Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 28
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
X Japan
 | There looks like a rough consensus to use "rock" in the very first sentence of the lede. If there is still a dispute over whether or not to include "visual kei" in the infobox, I recommend holding a request for comments on the article's talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
We are currently disputing the genre list on the X Japan Wikipedia site. The following genres are listed: heavy metal, speed metal, power metal, progressive metal, symphonic metal, glam metal. The common consensus is to change the genres that X Japan is known for, including Metal (the term “metal” encompasses all of the metal genres listed above), Rock, Visual Rock, Visual Kei. These genre additions have been consistently denied by a user (xfansd), for reason stating that X Japan is considered a metal band in a variety of sources, writing “A genre of a band is determined by what sources label that band's music in general.” The author of the page cites the following source when listing the genres: X Japan: Best Review http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7936. The article lists numerous genres beyond just “metal.” For instance, the headline itself reads, “Reliving the Height of Japan’s Superlative Visual Rock Band.” Later in the article, you will find “…most revered Japanese rock band” and “fleeting genre known to fans as “Visual Kei” (aka “Visual Rock”). Thus, we are asking to acknowledge ALL genres listed in this article if this is what the author will base the genre selection on. In order for the contributions to be accurate, the following genres have to be included: “Visual Rock” “Rock” “Visual Kei”. We are using this article as the main source indicating X Japan’s “genre,” so all genres listed in the article need to be included. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Yes, the issue has been raised, and each user has logically made their argument on the talk page. The page has gone through many freezes, no longer allowing contributions.
We need an administrator to monitor this situation and prevent just one person (xfansd) from dictating the terms of the page. Please take note of the general consensus among the users. Leslieulm (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC) X Japan discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
If this is only one user ignoring consensus, this is no longer a content issue but a conduct issue.Curb Chain (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe the users were recently notified. Can we please extend the deadline for them to respond? Also, if this request is abandoned, can it be raised again? Because if not, xfansd can simply ignore this thread and "win." If you notice on the X Japan talk page, xfansd has removed numerous edits from a variety of users. This is not just one person against another, but one person deciding how to edit this page. Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for this information. xfansd removes additions to the genre portion (he is adamant about referring to the band as a "metal" band). This is fine; however, as I argued above, X Japan is known for many different genres outside of metal, and those genres should be included. Please see my post on the talk page. Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The author cites one source as to why it is listed as metal. However, the article also lists "rock", "visual kei rock, "glamour rock", etc. The author selectively chose which to include. We have tried to incorporate more of the genres (I can support with a list of reviews, descriptions, etc. that also list other genres outside of metal), but these changes have been refused by xfansd. We have brought up this on the talk page (please refer to this), and numerous people have been blocked and denied changes, all from one person. I am in no way asking to remove metal (they can be considered a metal band), I just think I have proven the justification in adding more genres. We were directed to bring the dispute here from an administrator since no resolution was reached from just the talk page. Also, I apologize if any if my formatting was against Wikipedia standards. No more caps from my end. Leslieulm (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I did not mean xfansd as the author, i meant the original author who published the genre portion on the right hand of the page. xfansd had done a great job with monitoring this page, and did change the body to "rock." Someone else did change it back. What we would like is to have more genres added to the right hand portion of the page, where it breaks down genre, members, etc. If metal is a subgenre of rock, why can't rock also be included? And when it comes to reliable sources, the source used to list the metal genres 1.) is outdated and 2.) lists other genres. The author (I repeat, NOT xfansd) is being selective on which genres to include. I am citing the same source as the author in my argument, and if he was able to use this, I assume it is in fact a "reliable" source. Leslieulm (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
64.183.116.78 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it's done by you or an admin. An admin can just as easily be reverted as you would =) So, the best course of action is to see what the others think. If no one objects within the next 24 hours, I think it's safe to make the necessary changes to include "rock" and/or change to "rock". Best regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Leslieulm (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Good to know. And I agree completely -- this is what I am arguing for in my original post. Thanks for your input, much appreciated. Leslieulm (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Another genre listed in that article is "Visual Kei" and if you look at the Visual Kei page on wikipedia, it lists X Japan as a pioneer of this genre. This should also be included: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Visual_kei. Also, the article from UCLA does not cite symphonic metal or power metal. Can we see the source for that? Leslieulm (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
(Section break)I see that there is an issue where the words, "rock" and "metal", are being used interchangably throughout the article. I think that one mention of "rock" in the lede is sufficient enough for the reader to know that the sub-genres that are listed as metals are considered rock (as it is already). So, xfansd is right by saying that duplicate genres are not necessary. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
No. That's not what I'm saying. Glam metal is a more specific sub-genre than "glam rock", but they are basically the same thing. For that reason, it should be left glam metal because it's a specific sub-genre of rock. Further since "visual rock" and "glam rock" are clearly the same thing, the same thing applies. So, I only think "visual kei" should be added to the list, with a source of course! Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Metal is a sub-genre of rock. Thus, glam metal is a sub-genre of glam rock, therefore, making it a more specific sub-genre in my opinion. I think Billboard is good source unless it's written in a press release or biography format. Just to be safe, I'd look for a second source. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 25, 2012 at 23:38 (UTC) because stale or resolved Whenaxis talk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 23:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Please dont close this thread i just saw today that this dispute was going on ill find article to prove x japan´s genres ! Ladyslime (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC) For now i found this http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/18/arts/the-pop-life-end-of-a-life-end-of-an-era.html saying X Japan "pioneering its own genre, a Japanese equivalent of glam rock known as visual kei. " and talk a little more about their style...and well New York Times is a reliable source right? Ill search for more anyway Ladyslime (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Please do not close the thread. I have just seen this thread now. I was not aware that there was a deadline to submit references. I will look for references so that you could add the word "rock" to X Japan's music genre. Thank you. Mikaxxxxxxxxx (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC) I am now aware that we all agreed on adding "visual kei," and it's settled. Although it may be too late (again, I did not see this thread until a few hours ago today; thus, I wish a grace period be granted) I still wonder why we cannot add "rock" as well. As we see in discussions above, if, in fact, metal is sub-genre of "rock," doesn't X Japan's music fall under the big genre of "rock" with all those sub-genres described within, such as glam metal? If that is the case, is it wrong to add rock? If the Wikipedia's purpose is to give information to general public as to who/what the subject is, general public will probably recognize the wider genre called "rock" more in addition to those sub-genres being exclusively described in terms of metal? Btw I do completely agree to the fact that "visual kei" was, in fact, added. Thank you. Mikaxxxxxxxxx (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran
| Stale or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Circumcision
| RFC now pending. — TransporterMan (TALK) 12:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dispute overview
Results from a metanalysis are being grossly misinterpreted and generalized to the entire world population. Users involved
Civility is largely being followed. Involved users are communicating; there is merely a fundamental difference of opinion.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Significant discussion has occurred on the talk page. I and some feel that content needs to be re-worded to better reflect study findings, and others are hiding behind policy and refuse to discuss the issues with the content.
Clarity on Wikipedia policy needs to be offered, as well as help on how to summarize research data while keeping context. Rip-Saw (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Circumcision discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
This discussion arose because Rip-Saw added the qualifier "African" to "heterosexual men" in this edit, asserting that '"Strong evidence" cannot be generalized to the entire world population.'. This appears to be his/her own interpretation rather than that of the cited source, which reads "There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66% over 24 months."[1]. (S)he has offered multiple lengthy explanations, but these seem to be his/her own analyses rather than that of the sources. Jakew (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The American Urological Association states: "the results of studies in African nations may not necessarily be extrapolated to men in the United States at risk for HIV infection" [5]. The "strong evidence" lead sentence has been disputed by a great deal of authors. I suggest we move it out of the lead and attribute it to the author instead of saying it in Wikipedias voice.Gsonnenf (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that briefly describes the participants and their views on this topic. Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
What an astonishing amount of vitriol! No wonder it's so hard to reach agreement. Jayjg (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I said it once, I will say it again, let's agree to discuss content, not contributors. Numbers, whether they be votes, edit counts, or IQ points, are completely independent of the content of circumcision. That little triangle I keep posting is there for a reason. If someone says something, you address what they said directly and prove them wrong. Rip-Saw (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Procedural question--How does this get 'closed' here?It seems at this point the exact same discussion we were having at Talk:Circumcision is now happening here instead of there, and without being any closer to resolution. While here, it picked up four new editors: AvocadosTheorem, who asked a follow up question, but provided no opinion; Curb Chain, who agreed with keeping the qualifier "African men" out; Paul Barlow, who agreed with keeping the qualifier "African men" out; and Therewillbefact, who suggested qualifying the lead statement with "Cochrane review" and pointed to another study that uses an "African men" qualifier. I observe none of these four new editors is an Admin (not that it's necessary, but just observing), and the last post by any of them was about a day and a half ago, by Therewillbefact. How does a decision get made, and how does this discussion move to a close here? Or is it time to bring this discussion to another venue? Zad68 (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Clerk's note: Like everything else at Wikipedia, DRN is operated by volunteers and I'm afraid that we're at a low ebb on the number of volunteers here at DRN at the moment. To further complicate the issue, every volunteer gets to choose what kind of disputes he or she wants to become involved with and there are fewer who want to be involved with complex, wall-o-text disputes like this one than with ones which can be quickly and easily addressed. Let me offer some suggestions about what to do next. There are only four more-or-less final ways to resolve content disputes at WP:
All that mediation through Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee can do is to help keep your dispute orderly, civil, and perhaps offer some compromises which you haven't already thought of yourselves, with an ultimate objective of still achieving resolution method 1. Doing that will only work if you all honestly believe that with that kind of help that there is still a possibility that you can come to a compromise agreement over this dispute and you are willing to take days to weeks to get to that compromise. If you, or any one of you, do not think that's possible, then mediation is simply going to end up with resolution method 2, 3, or 4 and my very strong suggestion would be to either (a) mutually drop the stick and live with method 2 or (b) jump directly to an RFC so that you can end up at method 1 or 2 more quickly. I'm sorry that DRN has not been helpful, but unless a volunteer steps up to the plate here at DRN (and, to tell the truth, we cannot do any more here at DRN than what can be done in mediation), I see those as your options at this point. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Since this discussion has devolved into incivility, I intend to close this 24 hours after 18:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC) unless either a DRN volunteer comes along who wants to work on it. See my comments immediately above about what other alternatives you may have. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I guess the next step is informal mediation then. Rip-Saw (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
RfC now openAn RfC has now been opened on this issue. Since there is little point in operating two dispute resolutions mechanisms simultaneously, I'd be grateful if someone would close this thread. Jakew (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Roman Polanski
| Now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Dispute overview
The section called the "sexual assault case" starts by saying that Polanski was arrested for sexual assault on 13-year-old Samantha Greimer. It then talks at length about the defense case, but it never includes any description at all about what Polanski was accused of, which one would expect if they came to Wikipedia to read about him. The only information comes in a separate article on the case, which there is a link to. What allegedly happened during the assault is described at length there. I've tried to include some accurate description of what Polanski was accused of. I wrote a few sentences at first, and that was removed. Then I added just one sentence, with a briefer description, and that was removed. I'd explained beforehand in the talk section why it doesn't seem NPOV not to include even a small description of what Polanski was accused of in his article. I also think it's concerning that no sort of mention is made of this case in the first paragraph about Polanski. I went to About.com's article about him, and it was referred to there. I also attempted to add a short paragraph on actress Charlotte Lewis' allegations against Polanski, which is mentioned in her Wikipedia bio, and that was removed. I did mention in what I wrote on "talk" that the account could just be balanced with information casting doubt on her claim. And I've experienced trouble posting external links on the Polanski page, so I was wondering if it was some problem I just couldn't figure out, or if external links need some approval from someone on the Polanski page. I tried inserting links to Geimer's testimony and some other articles, including a long one from the LA Times on Geimer's testimony, but I kept getting error messages. I have seen from reading some sections here that the other editors involved in the dispute should be notified, and I'm not quite sure how to do that, but I'll see if I can figure it out. I did post about this yesterday on one editor's page but didn't get a response. Psalm84 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I did refer both to the talk page where I wrote about why I believe the Polanski page should include at least a short description of what he was accused of, and I also did write about it on the user talk page of Wikiwatcher1.
In offering other opinions and guidance.
Roman Polanski discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
(Comment from uninvolved editor) All I see is one posting on the talk page after you edit warred that has yet to be responded to. Hearing no reasoned objections, I intend to close this in 24 hours from 16:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC) with the rationalle of "Not yet finished with talk page". Hasteur (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The new edit I posted was removed by Wikiwatcher1, despite the fact that
The new edit I posted today is this:
The reason wikiwatcher1 gave for undoing the edit is this: "Per talk - handpicked isolated interview snippets." I don't see that argued on the talk page, but in any case, there are dozens of news sources that could be cited which provide those same facts as part of the basic background on what allegedly happened that day. And there are also many news sources that quote the same information from Geimer's grand jury testimony, so it would be very easy to change the cited sources. Wikiwatcher1 also doesn't give a reason for undoing the whole edit, which also included some of the specific charges against Polanski. That information didn't come from the interview but no reason is given for taking that information out, either. I think the issue that needs to be addressed here is the question about including what Polanski was accused of in his bio. That seems to be the issue, which is brought up in an exchange that I had with Wikiwatcher1:
Because of not receiving replies on this page and the talk page, and that the reasons for undoing the edits don't seem to be what's at issue, I thought it best to bring up the latest dispute here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm84 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC) |
Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Ronald Reagan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
A group of users is working together to remove almost all critical information from the Obama article. This is in stark contrast to the articles about Republican Presidents. The contrast is dramatic; see my hatted post on the talk page, which I have duplicated here: [1]
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- William Jockusch (talk · contribs)
- Wikidemon (talk · contribs)
- HiLo48 (talk · contribs)
- Scjessey (talk · contribs)
- Dezastru (talk · contribs)
- Crakkerjakk (talk · contribs)
- Cube lurker (talk · contribs)
- Tarc (talk · contribs)
- Loonymonkey (talk · contribs)
- NeilN (talk · contribs)
- Seb az86556 (talk · contribs)
- DD2K (talk · contribs)
- Innab (talk · contribs)
- Pass a Method (talk · contribs)
- Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs)
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Lengthy, voluminous discussions on the talk page
- How do you think we can help?
Not sure, but it is not appropriate that a majority of users from one end of the political spectrum keep the article in such an outlandishly biased state. It is not just one or two users. The reverts of criticism are spread among many people, which allows each individual user to avoid getting into an edit war. But the cumulative effect is a tremendously biased article. I don't know if Wikipedia has a means of dealing with this type of situation. If not, it is likely to become a long-term problem. If NPOV is intended as a serious policy on Wikipedia, there needs to be a way to maintain it in the article about the President of the United States. There are some sub-issues which you might be able to resolve: (1) should the article have an NPOV tag?, and (2) Is global NPOV an appropriate topic for discussion on the talk page or not.
William Jockusch (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV discussion
Comment Since my name is above I'll make a comment. On my involvement with that page, it's very limited. My only recent talk page involvement has been to oppose one proposed addition (FYI not by WJ) that was close to unanimously rejected, as well as a couple posts that were an attempt to tone down some discussion that was getting heated. Overall with political articles regardless of party I try to be consistant with my opinions in applying the standard, does this belong in an encyclopedia, or a political blog. I have looked at the talk page, and IMHO some of William Jockusch's proposals have some merit, others I disagree with. Always though, even with the theoreticals I agree with, the devils in the detail of wording & sourcing which I haven't studied. That's really all I have except to say that I'm pretty sure I'm not the problem, and I'm not sure how big a part I can be to the solution.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- The Obama article is a perennial target for POV-pushing advocacy, every few months a quote-unquote "new user" shows up with just the right amount of semi-believable "I'm new here" acts, declaring massive NPOV problems with the article because it does not contain various sundry criticism past and present. This will end up as these things invariably do; someone will connect the "William Jockusch" account to a past, famous sockmaster (BryanFromPalatine, ChildOfMidnight, Joehazelton, and the like) and block it, or it will be blocked simply for doing the same thing as many, many other blocked and banned users have done over the years. Sooner or later, it will boil down to that end. Tarc (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment "Not sure, but it is not appropriate that a majority of users from one end of the political spectrum keep the article in such an outlandishly biased state. It is not just one or two users." pretty much says it all, with its use of hyperbole (outlandishly biased state) and the opposite of WP:AGF (users from one end of the political spectrum). I'm not an American, have little interest in their political games, but do think one editor shouldn't be allowed to slap a NPOV tag on a FA just because he's not getting his way on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 16:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a viable or legitimate dispute. It's a baseless accusation of bad faith against the community from an editor ostensibly new to the Obama article, making the same claims and amidst some of the same misbehavior that lead to article probation, arbcom, etc. We've been through this drill before. An aggrieved editor believes that the biography of Obama ought to be slanted to reflect more poorly on the subject, for no purpose other than that American politics demands an equal portrayal of all participants. They accuse the rest of the community of misbehavior, instead of acknowledging that they simply don't have a consensus or an actionable encyclopedic purpose / proposal. In the background, sock accounts of banned users are cheering them on and organizing attacks on legitimate editors they begrudge. Please, let's not throw countless productive hours down the waste bin humoring this again. I'm not going to waste my time participating in a rehash of old discussions, but a single editor with an acknowledged POV agenda doesn't get to slap a POV tag on a high traffic featured article like that. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment I'm assuming the main reason why I am listed above is because I gave a hint that it's no use putting a POV tag on an FA. Apart from that, I think I made 2 comments on the talkpage. I just wanna remind William that this POV-tagging really isn't a good idea. Other than that, he's free to keep arguing his point on the talkpage... Of course, there'll be a lot of people arguing against him. He's gotta get used to that... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've just removed a post by P2d4b8z2 (talk · contribs) a sock of User:Grundle2600 from the editor's talk page. Grundle's sock has been posting to a number of editor's talk pages as well as to the Obama talk page. An IP, suspected of being a sock, (and obviously not new [7] has been doing the same. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- That IP has a different operator. Grundle for all his persistence is always good natured and rarely wikilawyers. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that IP is suspected of being a sock of someone else. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- That IP has a different operator. Grundle for all his persistence is always good natured and rarely wikilawyers. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - This is not a dispute. This is an example of tendentiousness by one person who evidently wishes to use Wikipedia to further an agenda. Faced with an overwhelming lack of support for his proposals, he slapped an NPOV tag onto a featured article as a badge of shame. Since that hasn't worked, he has apparently resorted to wikilawyering. That being said, I'm happy to see that this apparent new user had no difficulty in finding and making use of DRN. It shows that the system is working. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Just to clarify my earlier comment about William Jockusch apparently editing with an agenda, it is clear from William's off-wiki activity that he is interested in portraying Obama in a negative light. Since he freely contributes under his own name both on-wiki and off, it would not be a violation of WP:OUTING to note his efforts in this regard: App, Videos. I think this puts the "dispute" in a proper context. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Just to clarify, I am absolutely a political opponent of Obama. I have never tried to hide that fact. However, that does not change the fact that this article is not NPOV. Surely an article about a President should mention the main critiques of his policies, as is done with Reagan and both Bushes. If this article summarized the main criticisms of Obama, as the Reagan/Bush articles do for those Presidents, there would be no need for this dispute. Not birtherism, allegedly being a secret Muslim, or other nonsense, but the mainstream criticisms of his economic policies that are actually true. Stuff like "these deficits are unsustainable and a threat to the economy" or "the President has not pushed Congress to pass a budget". Does the fact that such a concern is brought forward by a political opponent somehow make it invalid? Do the deficits somehow become less unsustainable because of attacks on the person who is bringing up the issue? Does the lack of a budget somehow become less of a red flag, merely because the person bringing it up is an Administration critic?William Jockusch (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Just to clarify my earlier comment about William Jockusch apparently editing with an agenda, it is clear from William's off-wiki activity that he is interested in portraying Obama in a negative light. Since he freely contributes under his own name both on-wiki and off, it would not be a violation of WP:OUTING to note his efforts in this regard: App, Videos. I think this puts the "dispute" in a proper context. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Totally agree with Scjessey comment above. Several people worked on the charts in economic block, making adjustments and trying to comply with requests. It is official statistics from Bureau of Labor Statistics and it illustrates what said in the block. Other presidents have economic charts too. However, some people only be satisfied if the article provides only negative information about US president, so they are promoting their political agenda by trying to remove truthful, verifiable and reliable information from the article. Innab (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment - The way this discussion is going pretty much mirrors what has been happening in talk -- multiple false accusations against me, while trying to evade/ignore/obsucre fact-based discussion of the central issue, which is, to repeat, Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV, as conclusively demonstrated on my user page. Whoever is evaluating this, expect to see the pattern continue. I hope you are able to get past the nonsense to see the essential point. Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Multiple false accusations" like what, exactly? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- William, it is certainly possible to see a pattern of multiple people forming a cabal to launch accusations against you, and that it is all part of a bigger conspiracy. That is indeed one way of looking at it. Or — the other way of looking at this is that it could be... that you're simply wrong. Could be. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I'm one of the editors listed and I've already provided detailed reasons on the article's talk page as to why I believed the complaining editor's proposed edits are/were not appropriate. At this point I believe it's obvious this editor is looking to make changes to reflect a very specific point of view offered up by President Obama's political adversaries. They seem to be under the misguided impression that any News source that doesn't parrot Fox News election year talking points is somehow "left-wing" and any editors who object to such inclusions must also somehow be "politically motivated" (however, I believe a glance at the talk page should reveal which editor has clearly declared their political motivations). The discussion on the talk page has gone on and on and I've honestly grown tired of the whole thing. I can't speak for the other editors involved, but it's been my impression over the last couple of days that I'm not the only one who has grown weary and has simply "checked out". I mean, yes, we should have a calm and cordial discussion, but there comes a point when an editor begins trying other editors' patience. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment It seems a statement of the glaringly obvious that the article isn't NPOV - it's a political BLP POV of a player in an election. POV of a political BLP depends on how assiduously it's protected (Palin's article in 2008 was a sublime example); and as a campaign heats up and battleground mentality sets in, energetic wikilawyering can render NPOV all but impossible (not pointing at anyone named here, I haven't waded through the edit history). So JW it's probably best for your blood pressure if you accept the stinging realities of these hornets' nests. Take Obama off your watchlist until after November and return with your changes when the dust has settled. Note: bringing your dispute here unfortunately makes you, and not the issue, the centre of attention (a perennial drawback of the noticeboards). Question: can we expect to see you campaigning also for NPOV in Obama's opponents' BLPs? Writegeist (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oustide observation I'm afraid I don't see this as an NPOV issue. Wikipedia articles are not for cataloguing instances of praise for and criticism of their subjects, but for reporting the important events which have occured in relation to those subjects, and doing so in a way which is pleasant to read. I don't see large sections of the article devoted to either praise or criticism, and since there isn't much praise or much criticism, I would consider the article to be a good example of how NPOV should work: report what happened, and let other venues, like blogs and whatnot, report on what we should feel about it. The Obama article doesn't appear to be a big problem. If the OP is trying to shoehorn criticism into the article, and is being met with widespread opposition, it is quite likely that it doesn't belong there, because that's not what Wikipedia articles are for. --Jayron32 18:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jayron. That's basically been my exact point all along. This editor isn't looking to add "criticism" from all viewpoints, but rather, only rhetoric from Obama's political opponents on the far right. It should be noted that this is not the article about his presidency, but his biography. Now, if a specific notable widespread criticism prompted Obama to change his policy on a given issue, then I might be willing to consider its inclusion, however, in most instances, I do not believe his biography is the appropriate place for hashing out all political "criticisms" of his policies. Particularly not in an article about a politician currently running for re-election (the criticisms cited in the Reagan and Bush articles this editor keeps repeatedly referencing have the benefit of historical hindsight, and aren't being altered with the motivation of distorting their bios with the intent of influencing an upcoming election) Simply injecting Fox News talking points into the article would be a move away from NPOV, not towards it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment The content William Jockusch persistently wants added to the article is precisely the sort of content Obama's political opponents would want in the article, not with the goal of improving Wikipedia, but with the obvious intention of damaging Obama's election chances. I see exactly the same sort of thing happening at the Romney article and am firmly opposing such additions there too. It's possible that William Jokusch's motives are as pure as the driven snow. I cannot read his mind, so I can never tell. But, given the election cycle in process, no additions of this kind should even be countenanced. These two men have had articles for years. For new "dirt" of the kind that appeals to political mud-slingers to be added to either article in the next six months is completely inappropriate. Locking both articles completely would be a more NPOV thing to do than adding trivial, historical, undue, political, POV crap right now. I don't support either approach, but let's make this a great encyclopaedia, not a vehicle for American political campaigning. HiLo48 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved editor - As an American well to the left of Obama (and who would find accusations that this Eisenhower Republican is a "socialist" hilarious, if they weren't so tragically absurd), I avoid this article assiduously. However it is clear that by "not NPOV" Jockusch means "is not full of trivialities, half-truths and downright lies brought up by Obama haters". There are already articles on birtherism and the like; but that is not good enough for Jockusch (whether a legit new editor or just the latest Obama-bashing sockpuppet), since they also don't take the hatemongers' word for this stuff. WP:V and WP:RS are not optional; they are at the heart of what we do. NPOV does not mean "equal time for loonies", despite the misunderstanding by present-day news media about what "balanced reporting" actually means; see WP:FRINGE. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- I do think some of the rhetoric against WJ is a bit over the top. For example, on the talk page he suggests adding a sentence on the Supreme Court case regarding Health Care Reform. Now that may not belong it the bio, it may be more suited for a sub article on the reform bill itself, but it's also a far cry from "birtherism". I haven't read all his comments, but I haven't seen him drifting into what I would consider fringe.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, maybe "birtherism" wasn't the best example, but the gist of Orange Mike's post brings up one of my other points. Obama also has numerous criticisms from the far-left, so one editor's quest to begin adding only the "opinions" of the far-right does not represent a NPOV. And again, even if we included criticisms of Obama from all sides (left, right, center, independent, international, etc, etc), I don't believe his bio is the appropriate place for hashing all of this out. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Cube, you may (or might ;-) have noticed that the sentence on the supreme court is in - added by WJ, and polished by me. So much for the conspiracy... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved editor I am a non-political editor who has never looked at any president's Wikipedia page before today.
First, I would note that the claims are not mutually exclusive. It could very well be that both "one end of the political spectrum keeps the article in an outlandishly biased state" and "an aggrieved editor believes that the biography of Obama ought to be slanted to reflect more poorly on the subject" are true. Or not.
To do a quick sanity check, I listed from memory four controversies / criticisms associated with each president listed. All were quite notable. Do we mention them? Here is my list with "Y" or "N" showing whether the articles mention those criticisms:
Reagan:
iran contra Y
astrologer N
debate briefing papers N
star wars / sdi Y
Bush:
torture Y
national guard / military service Y
wiretapping / warrantless surveillance Y
Katrina Y
Obama:
Health care Y
birth certificate N
Solyndra N
reverend Wright N
It seems to me that some of those should have been mentioned. Perhaps not a long section, but at least a sentence and a wikilink. The debate paper scandal was widely reported. but Ronald Reagan makes no reference to Debategate. Likewise, Barack Obama makes no mention of the Solyndra loan controversy. On the other hand, I cannot find a Bush scandal not mentioned in George W. Bush. Does this add up to a systemic bias? Maybe, but no smoking gun. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Guy Macon, I like your approach. May I add some related questions? In historical terms, whose deficits are worse, Reagan's or Obama's? Yet, which President gets more deficit-related criticism in their article -- Reagan or Obama? Same questions for typical criticisms of their economic policy from the opposing POV.William Jockusch (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with that is threefold, first, presidents don't actually spend money, so it isn't Reagan's deficit or Obama's deficit, but rather Congresses' deficit. Second, deficits are affected by recessions and by booking economies. Lastly, it probably makes a big difference what the last president left you with.
- I don't know what the answer is for bias in president articles. Consensus works poorly because you can get a bunch of pro-president-X or anti-president-Y editors who drive out those who don't agree. And the sources are hard to evaluate; is scandal X really notable or was it just a thing the opponents made into a hue deal for political gain? That's why,other than an occasional comment on a noticeboard, I stick with the engineering articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Much of this was covered on the talk page. Including the benefit of hindsight for historians and biographers to determine what was notable in a given presidency and what was simply political opponent's mud-slinging at a candidate who is currently up for re-election. The "birth certificate" controversy has been widely debunked by every respectable news source as being nothing more than a desperate hoax. The article is a bio for Barack Obama, not of Reverend Wright. Similarly, the Reagan article is not a bio about Nancy Reagan and consequently doesn't really need to include his wife's fixation on astrology, etc.. Citing "controversies" cherry-picked by one editor doesn't really prove anything as far as I'm concerned. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what the answer is for bias in president articles. Consensus works poorly because you can get a bunch of pro-president-X or anti-president-Y editors who drive out those who don't agree. And the sources are hard to evaluate; is scandal X really notable or was it just a thing the opponents made into a hue deal for political gain? That's why,other than an occasional comment on a noticeboard, I stick with the engineering articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- The "four controversies" approach is just not a realistic one. It all boils down to WP:WEIGHT. For example, under Bush we had illegal wars, torture and Katrina. Can these be reasonably compared with Solyndra, the birther nonsense or Jeremiah Wright? Of course not. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, if the comparisons listed above are supposed to be a "sanity check" then somebody book me a padded room. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- The "four controversies" approach is just not a realistic one. It all boils down to WP:WEIGHT. For example, under Bush we had illegal wars, torture and Katrina. Can these be reasonably compared with Solyndra, the birther nonsense or Jeremiah Wright? Of course not. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of sanity testing. The point of a sanity test is to rule out certain classes of obviously false results, not to catch every possible error. In this case, it was testing the basic assertion made in the dispute overview at the top of this discussion:
- "A group of users is working together to remove almost all critical information from the Obama article. This is in stark contrast to the articles about Republican Presidents. The contrast is dramatic...".
- If that assertion was accurate, I would have expected the Reagan and Bush entries to have four "Y"s and the Obama entry to have four "N"s for pretty much any random mix of criticisms that made it into the newspapers, and for other editors to get the same result for any 12 topics they chose from memory. That's the beauty of a sanity test: because it is testing for huge errors, smaller sources of inaccuracy can be ignored.
- Perhaps the following analogy will help you to understand the basic concept of sanity testing: imagine that I claimed that my woodchipper can tear apart far more things than my paper shredder can. As a sanity check, you could select four items at random. (looks around) OK, I just selected a paperback book, a desk lamp, a plastic ruler and a water bottle. If, as a sanity check, I tried feeding them into both machines and the woodchipper choked on all four while the paper shredder munched all four, then the assertion would have failed the sanity test. There is no need to take into account the fact that my paper shredder can probably handle that ruler or that the desk lamp might jam my woodchipper. Poor choices of test items don't make the sanity test not work as long as they are randomly selected. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
École nationale de l'aviation civile
| Agreement between the parties was found and implemented.--McSly (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The directors section of the article contains their biographies. If think that having full biographies in the middle of an article about a school is completely off-topic and that the information should be moved in separate biographical articles if those people are notable or just removed if their are not. The IP disagrees and think the biographies should stay. As a side note, we have the exact same issue on the French version of this article and have reached the same impasse. Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
After a couple of deletions/reverts, I started a discussion on the talk page explaining my rational in more details [8]. The discussion (full link here) is not getting anywhere.
We've reached an impasse and other opinions are needed. Essentially, am I wrong in thinking that those bios don't belong in the middle of this article? And while I personally don't think that any of those people are actually notable, why is the IP so oppose with moving the info in separate articles. McSly (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC) École nationale de l'aviation civile discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hi. I don't want to spend too much time on this discussion but I would like to inform about few things:
80.13.85.217 (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
1) the change that I made was proposed by you, so not sure how you can be surprised. 2) I have no intention to create the articles because I don't think any of those people is even remotely notable 3) I suspect that also know that which is why you don't create the articles yourself whereas you have no problem creating them for other people and thus keeping the biographies in the middle of the article is a way to go around notability polices. 4) Since you have been failing to provide a single reason to keep the information while I provided specific policies on why it shouldn't continuing to stall the discussion like you've been doing for the past 2 weeks will buy you a few more days I'm sure. But it is unlikely to change the final outcome.--McSly (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup
| If you have any questions about why this thread was closed, please click the 'show' button first and read the comment left by the closer. If your questions are still not answered, please inquire on the closer's talk page. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
| If you have any questions about why this thread was closed, please click the 'show' button first and read the comment left by the closer. If your questions are still not answered, please inquire on the closer's talk page. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|