Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 46
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
Contents
- 1 Tony Scott
- 2 Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN
- 2.1 Opening comments by SPECIFICO
- 2.2 Opening comments by Rtmcrrctr
- 2.3 Opening comments by StillStanding-247
- 2.4 Opening comments by Azrel
- 2.5 Opening comments by Homunq
- 2.6 Opening comments by Collect
- 2.7 Opening comments by Belchfire
- 2.8 Opening comments by Mr. Vernon
- 2.9 Opening comments by George Orwell III
- 2.10 Opening comments by IRWolfie-
- 2.11 Opening comments by Avanu
- 2.12 Opening comments by John D. Rockerduck
- 2.13 Opening comments by Roscelese
- 2.14 Opening comments by Trishm
- 2.15 Opening comments by Cwobeel
- 2.16 Opening comments by MastCell
- 2.17 Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN discussion
- 3 Eternity clause
- 4 Onibaba
- 5 Barack Obama
- 6 Wikipedia: Editor assistane, Barack Obama: talk, Barack Obama Presidency: talk
- 7 Marcelo Samuel Berman
- 8 Fox News
- 9 Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka
- 10 Fluid and crystallized intelligence
- 11 Unified Software Technologies
- 12 Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup
- 13 Talk:India
- 13.1 Opening comments by Saravask
- 13.2 Opening comments by RegentsPark
- 13.3 Opening comments by Fowler&fowler
- 13.4 Opening comments by Chipmunkdavis
- 13.5 Opening comments by MilborneOne
- 13.6 Opening comments by Ashley thomas80
- 13.7 Opening comments by Dwaipayan
- 13.8 Opening comments by CorrectKnowledge
- 13.9 Opening comments by Ratnakar.kulkarni
- 13.10 Talk:India discussion
- 13.11 Extended discussion on the errors of the present template
- 13.12 Observation
- 13.13 Straw poll
- 13.14 Closure
Tony Scott
The other party in the dispute has expressed no desire to participate in the DRN case, and it is unlikely that he will in the future. Feel free to open a new DRN case if that changes.SGCM (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview An going edit war is brewing over the nationality of Andy Scott. At his death, dozens of credible media sources were describing him as a British-born director. So on his page, he was edited as a 'British director' in the introduction section. Yet the use of a wide range of media sources to back up an edit is, according to some users, irrelevant. Thus one or two users have taken it upon themselves to change 'British director' to 'English director'. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Request further discussion regarding the repeated edits on the talk page. Offered a whole array of sources to back up my editing. How do you think we can help? Edit the article, using the media reports as sources, to 'British-born director'. Protect it from further editing, until the issue is solved on the talk page. Opening comments by 82.209.185.111Please 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.
Tony Scott discussion
I am from the UK. For what it is worth this British/English controversy is absurd. Either description could be equally valid. The only person who could adjuducate on whether he considered his indentity to be primarily English or British is Tony Scott himself and sadly he is no longer with us so we will never know. --Corbynz (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC) In the absence of a personal preference a default position clearly favours British as it is a more inclusive term internationally. We all have British passports - there is no English passport. We are all citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - we are not English citizens. We all vote in British elections - there are no national English elections or an English legislative assembly. The Queen) is Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - not England. We have a British government - there is no English government and the chief executive of our government is Prime Minister of the UK of GB and NI just like the Queen. English mainly tends to be used within Britain as one of the four distinctive ethnic groups that make up our state alongside the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish. --Corbynz (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't look like the IP address is interested in participating in the DRN case. The case will be closed within 24 hours.--SGCM (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN
There's an ongoing RfC that began today, and also a WP:NPOVN noticeboard discussion. Generally, the discussion should be centered on one location and not spread out. Discussion on the dispute should be deferred back to the RfC. SGCM (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Apparent filibustering by some users to prevent content going into the page. Content was a statement about public reaction to the subject's VP nomination speech. Several editors worked to word it as neutrally as possible (relative to actual public response). Other editors continually reverted this work claiming NPOV and “take it to the talk page”, then started making personal attacks on the talk page, then took it to the NPOV noticeboard and have now gone off into personal attacks there as well. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The “opposition” has moved this through two talk boards already. I feel like the consensus was pretty well balanced in favor of including the text on WP:NPOVN, especially from new voices not involved in the original dispute at Talk:Paul_Ryan. However, the “opposition” keeps filibustering and citing “no consensus”. And now there's a RfC as well. As I wrote, filibustering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerfuffler (talk • contribs) 09:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC) How do you think we can help? Good question. Wish I knew. Even if I just walk away, this is going to continue to rage, so I would appreciate some calmer heads stepping in, reviewing the discussion, and advising how to proceed. Opening comments by SPECIFICOPlease 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 RtmcrrctrPlease 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.
There was an attempt to add a certain sentence after a discription of Ryan's speech, - a sentence which said, in effect that while his speech was received well in the crowd present, it was criticised as dishonest by the commentariat. I objected to this sentence: The inclusion of the positive reaction was a dishonest attempt to make this attempt to seem neutral, and thus to allow the opposite criticism to be presented under the guise of "neutrality". The latter - the criticism, rather than the praise - was the motive. This is an attempt of POV-pushing. NEVER, in spite of very extensive discussion, has the alleged dishonesty been exposed for what it allegedly is. Therefore, the whole sentence has only one intention: not to inform, but rather to tarnish the reputation of Paul Ryan. It is uninformative and presents a partisan-opinion as fact. I believe it should be excluded from the article about Ryan (though it could be considered for inclusion in the Article about the Republican 2012 convention). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtmcrrctr (talk • contribs) 08:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by StillStanding-247I'm not actually sure what the issue is. It's not as if we have any shortage of reliable sources, or that we haven't come up with a neutral wording. There seems to be consensus for it, and now there's an RfC on the talk page that shows consensus more formally. At this point, I'm not clear on what dispute resolution would add to this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by AzrelPlease 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 HomunqPlease 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 believe this is an open-and-shut case on the merits. My own political leanings are no secret, but throughout my WP career, I believe I've sought reasonable compromise, and indeed I've helped successfully find it in many cases. In my memory, I've seen no clearer case of editors simply removing well-sourced content on the flimsiest of justifications. Certainly, in a case like this, WP:AGF still applies to any individual editor. For instance, I remember User:Collect from the Sarah Palin article 4 years ago, and while I might often disagree with them, I have no doubt that they're a good-faith wikipedian. But that shouldn't blind us to the obvious and undeniable fact that there are people out there with bad-faith reasons to want this info out of this article. It is still important to be even-headed and resolve this RFC in as fair a manner as possible, but I believe that there is no reason to be overly "patient". Every hour which this info remains out of the article is, in my considered opinion, a defeat for true Wikipedian norms and spirit. Thus, while I'll be careful with WP:3RR, I do plan to take the unusual step of continuing to make (consensus-seeking) edits to the article itself even before this RFC (or whatever it is — I've lost track) is resolved. Opening comments by Collect[1] shows the actual problem clearly - the OP believes in BATTLEGROUND and edit war on this silly season edit. The consensus is clear - that balance is required in BLPs even during political silly season. Further that use of multiple noticeboardfs and RfCs verges on forumshopping when the OP has not been supported by Consensus elsewhere - just start another venue. [2] shows what some appear to regard as "neutrally worded". [3] is a current noticeboard discussion - in which one editor avers " we cannot give equal weight when our sources lean so heavily to one side" which is a perverse view of NPOV entirely. It suggests thta only those who say "liar" about a person would get to be heard during political silly season - as those who dop not say "liar" or who say "good speech" are thus ignored. Wikipedia does not say "NPOV means only using the loudest voices" that I can find. In short - this is "an extra added venue for an ongoing discussion" which is not how this board is supposed to operate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by BelchfirePlease 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.
Evidently, the editor who initiated this DRN failed to read the guidelines: What this noticeboard is not:
Since this matter is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Paul_Ryan_and_speech_reception, bringing it here is (1) premature, and (2) Forum Shopping. Belchfire-TALK 11:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Mr. VernonPlease 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 George Orwell IIIAn analysis of the acceptance speech for Vice-President nominee Paul Ryan of the Republican party was opened in its own section. Attempts to add a properly sourced NPOV summation of the reaction to his speech have gone through several incarnations for removal citing primarily UNDUE & NPOV violations. Responses to such claimed violation have been several revisions to accommodate the other views (see Talk:Paul Ryan and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Paul_Ryan_and_speech_reception ) & is now down to a one line summation of the reported reaction to the speech - both acknowledging praise as well as criticism. Recently,the argument has shifted once again (i.e. moving target over a course of several days to make it less obvious) that while the speech was significant enough to have its own section breaking down some of the highlights of the speech, - and no other Ryan speech made during the campaign appears on the page - any addition summarizing the reported reaction and counter-analysis to the speech is not worthy of inclusion or the speech is not all that important given the short history since it was made. Reliable sources of the day beg otherwise for all the usual reasons any such speech made regardless of the ultimate victory or defeat that may take place in early November. Either the entire mention of the speech should be removed if no reaction to it is allowed or the reaction to the speech, a one line summation, should be included. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by IRWolfie-
Opening comments by AvanuPlease 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 John D. RockerduckPlease 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 RoscelesePlease 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 TrishmThe issue, as I see it, is that some editors seem to think that an impartial description of the sources amounts to NPOV, since the reaction to Ryan's speech was unfavourable.Trishm (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by CwobeelWe have WP:NPOV to guide us; just report what reliable sources say without talking sides in the debate and without bias. Many attempts have been made to clarify and simplify the statement for inclusion, to no avail. Some are very keen in keeping this bio as clean from controversy as possible, pushing any such materials to other articles or forks claiming "undue weight". Undue weight is one of the policies less understood and most misused. I suggest a re-read and application of WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Cwobeel (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by MastCellPlease 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.
Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN discussionPlease 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.
There's an ongoing RfC that began today, and also a WP:NPOVN noticeboard discussion. Generally, the discussion should be centered on one location and not spread out. This case should be closed and the dispute should be deferred back to the RfC. Consider opening a new DRN case if consensus is unlikely to be established on the RfC.--SGCM (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC) I disagree strongly, in that part of my original complaint is precisely that some users have been forum shopping, and that needs to be addressed. But since you immediately closed discussion, this comment is likely futile. Kerfuffler (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Eternity clause
It is a conduct dispute, DRN can't help with it. If there also is a content dispute, feel free to file a new request using this tool. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
I have a serious problem with an editor named Lone boatman. He is determined to push his political vies against me. He has visited my blog (http://ofthehighest.wordpress.com) and has written to me saying that he disapproves of my views. Apparently, this is why he is determined to stop me from writing on Wikipedia about the eternity clause. He continually tries to claim the political view that German's Basic Law is a "constitution" and takes the word "democracy" out of referenced material, replacing it with "constitution". Now, he is trying to add all the material in the Wikipedia's article on "entrenched clause" into the eternity clause article, only to vandalize the eternity clause article. The "entrenched clause" article is where his new material belongs, not in the eternity clause article which has a Deutsch.de article on the same. The entrenched clauses of other countries are already in the "entrenched clause" article. The problem is that Lone boatman is just wanting to cause trouble so as to censor what I have been writing. He apparently thinks he is the chief controller of the article and can accuse me of this and that because he knows all the rules. I have done all I can to please this person, but now I see that his intent is not to help, but to vandalize the article.--Ofthehighest (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Onibaba
Compromise wording was accepted by both parties; remaining issues may be addressed with subsequent editing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC) |
Closed 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 User JoshuSasori not only repeatedly reverts infos I've added to the film which I gave sources for (up to five inone instance), but also other already given info. The argument is aways the same: Denouncing the source as "unreliable", even going so far that he (deliberately or mistakenly) misquotes the source(s) to prove they're faulty and unreliable. These infos include cultural inflences on the film or the use of narrative styles. It's all documented on the film's talk page; while I accept JoshuSasori's point in #7 "Name of Buddhist legend" unless I can give sources which prove him wrong, his other reverts and deletions discussed in #8-10 on the talk page are not acceptable in my eyes. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asking another user Betty Logan to moderate, without effect. How do you think we can help? To convince user JoshuSasori that it is not up to him alone to decide which source is reliable, and accept that he cannot revert info found in (sometimes multiple) sources only because he doesn't share their view. Opening comments by JoshuSasoriRobert Kerber wants to place undue prominence on a theory that the film "Onibaba" is based on the Japanese "Noh" theatre form. I have suggested that he should put this into the critical reception or analysis part of the article rather than the lead section, since it is only a theory of a minority of critics. The references he has provided to support the theory are extremely dubious. For example, one reference contains the claim that the film contains Noh music, and another one claims it uses Noh acting and Noh plotline. I viewed the film to check these claims. It is extremely clear that the music in the film is dissonant jazz played on brass instruments over taiko drums. This is not Noh theatre music. I added reputable sources to the article that it is jazz music. Many more online sources can be found simply using an internet search engine and added if this claim is in dispute. The claim of Noh acting and Noh plotline is extremely dubious, since Noh is a form of highly ritualized acting using masks and special movements and voices, whereas this film is filmed in modern narrative style with no such voices, or movements, and the plotline of the film is not at all similar to that of a Noh play. The film director's books make no mention of Noh plays. Since a small minority of critics have made this claim, it would be a reasonable addition to the article, in a section on critical analysis or reception of the film, but certainly not stated as if undisputed fact in the lead section of the article. Robert Kerber also wishes to retain uncited information about the film containing slow motion and distorted or strange camera angles. The assertion seems to rely on original research of watching the film and claiming that, because some reeds are moving slowly, the film contains slow motion camera work. Without any source for the claim of slow motion or distorted camera angles, and since they are not visible in the film itself, I cannot see why this apparently false claim should be retained in the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Onibaba discussionPlease 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.
So what are the sources in question? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately the above contains a fair amount of misrepresentation, so I have added what I actually said on the talk page in bold below. I have broken this up into bullet points and please feel free to answer under each bullet point individually.
Since Robert Kerber will not do the obvious resolution of this problem, to include the critical analysis about Noh plays in the reception section, and since he has no source for the original research claim of slow motion at the points he mentions in this film, I suggest that this discussion should now be closed. Thank you to everyone for their time and apologies for any lack of patience on my behalf. JoshuSasori (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Robert Kerber, could you please list the sources here. For the offline source and sources in other languages (not in English), please post the relevant quotes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I stop right here until someone tells JoshuSasori to stop this constant mocking.--Robert Kerber (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I may be getting something wrong, but it seems to me that you only contradict each other on the "slow motion" part. On the Noh you make unrelated statements: JoshuSasori says it is not Noh, and Robert Kerber says it is influenced by Noh. Given that "influenced" is something vague and requires professional competence to disclaim, the article may safely state that some see the influence from Noh. Given that this opinion doesn't seem to be dominating, this statement should be attributed as minor view. Now, may the parties elaborate on "slow motion"? Sources with English quotes would be helpful. JoshuSasori, I would appreciate sources saying that there is no "slow motion", though I'm not sure there is something to find. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I think there's a very basic answer to the slow motion thing. User:JoshuSasori has a (presumed reliable) source. User:Robert Kerber has stated flat out that he was looking at the film himself—that's original research. By WP policy, it's very clear which one has precedent. But I truly wonder why either of you care so much about this. Kerfuffler (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
D. Czarkoff, the disagreement concerns two points, 1. the influence of Noh on the film and 2. the use of slow motion shots. It is very gracious of the other user to finally (after battling them before, documented on the film's talk page) include two short notes on the Noh influence and use of slow motion shots in the article. Why not include the other sources (Lowenstein, Donaldson/Directory of World Cinema, Ikonen magazine) as well? McDonald is not the only person who makes these claims, see my list above. I would also appreciate it if the other user would post his answer below this paragraph instead of interrupting it again, thank you. --Robert Kerber (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Barack Obama
DRN is not for conduct disputes. SGCM (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview My comments are being deleted from the Barack Obama talk page by "Seb az86556" and "Tarc" I have not made edits to the Barack Obama page. My position is that Al-awlawki's killing belongs in that page. My post, though long, was directly to the point, an argument in favor of its inclusion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have posted to their talk pages. How do you think we can help? Please allow my talk page contribution to stand. These two editors claim it is "general discussion" and that I am "airing grievances." This is not true. I am trying to improve the Obama article, to make it more balanced. Thank you. Settdigger (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Seb az86556Please 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 TarcPlease 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.
Barack Obama discussionPlease 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 is non-a propos: this dispute is about the talk page. My posts are being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settdigger (talk • contribs) 05:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia: Editor assistane, Barack Obama: talk, Barack Obama Presidency: talk
DRN is not for conduct disputes. Again, please read Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution.SGCM (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Seb az86556, Tarc, and Wikidemon seem hesitant to engage with the substance of my points, arguing instead over fora and procedural Wikipedia matters. They have been deleting and asking for deletion of my comments on talk pages. How can I debate then? Or contribute substantively? Have you tried to resolve this previously? I did bring it up on Editor Assistance but was told Dispute Resolution was now necessary. How do you think we can help? I would like someone to ask Tarc and Seb and Wikidemon not to delete my edits to talk pages. I will try to be more concise. Brevity is the soul of wit, etc. Opening comments by Seb az86556Please 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 TarcPlease 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 and WikidemonPlease 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.
Wikipedia: Editor assistane, Barack Obama: talk, Barack Obama Presidency: talk discussionPlease 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.
|
Marcelo Samuel Berman
The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for content disputes. Personal attacks and legal threats should be directed to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. They'll be able to better handle it. SGCM (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Discussion on talk page has been met with personal attacks and possibly legal threats. Editors do not have a neutral point of view and do not follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I invited an expert on physics to join the discussion How do you think we can help? Maybe locking the page but I'm not sure Opening comments by MsbermanPlease 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 MarceloBermanPlease 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 byPlease 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.
Marcelo Samuel Berman discussionPlease 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 Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for content disputes. Personal attacks and legal threats should be directed to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. They'll be able to better handle it.--SGCM (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Fox News
RFC is under 10 days old and it's not certain of consensus is established yet. Please feel free to re-file once the RFC is closed with a consensus or the typical 30 day period has expired. Hasteur (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Currently, a subsection of 'Controversies' is entitled 'Allegations of Conservative Bias.' A number of editors have expressed their opinion that the words 'Allegations of' should be removed. A number of other editors insist that the words should remain. There's something of a slow-speed edit war taking place over the issue. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I think there's an RFC out there. I've participated in the talk-page discussion. How do you think we can help? It would be keen to get additional input from uninvolved editors. It would also be nifty if someone uninvolved could close the RFC if/when it appears that a consensus has developed. Opening comments by 24.177.125.104I don't think those words serve a purpose in furtherance of Wikipedia. I'd thought it was a semantic dispute at first, but I'm begining to suspect that those in favor of maintaining the current language are attempting to lend undue weight to the position that the contention of bias is unfounded-- in other words, that the phrase "Allegations of" serves an analogous purpose to scare-quotes, and thus violates WP:UNDUE. I'm also concerned with and disappointed about some recent comments made by Niteshift36 which I viewed as being condescending. I'd request that we focus on content, not contributors. Opening comments by Niteshift36Please 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 InedibleHulkThe title of a controversy section should describe the controversy, not one side of it. The controversy here is about whether or not FOX News has a conservative bias in its reporting. The allegations and denials of such are actions taken by either side in the controversy, not the subject of the controversy. Giving the alleging side extra weight via bold section header is not neutral, no more than "Denial of conservative bias" or "Allegations of objectivity" would be. Whether these allegations are true or false is irrelevant. Wikipedia must be impartial in framing the argument. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Fox News discussionPlease 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.
RFC is 10 days old. Let's give that a bit more time to work through. Consider advertising the RFC at appropriate wikiprojects (TV, Political Parties, etc.) Hasteur (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka
The consensus is that the source must explicitly state a claim if it is to be included in the article. Analysis of implications, if not directly mentioned in the source, is original research and should not be brought up in the article.SGCM (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Two reports on the Sri Lankan Civil War were produced following its end: a UN panel report on accountability (the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka) in April 2011 and the report by the Sri Lankan government's Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) in December 2011. Both reports made recommendations. In March 2012 the UNHRC passed a resolution which urged the Sri Lankan government to implement the LLRC's recommendations. The UNHRC did not consider the UN panel's report. Neither the draft resolution tabled by the USA nor the final resolution adopted by the UNHRC mentioned the UN panel's report. The two reports aren't mutually exclusive. They both contain similar, if not the same, recommendations. Himesh84 has made additions to the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka article in which he claims that the UNHRC "accepted the LLRC over the Report of UN Secretary General". I asked him provide references to back up his claim but he has not provided any references, stating "It is very much clear UNHRC accepted LLRC over the other article [UN panel report]". Without reliable, neutral references Himesh84's claims are nothing more than personal analysis. Have you tried to resolve this previously? This has been discussed on the article's talk page for the last two weeks but we have been unable to agree. How do you think we can help? Explain to Himesh84 that his additions are personal analysis. Opening comments by Himesh84Please 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.
Secretary-General(SG) report was published in 2011 March and LLRC made published in December 2011 as an alternative to SG's report. Both report address the same issue but implementations are different. LLRC recommend to solve issues locally, but SG's panel found that the Sri Lankan justice system was incapable of providing accountability. So there is a clear difference in believing and implementing others recommendations. In 2012 UNHRC summit , UNHRC decided to proceed with LLRC. Since LLRC contains implementation part which is differ from SG's implementation methods, UNHRC has chosen LLRC implementation methods over SG's implementation methods(They may not mutually exclusive. But not Coherent. Sri Lankan government doesn't agree on SG's panel recommendations and SG's panel doesn't agree on LLRC recommendations. If recommendations are identical this can't be happened ). After UNHRC decision, implementers have to follow LLRC methods. When methods are differ they will chose LLRC methods over SG's methods. When there are alternatives to address same thing and if one is chosen, others will be automatically deselected. This is a well known fact, not an personal analysis. I can give real world examples.
I wanted the answer from Sudar and Obi2canibe to the following question to clarify it. But they never answered this valid question. This is a valid situation that implementers definitely had to face in the future.
Lets see whether they will answer to it in this discussion.--Himesh84 (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Sudar123Please 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.
Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka discussionPlease 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.
:I have referenced the UNHRC vote which they voted to implement LLRC. Can you Please specifically describe for what parts/ statements do you expect further references ? If it to using word "Over", it is not a WP:OR. It is a well know fact. I have described it in my previous example. At least can you Answer to my question ? --Himesh84 (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
This request will be closed as resolved within 24 hours. The consensus here is that the source must explicitly state a claim if the statement is included in the article. Analysis of implications, if not mentioned in the source, should not be brought up in the article. This is especially germane, given that the subject, the Sri Lankan Civil War, is a controversial one.--SGCM (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Fluid and crystallized intelligence
DRN requires that editors must extensively discuss the subject before bringing it to the noticeboard, which based on User talk:Cresix#Fluid Intelligence that began only a day ago, has not yet occurred. Consider discussing the subject on Talk:Fluid and crystallized intelligence first prior to making a request on DRN. SGCM (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC) |
Closed 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've made a small addition to the page on Fluid Intelligence. My edit was related to citing two papers disproving memory training benefits. However, my edits are always being cancelled by user User:Cresix: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence&diff=511934732&oldid=511925512 He also sockpuppeted me because I edited from work and home PCs but I use the same account on both PCs, so he is wrong blocking me. I took the references to the papers from another wiki page on N-back. I believe that without these references the article on Fluid Intelligence is biased and one-sided. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I was trying to talk to User:Cresix on his user page How do you think we can help? I think that wikipedia must be unbiased and represent full spectrum of current research. If my phrasing of the papers does not confirm wikipedian standards, it must be marked as so, but reference to the papers must present at the article on Fluid Intelligence so somebody better than me could improve the article. Opening comments by CresixPlease 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.
Fluid and crystallized intelligence discussionPlease 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.
Hello, I'm a DRN volunteer. Thank you for submitting your request, but DRN requires that editors must extensively discuss the subject before bringing it to the noticeboard, which based on User talk:Cresix#Fluid Intelligence that began only a day ago, has not yet occurred. Consider discussing the subject on Talk:Fluid and crystallized intelligence first before making a request on DRN.--SGCM (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Unified Software Technologies
Substantial talk page discussion is required prior to filing a request here. Please feel free to re-file when this requirement has been satisfied Hasteur (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview My objective is to provide an article that meets your content guidelines and provides accurate information on Unified Software Technologies, an Orlando FL ISV. The article is a blend of information about the ISV and lock-free programming that cites academic and corporate references.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have commented in the Talk page on the three content bullets at the top of our article placed there by editors. I request re-consideration of the content bullets. How do you think we can help? The first two bullets are inaccurate. In terms of notability, the company is a start-up and is in the process of forging relationships in the academic and business communities on an ongoing basis; this will improve the content disposition relative to notability. Opening comments byPlease 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.
Unified Software Technologies discussionPlease 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.
|
Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup
It takes two people to have a dispute - only one is listed. No evidence of any prior attempts to discuss this on a talk page. Filer did not follow instructions when filing (I would clean it up if that was the only issue). Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview An editor removed content from sub-article that has been in main article for over a year. Request 3rd opinion on legitimacy of content and recommendations for improvement. Disputed text: Mercury, a known neurotoxin has been found in high fructose corn syrup from plants that use older "mercury cell" technology, including 4 plants in Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio and West Virginia[1][2][3][4]. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempted to improve quality of references by removing weak references from Corn Growers Association, and kept peer reviewed study and news media coverage (same links that have long been in the main article). How do you think we can help? Provide an opinion on the validity of the content and suggestions for improvement if any. Opening comments by WLUPlease 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.
Jtankers hasn't engaged on the talk page yet, so this should/will be rejected. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup discussionPlease 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.
|
Talk:India
Obviously the discussion goes in circles. If talk page discussion doesn't help, requesting community's input via WP:RFC might help to resolve dispute. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. It is as close to a dead-end as it can get. I've exhausted most other ways to seek wider input. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview India is presently a long-standing featured article. But that's for another day. The thing is, many other FAs about countries (Japan, Germany, Canada, Australia et al.) have a city population template in the demographics section and with good reason. India doesn't have one. So I made a template (actually I made two because of the high variety of subsequent complaints about its "ugly looks"). I went to discuss. Got feedback along the lines of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talked to some of them personally, tried to explain how it will be helpful in giving I also previously posted a comment on WT:COUNTRY.
How do you think we can help? Opening comments by SaravaskPlease 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 RegentsParkMilborneOne has expressed the issue accurately below. Noting to add except gentle advice to OP that consensus doesn't always go the way you want it to. --regentspark (comment) 14:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Fowler&fowlerPer user:MilborneOne's statement below, this is not a dispute, merely the case of an editor unwilling to recognize the lack of consensus for his proposed addition. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by ChipmunkdavisPlease 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 MilborneOneNot sure this is a really a dispute, Mrt3666 suggested adding a big cities template and has failed to gain a consensus to add it. Despite the comment above about grounds for removal of the template altogether is not the case of being removed = this was a request for addition of a template that didnt exist before and as it has been challenged it needs a discussion and clear consensus to add it. The discussion then moves on to what the template should look like ignoring the fact it hasnt got a clear consensus to add. Mrt3666 has made his case and other editors have commented but they have failed to get a consensus to add it. So really status quo is the answer, the template doesnt get added and we move on, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Ashley thomas80Please 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 DwaipayanPlease 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 CorrectKnowledgeSome of the editors like Ashley and regentspark have suggested improvements to Mrt3366's proposal or have come up with proposals of their own (addition of images rather than templates) on Talk:India. Other editors have dismissed the idea outright with comments that can be described as lazy at best. Addition of template to the article isn't a bad idea at all as other FA's prove. The problem here is that no consensus benefits the default position of no template in the article. So, some editors might be less inclined to work towards consensus than others. Hopefully, DRN will be more successful than other attempts that have been made to resolve this. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 09:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Ratnakar.kulkarniPlease 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.
Talk:India discussionPlease 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.
Question: if this template was collapsible and appeared collapsed, would it still be problematic? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC) The template adds no value does not add value to the article. The only possible reason that I can see for adding it is that Mrt3366 wants it and that's really not a good reason. --regentspark (comment) 00:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Majority should not be able to swamp the (policy-wise) correct views. Wikipedia is not a vote. Like Steve summit said to fowler “you will suffer no edits to it by anyone else without forcing them to endure a gauntlet of "consensus building" here first, in which there will never be consensus because you will find fault forever with anything that you don't like.” (emphases are my own) This is what is going on. Kerfuffler and others are right, this is an ownership issue. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The content dispute is rather trivial (it's just a template, after all), but the sheer amount of vitriol (and the constant mentions of WP:OWN, WP:CANVASS, and WP:CABAL) shows that there is an ongoing and wider underlying dispute between the involved editors. Skimming through the editing histories of the main parties of the case reveals that they have clashed multiple times before, on a wide range of pages dealing with South Asia. My recommendation is to defer this to ANI or another appropriate noticeboard. The main participants of this case arrived with a considerable amount of baggage that predates the Talk:India dispute, and that's not something that DRN can resolve.--SGCM (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No. I was simply asking for a straight answer from you and that's not same as encouraging a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Come on dear! Do you or do you not think including a largest cities template will harm the article? I (and others) think it is going to enhance the quality. Am I displaying a battleground mentality by simply admitting that? Nope. Sarvask has claimed, "we rely on page-specific consensuses for that." - yes I know, but at the same time, consensus building ≠ votes. All we are humbly saying is If you don't have anything, other than trivial, questionable and subjective preferences, to back your claims, while opposing the inclusion of verifiable, pertinent information, then don't vote. You tell me is this inherently a display of battle ground mentality? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I too can go along with Saravask's compromise proposal. I also have a fourth compromise proposal of my own. I have incorporated info from the "populous cities page" into the map itself in a new map: File:India Population Compromise Map September 2012.jpg. It has more information than the template: it shows the population growth between 2001 and 2011. The advantage of a map (a figure instead of a template) is that it doesn't dam up the prose from left to right. This is what it looks like on the India page. (Someone, such as Saravask, will need to make more user-friendly and Wiki-appropriate, of course.) So, now there are 4 compromise proposals:
Please do not add proposals which are under development. I've expressed my reservations abut them above. The new compromise map includes a table within the image. Apart from the fact that the numbers are hard to read, as Saravask has already pointed out, screen readers can't grab text from images. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 11:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
What proof? What are you asking me to prove?
What more do you want? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like this case will have to be closed as no consensus, with the participants unable to reach a compromise, and deferred back to Talk:India. As AVC has elaborated upon, there is a much broader discussion at issue here, and the template is only one aspect of it. If further dispute resolution is needed, I suggest WP:MEDCOM. And not just to deal with the template, but the pictures and the entire India article as well.--SGCM (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Extended discussion on the errors of the present template
Are the other editors still interested in continuing this DRN case? If not, then it will be closed as no consensus and the discussion will be deferred back to Talk:India. If further third party involvement is required, WP:MEDCOM is recommended.--SGCM (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Fowler, Mrt336 has (intentionally or not) mischaracterised my views. I didn't auto-support the Delhi image (I'm on the fence, more so in light of Fowler's replies to AVC regarding image balance). I didn't say I'd agree to an exact copy of the Australian template. No. I said I might support a colorless, tabular, sortable compacted version. That or else one of Fowler's ideas then. For me, any relatively unobtrusive solution (image/template/table) that doesn't interrupt textual flow as much. Most importantly, even if we agreed on that, you'll need to discuss with Fowler, RP, AVC, and others. RP (who tends to be right about these things) already said this DRN is a failure. And Fowler wants this closed. Saravask 15:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
For reasons I just noted above Mrt3366, I would support a template or rotating image that includes city chaos and city skyline. Hiding or highlighting one or the other leads to bias. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Like F&F, I am unsatisfied with the above. Rotating or not, a uncompacted full-width template disrupts textual flow, especially with the unnecessary purple. My biggest concern, however, is that many hours have been spent haggling over which way some bits on a Wikimedia server will be flipped—images, template, non-template rotation, whatever. As RegentsPark has said, this has become another bottomless time sink. Saravask 15:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@Jobberone, AVC, etc.:
This discussion seems to be nearing an actual consensus: a collapsible template, with two images, reduced width, recolored, with images (rotating or not) chosen based on community consensus. Is that compromise agreeable to all parties? Let's not argue over which images to use first.--SGCM (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Feels like both sides are onboard and agreed to this consensus and agreed process: a collapsible template, with two images, reduced width, recolored, with images (rotating or not); the images will be selected by community process on the talk page; layout of template creatively addressed to address Saravask/etc comments. FWIW, thanks there DRN volunteers for the patience, input and for not rushing into closing this dispute resolution process. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
ObservationDespite the length of discussion, nobody explained how does this dramatic change of weight in "Demography" section improves either article or section. In the lack of rationale behind introduction of this change I'm going to close this discussion on September 11 as resolved, noting that this template isn't appropriate in the article. Objections? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
RegentsPark - as I wrote before, if wiki has link pass through data to verify general usage of equivalent templates - it is worth checking into for an objective measure, and to avoid 'not just one named AvC'. Dmitrij - I am sorry, I am not following you. I looked at India#Demographics, what is 1/3? Why not include more relevant urban and rural encyclopedic information? Why are some 380 MM people in urban or 830 MM people in rural information a minor aspect? If anything, parts of this section are stale with 2001 data and rely on old reports; prominently discussing two causes of a small % of deaths (per an old WHO report cited by Time magazine), in a 1.2 billion people country is not a balanced coverage of demographics. The section needs some work, IMO. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, my instinct is to not assume bad faith, but channel his or her energies to creatively enhance that template, and thereby the article. What if we eliminate trivia data, be willing to redo the template, and asked what kind of demographic/etc information would make an interesting and useful template, one that would improve this article? What about including the pictures with urban and rural summary data such as number of cities with over 1MM people, number of villages, etc etc or a comp between 1991 versus 2011 key census data, etc.? I will be delighted if we can channel the enthusiasm of wiki contributors to do what we all want - improve the article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, Fowler&fowler, it is buffalo meat. RegentsPark was discussing vegetarian map, and it made me recall that India's meat export and consumption trends in last 10 years have been impressive. Becoming #1 in total meat export worldwide, and on top India consumes more meat than it exports (see this). The current content already emphasizes and leaves the reader with the soft impression that India is vegetarian (see India#Society section), the current article does not mention once how producing/consuming meat is a major part of India's food balance and economy. That 1909 map is interesting; even if someone can prove it is true in 2011, it is scalar and static. Comparative demographics are vector/directional and dynamic - thus far more information packed. Comparative demographics show how India is changing, how its problems and achievements contrast over a generation (~20 years). Including it as a collapsed template or images/graphs/etc is one way to improve the article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
BTW, The "no template" option is unacceptable. A template will improve the article just as much as most other templates do on other similar GAs and FAs and images have done currently in the article. To summarise
Now, after going through all the digressive, prolix comments made by concerned editors after my last comment in previous section. I think it's best for us, for the time being, to be content with "a template, with two images, reduced width, recolored, with images (rotating) chosen based on community consensus" and we will decide through RFC whether or not it will be in collapsed form, because there seems to be a technical issue with it, as Dwaipayan stated collapsed text is discouraged in FAs. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
@Mrt3366
There might be a reason for a template, and I'm willing to consider it, but the rationales that have been provided are not compelling.--SGCM (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Straw pollLet's see where we are on this template issue. Please indicate your preferences - without comment - below. The purpose of the straw poll is mainly to see where people lie on the template issue and is not meant as a substitute for the normal process of consensus. --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC) The "urban agglomeration" template does not add value to the article
The "urban agglomeration" template adds value to the article
The "urban agglomeration" template after consensus modifications adds value to the articleClosureThree of the main parties in this dispute, Fowler&Fowler, AVC, and Mrt3366, the filing editor, have expressed a desire to close the DRN. Any thoughts? It looks like the filing editor has gone ahead to create an RfC on the issue. The discussion is currently spread between three locations (Talk:India, the DRN case, and the RfC page), which is a practice that is not encouraged.--SGCM (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
|
- ^ Dufault Renee; et al. (January 2009). "Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar". Environmental Health. 8 (2): 2. Bibcode:2009EnvHe...8....2D. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-8-2. PMID 19171026. Retrieved 2012-06-27.
- ^ Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
- ^ WashPost: Study Finds HFCS Contains Mercury Jan. 2009
- ^ CBS News Investigates HFCS Oct. 2008
- ^ "Table 3: Urban agglomerations having population 1 Lakh and above" (PDF). Provisional Population Totals. Government of India. Retrieved 2011-10-19.
- ^ "Agglomerations & Cities". INDIA: States and Major Agglomerations Population Totals. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner. Retrieved 2020-03-27.