related to the actual historical figure, and is already adequately covered in the Guy Fawkes in popular culture article. Highlighting it in the main Guy Fawkes article gives the popular culture reference too much weight over other cultural depictions of the subject. I hope that helps.--xanchester (t) 02:41, 9 November 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_53&oldid=522294439"