Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 128

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125Archive 126Archive 127Archive 128Archive 129Archive 130→Archive 135

Talk:Shah Rukh_Khan#perhaps_the_world.27s_biggest_movie_star.3F

– Discussion in progress.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

* Semitransgenic (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article Shah Rukh Khan passed FA and TFA recently with a certain sourced statement in the lead and blurb. A couple days after it was TFA, someone thought that this statement should be removed. Since that time several other editors have chimed in on the discussion page, some agreeing with this, some wanting to keep it as it was, and some wanting to go even further in the direction that it was. DRN was suggested a couple times so I thought of giving this a try. I am the editor who took this article to GA, FA, and TFA, and I think that something along these lines needs to be in the lead for our readers.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Many more sources were brought to light upon request supporting the statement, and alternative statements were proposed, edited in, and rejected. The current form is different than the TFA version.

How do you think we can help?

Maybe we need some un-involved parties to help resolve the conflict now. There may be some involved who have some sort of agenda (this has also been suggested on the talk page).

Summary of dispute by Semitransgenic

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

Saw an FA/TFA stating, in the second sentence of a WP:BLP lead, that subject was Described by the Los Angeles Times as perhaps "the world's biggest movie star" . It appeared to be an intentional misquote; either promotional (WP:SOAP) or hagiographic (WP:PEACOCK). Claims associated with a newspaper's POV need to sourced to an editorial statement. I removed the content, it was reverted. I corrected the attribution and opened talk flagging WP:POV.I questioned the validity of any claims employing the phrase "the worlds biggest." Further sources were offered, I suggested we employ the word "reportedly," this word use was disputed. It was demonstrated that multiple actors have been described as "the world's biggest movie star" and that no such claim can offered as a statement of fact. Various arguments were offered to do with audience sizes, earnings etc. to justify the claim; none of which stood up to scrutiny. To update, if we look at the Forbes World's Highest Paid Actor List 2015, in the top 10 we see three Bollywood actors (Amitabh Bachchan, Salman Khan, and Akshay Kumar), all of whom are exposed to the same sized audience as Khan, and all of whom earn more than Khan (similar claims about "world's" this and that can also be found for each actor). My view is we should not be making claims like this in a BLP FA without something like a properly sourced consensus statement of fact based on clear supporting evidence. Using entertainment news so prominently in the lead is inappropriate. Of all information found in a newspaper, such news is, arguably, the least reliable. Semitransgenic talk. 14:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Fideliosr

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

Here's a brief summary of my concerns:

  • There's no universal consensus that he is the "biggest" movie star in the world. The mention looks quite fanboyish.
  • Mere and inconsistent opinion of a bunch of journalists. Not that noteworthy stuff.
  • Tom Cruise vs. SRK debate, in my opinion, is irrelevant here.

Fideliosr (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Human3015

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

Read this FA version (first para of lead), which says "Described by the Los Angeles Times as perhaps "the world's biggest movie star"". Some editors had concern that it is view of that journalist and not of LA Times, and it is "paid news". Some users said that chief executive editor or owner of that news agency should say that he is "biggest star" then only we can attribute to News agency. There are several other sources who call him "biggest star" as seen in this version. Most of sources called him biggest star in terms of number of people know him. Around 3.5 billion people around the world knows him. [1], [2], [3], [4] all these news sources saying that SRK has around 3.5 billion audience but as per other parties these are "paid news". I think we can simply write that "Shah Rukh Khan is known as biggest film star in the world in terms of number of people know him, it is estimated that around 3.5 billion people around the world know him". --Human3015TALK  12:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Vensatry

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

The fact that the claim appeared that way when the article passed FAC/TFA appearance is irrelevant. It's possible that our reviewers had overlooked that. The way in which the claim was there before I participated in the talk page discussion was clearly a violation of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Besides, I don't think it's a lead material. Human3015's argument about the 3.5 billion people adds no value to the discussion. Wikipedia doesn't work that way! —Vensatry (Talk) 09:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Kailash29792

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

I have just tried supporting the article being how it was during its FAC pass, and TFA appearance. I supported the LA Times quote about the actor being in the lead because, even though it praises him, we are maintaining neutrality by quoting someone else rather than praise him through our own words. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Shah Rukh_Khan#perhaps_the_world.27s_biggest_movie_star.3F discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion at the article talk page. However, the filing party has not notified the other editors. Another editor may provide a procedural close if the filing editor does not first notify the other editors. The filing editor can notify all of the other editors. I am not opening or closing this case, but it may be closed if the filing editor does not notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
They have now been notified. BollyJeff | talk 04:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note:  Verified All involved parties have been notified on their talk pages. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Note to participants: Can parties please refer to diffs when discussing prior versions of the article in question. It helps to save DRN Volunteers' time when looking through your statements, instead of edit-history trawling. You can also use the {{diff}} template to create "in wiki" links (without the 'external' link icon in the corner). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Not particularly about the dispute but reading the disputed sentence I think it worth noting that Described by the Los Angeles Times has a different meaning from described in the Los Angeles Times. The first refers to an editorial statement while the second merely states that the description has appeared in the newspaper. From all appearances, the second statement - described in the Los Angeles Times - is the more accurate one here. --regentspark (comment) 02:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Note to participants: Please keep discussion to a minimum before the case is opened by a volunteer, which will happen as soon as all parties respond, or in a few days if they don't. Thank you for your understanding. JQTriple7 (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by volunteer moderator Winkelvi: Since it has been a few days since everyone involved has been notified of this DRN, I will go ahead and take a stab at this. From a first look at the article, it does not seem to me that the content should be in the lede to begin with, rather, it should be in the body of the article. It's an opinion by a newspaper journalist in one article, not an honor or title given to the article subject in the mode of "Sexiest Man Alive" ala People Magazine. Frankly, I am amazed that the inclusion of the statement in the lede made it past those reviewing the article for GA, FA, and TFA. The wording as well as the statement itself ("...biggest film star in the world in terms of number of people know him, it is estimated that around 3.5 billion people around the world know him") seems very fan-site-ish and very un-encyclopedic to me. Regardless, if it stays in the article (and I personally don't think it should as it is), it's not suited for the lede per this: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"XYZ editor is a fan of this actor or that actor" such accusations are already made by each party on each other on talk page of the article, thats why we have came here to have discussion without any accusations. 2nd thing is that all claims are supported by the sources. You can read this and this which are reliable sources stating SRK is more popular than Tom Cruise on the basis of a popularity survey. Also this abc news is giving reference of Business Week and stating that his estimated audience is 3.5 billion (there are several other sources to back it). These are not opinions of journalist. These things needs mention in lead somehow. --Human3015TALK  23:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Human3015 - This is rather getting odd because you haven't been listening to anybody's opinion and presenting your own thoughts based on that, but only repeating the same 3.5 billion thing over and over again. @Winkelvi - I totally agree with your suggestions. Fideliosr (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you are repeating your statements and ignoring sources. What I have provided is not journalist opinions. Above ABC news attributing to "Business Week" and not to any "journalist" while stating about 3.5 billion audience, and other sources are attributing to "popularity survey" when comparing SRK with Tom Cruise. --Human3015TALK  21:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: The statement that you made above is not the original, or current version. It is "Described by the Los Angeles Times as "perhaps the world's biggest movie star"". There are many sources available, as discussed on the talk page, but only one was used in this version. The 'In the media' section discusses the subjects popularity, so the lead needs some sort of summary of that section. It is important for readers to know the magnitude of the subject's popularity. If we agree to remove the original statement per your concerns, how do you feel about some of the alternatives that were presented on the talk page, which tone it down such as, "He has been referred to as one of the world's biggest film stars in the Times, the Guardian, and The Los Angeles Times."? How would you choose to include something of this nature? BollyJeff | talk
Please be sure to sign your comments after leaving them. Thanks.
Stating "He has been referred to as..." per your suggestion is certainly preferable as it is not in wiki-voice. Wikipedia doesn't declare article subjects to be the "best" or "biggest" or "greatest" anything - that's not the job of an encyclopedia. My suggestion, however, would be to not list the publications in the statement, but to say something along the lines of "He has been referred to by a few <reporters/writers/critics> as "one of the world's biggest film stars" (or whatever the exact quote is). It has to be worded correctly and appropriately and not in Wiki-voice and certainly not in a manner that would violate WP:PEACOCK or WP:OR. Since the beginning of Hollywood, there have been many great film stars, but few have actually made the list of "the world's biggest film stars". I hardly think the article subject is of the caliber of Clark Gable, Errol Flynn, Judy Garland, Meryl Streep, Bette Davis, Katherine Hepburn, Marlon Brando, James Dean, and so on. His name isn't a household name, he's not really known in the United States, and other than what comes out of the UK, nothing compares to Hollywood in film star greatness. Those are just my personal thoughts. Here's something compiled by AMC that lists the 100 greatest film stars of all time. Is the article subject on the list? (I haven't looked at it yet and I think I already know the answer). AMC 100 Greatest Film Stars. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, its beginning to look like I am defeated here. If I say "referred to as ..." without giving an attribution, the "by whom" tag will come back. We never said that he was the greatest actor, just the most popular. The whole point of the statement was to show people that only know about American actors, that there are other actors out there in the non-Hollywood-centric world, that are even more well known and loved than those on your AMI list that everyone knows about already. If the statement can stay in the body, but not in the lead, I suppose its okay. I cannot speak for the other editor here who wants even more coverage in the lead though. How do we end this gracefully? BollyJeff | talk 00:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, now -- there's no need to look at it as you are personally defeated, Bollyjeff. If the right thing happens according to policy and guidelines, then it's Wikipedia that is the winner and no one loses. We're supposed to be editing for the betterment of the encyclopedia and the reader, not for ourselves, after all! Having the statement in the body is fine, as long as it is sourced properly and the sources support the wording -- which needs to remain neutral and not in Wiki-voice. Ending it gracefully? I have no idea other than what you just stated re: retaining the content in the body of the article rather than the lede. Thanks for having a good attitude, and really, don't think of it as a "loss". I've "lost" plenty of discussions/arguments in Wikipedia. But, as I said, if the encyclopedia and the reader ultimately are the winners according to policy and guidelines, then the right thing was decided on and done. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::re: "The whole point of the statement was to show people that only know about American actors, that there are other actors out there in the non-Hollywood-centric world that are even more well known and loved than those on your AMI list" Not our job as editors to engage in this kind of thing, lacks objectivity, is this some kind of activism you are involved in? Might be worth reading WP:ADVOCACY. You should be very careful editing if this is what motivates you. Semitransgenic talk. 16:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

We can look for any replacement in sentence, we must show somehow popularity of this actor. For example good article of Frank Sinatra says he is greatest singer of 20th century by giving attribution to someone (read last line in lead). So such kind of things we can write in this case.--Human3015TALK  17:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Need a Moderater: I did not comment here for last 3-4 days because I thought some moderator will come and will open this debate so that we can do proper debate. But no moderator has officially opened this debate. I came here to comment only when one editor here who is commenting like "disputant" but claiming as moderator appealed one of disputant to close this thread as "resolved". How a disputant can close this thread? This "moderator" seems to lack experience of dispute resolving, we really need a proper moderator to resolve this dispute. Also one of disputant claimed consensus here and done same controversial edit. See, current pre-dispute version can be changed, here we are not discussing whether to keep or remove current version but rather how we can replace it with better and acceptable version. There are many articles of artists where they have called as "greatest" or "biggest" etc but with proper attribution. We can do here also. This actor has been mentioned as "biggest" in several international news media, we can't ignore it even though they are so called "opinions of journalists". And I hope one moderator will come to moderate this debate. Thank you.--Human3015TALK  19:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

* User talk:Human3015 behavior beginning to enter into the realms of WP:TR/WP:HEAR. Semitransgenic talk. 20:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not place to discuss behaviour, you can try another board. My behavior is at least better than this. See, Wikipedia is not democracy or majority vote. Here things work as per consensus, "10 people are agree of this and 2 on that so 10 people must be right" this is not case here. Rather there should be fruitful discussion so that any middle path can be followed. --Human3015TALK  22:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: See what I mean? Although I may be able to move on, others are not. What do we do now? Does your role as volunteer make you a moderator? Can you help us craft a compromise, rather than a straight deletion? BollyJeff | talk 00:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Is "He has been referred to by British reporters as "the biggest film star in the world"" okay? Because that is what's there now, and you are not letting me change it. BollyJeff | talk 01:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - @Human3015:/@Semitransgenic:/@Bollyjeff: This is your first and only warning. We do not discuss conduct of other editors on this page. The next time one any of you lobs a conduct accusation (ex: 01:30, 30 November 2015 comment) I will step in and close this with a referral to AN as the conduct of the editors has taken the primary focus over the disputed content of the article and let administrators sort out what sanctions should be applied. Now as to the case at hand, having read the quote and the source that backs it up I am uncomfortable even the POV attribution shading that is done in the lead section. If the prose could be worked in to some other portion of the page (possibly in the "In the media" section) I think this could balance the issue between the attributed statement. I would also note that the author appears to be a beat reporter for Arts/Entertainment and that his last published article shows as of June 2012 (with the source being from 2011). Is it possible that the "biggest movie star" quote is no longer accurate? Hasteur (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The statement is currently present in the "In the media" section. Have you seen the alternative that was proposed? It is something like: "He has been referred to (by the Times and the Gaurdian) as the world's biggest movie star". There are several sources from 2015 given on the talk page. Of course this cannot be verified as a fact, but the fact that he has been called this by several reputable non-Indian magazines/newspapers should count for something. Do you think there is room for a statement like that in the lead? BollyJeff | talk 02:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bollyjeff: In order for it to be in the lead, I would want to see it in NYT/LAT/WP/etc repeatedly. The source that is backing up the statement (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/11/shah-rukh-khan-ra-one-bollywood.html) does not make that statement and plays a paraphrase of the statement using a rhetorical device. For a FA we absolutely want sensational statements to be iron clad sourced. Therefore the statement needs to be excised from the lead, the statement needs to be edited to reflect what the source says, or a new source needs to be found that supports the claim. Having looked at the talk page I see you leading the charge (sometimes with less than conduct appropriate actions) for this statement to be front and center in the lead. Hasteur (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Bollyjeff, Hasteur is correct. It's not an actual distinction. It's not an actual label given to him as an award or honor. A couple of reporters giving an opinion in print does not make Khan the greatest actor in the world. I really think you need to drop this and go with what the consensus appears to be: the statement needs to stay out of the lede and stay toned-down and non-POV/violating WP:PEACOCK in the body of the article. Additionally, I'm going to recommend that the article be re-evaluated as an FA. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Really? Please don't do that. I said just yesterday that I was okay removing the statement, and wanted to end this. I really don't think we need to go through a whole FAR process now. I have informed the FA co-author about this but he may not be very active now. Although he is one of the most respected and prolific editors in the business, sometimes @Dr. Blofeld: stops editing because he has to spend too much time dealing with disputes instead of improving the project.BollyJeff | talk 03:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::unfortunately, this is getting nowhere, per the original observation I made, this content has no place in the lead of an FA, and it's evident that neutral opinion is being ignored here, therefore i second Winkelvi, FA re-evaluation is required. Semitransgenic talk. 12:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, once again I will say it loud and clear: "I am okay with removing the offending comment from the lead." I would even replace it in the body with the toned down version citing the several newspapers from 2015, and leave any such mention out of the lead entirely. I would do it myself, but the article is currently locked. BollyJeff | talk 13:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor: The quote "perhaps the world's biggest movie star" does not appear to be inappropriate in context, although given the current level of opposition, in terms of Wikipedia's "consensus on compromise" approach to conflict resolution, an alternative wording in the lead could be found. The statement is not only well-supported (three reputable news publications, Los Angeles Times, The Times, The Guardian, cited, all say the same, and quick Google research indicates that Khan is currently in the top couple of highest net worth movie actors, and among the top 10 in annual earnings), given the population size of his potential audience, there should be no general argument against this quote of an expert journalist's opinion appearing in a reputable major news publication. The language within a quote, strictly speaking, explicitly falls outside of WP:PEACOCK, as the Dylan example in that section clearly illustrates: attributed quotes can say what they like. What remains is whether, in the lead, this statement still seems somehow promotional and undue.

In fact, the central issue appears to be one of Wikipedia's overall POV, and maintaining an international perspective. It is probably true that a large majority of English-speaking residents of English-speaking countries, who are aware of, say, Tom Cruise, have not heard of Khan, therefore, presenting the fact that Khan is "as big as or bigger" (in terms of audience, financial worth) than the top Hollywood household names is certainly noteworthy from a world perspective, English and foreign, and provides basic context in learning about Khan. So the question is, in the lead, what is the appropriate wording to convey that Khan is "as big as or bigger" than the very top couple of Hollywood stars, while maintaining an appropriately balanced world POV? --Tsavage (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

If, as your seem to be saying, Tsavage, the "biggest star in the world" label applies to Khan's monetary status -- that's one thing. Left on its own, however, the wording is all-encompassing rather than qualified as "his financial status makes him one of the highest-paid stars in the world" (or something along those lines). If his "biggest star" status according to the opinions of critics is based on how much money he makes, that needs to be said for readers to better understand. Editors, too. Eventually, there will an editor or new user who comes along and thinks, "No way is this guy the biggest movie star in the world", and it gets changed again, edit warring ensues, etc. If the label it's not based on that, and the claim has been made by opinion only of critics, then it's just an opinion. In any case, it needs to be supported by something more substantial than the opinion of reporters, critics, and so on. For example: a few reporters from the NYT, LA Times, Dallas Morning News state in print and online: "Barack Obama is the greatestmost popular, ever" -- how do we add that to the Obama article without some sort of poll statistic? The answer is: we don't. Experienced editors will immediately challenge it because it's only based on opinion, not a solid supporting reference/statistic. I see this situation as no different. We need to be specific, and if we can't be specific and these claims about Khan are simply opinion, then they need to be qualified as opinion, not fact. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: Your comments are consistent with what I said, therefore, I am in agreement with you, up to but not including your Obama parallel. Perhaps the most common and unambiguous way to include an opinion is to include it as an attributed quote, this is fundamental to core policy, and is precisely the case with the "perhaps the biggest..." quote. This is the point of leaving analysis to reliable, independent secondary sources, so we don't argue the conclusions via original research - if other, equally reliable sources counter the views of an RS, then we can act (for example, there are also reporters who do not speak highly of Obama). Here, we have multiple sources in agreement with a conclusion they have come to, and one that is based in all cited sources on consideration of metrics such as audience and income, so that's pretty much that.
Your concern about "all-encompassing" can be most directly resolved by adding a couple of words - e.g. "'perhaps the world's biggest movie star' by audience size and income" - but my comment indicated that a rewording is suggested, so your argument is against what has already been conceded: come up with a paraphrased version that is clearly scoped and not over-encompassing.
My bolded bottom-line point remains: To maintain balanced international perspective, it seems highly noteworthy to indicate that Khan is at the very top tip of the global actor heap as far as commercial measure (audience, financial), and this is what we should include, neutrally worded, in the lead. The use of the quote does fairly achieve that - and is consistent with the intention of the reporter in the source article, and with WP:PEACOCK - however, given the opposition here, it is not the only way to record that information, which can be presented with other wording. Failing to do that can be well-argued as failing to fully summarize the article, by omitting a prominent fact about Khan's commercial stature from the lead. IMO, participating editors who want a resolution should pursue this course of rewording. --Tsavage (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Have a clear, bottom line suggestion for wording, Tsavage? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I could probably craft something about audience size using the sources that Human3015 provided, but as someone suggested, they are a few years old. Does that matter? I doubt the audience size would shrink much. BollyJeff | talk 17:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, he is not "biggest star" in terms of "fan base" but in terms of "audience" or "people who know his name". As someone said above regarding population base from where Khan belongs or the place where Khan is most popular (India-Pakistan-Bangladesh and Middle east) have large population, so something related to audience base will be more appropriate. --Human3015TALK  18:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Winkelvi:: I don't have wording at the moment (though I will share if something pops up), and I think that is up to the compromise involved editors may be willing to reach. I am speaking from my (experimental) mediator/moderator mode, where I can imagine how some editors are genuinely seeing red at the prospect of having one movie actor be in any way prominently proclaimed "the biggest actor" by Wikipedia, and going on to vigorously argue the point (and there is always grounds for argument). As an editor on the page, which I am currently not, I would be probably be arguing for inclusion of the quote, well-qualified, of course, because it does what otherwise requires cobbling together various sources of varying quality (audience polls, income estimates), with an eye to avoiding synthesizing a conclusion.
This appears to be a classic "verifiability not truth" issue: I think we are all in agreement about the factual content, as far as top of heap commercially, we however need a perfect source. The three top-tier news organizations that sum things up as "perhaps biggest" do do that in my opinion, but we are left with the opposition, and no one high quality alternative (as far as my look at the article and brief Googling turned up). Perhaps a paraphrasing of the three cited "biggest star" news sources taken together might work. --Tsavage (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::what's verifiable is that various entertainment news writers made claims about someone being "the biggest xyz," but should that be the second sentence of the lead of an FA BLP? Nope. See the Forbes World's Highest Paid Actor List 2015, in the top 10 we see three Bollywood actors, Amitabh Bachchan, Salman Khan, and Akshay Kumar, all of whom reach the same audience as Khan, and all of whom earn more (Khan appears to be placed 17th in this list). Similar claims about "world's" this and that can be found for many of these actors, for example the Independent led with the same claim for Amitabh Bachchan in February this year. So what does all this tell us about truth? Semitransgenic talk. 19:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(←) @Semitransgenic:: I'm not in general disagreement with you, and you are arguing against a point that I am not making, and I don't see as having been made in general.

Your argument directly above appears to be that Khan is no different than at least three other Bollywood actors, who share the same general audience base, may have equivalent or higher income in a particular period, and have been referred to (at least in one case) as the "biggest star" in the same global context, therefore, highlighting this aspect (at least, with any sort of superlative like "biggest," even a quoted one) is inaccurate. Your support for this, however, is limited: a survey of income for a 12-month period, apparently reflecting only film income (not sponsorship and other income), and an article about another Bollywood star, saying he is "the biggest" - you are arguing against reputable sources with your own slim evidence. What you need is an RS source that says, in effect, "Despite assertions to the contrary, Khan is not nearly the biggest star in the world." Meanwhile, there has been no attempt to portray Khan as "the biggest" in the first place (at least, in this DR case), so this is overall an off-point argument (a red herring, some might say).

The real heart of the issue is that the current quote, "perhaps the world's biggest star," and the equivalent in the other two sources, are clearly figurative: none of them are claiming definitively that Khan is literally THE biggest star by any one measure, they are all written in context of an English-speaking audience (the target audience of these news organizations) not having heard of this actor (and the same for Bachchan). And the sources present a broad basis for these claims, including that "Bollywood has a global audience of 3.6 billion; Hollywood has 2.5 billion" and a quote from a top Hollywood producer, "Shah Rukh Khan ... Harvey Weinstein calls the ‘biggest star in the world’" In addition, from various sources, Khan has an estimated net worth of $600 million, exceeding most or all Hollywood stars (and Bachchan, at $400 million). This appears to be the "truth" of the matter - it's not simply a few fanboy journalists writing what they want in major news media, it is a widely considered conclusion that Khan is at the top of the heap, commercially speaking, as a movie actor, above most or all Hollywood and Bollywood actors, measured by these criteria. This does not preclude other actors from sharing similarly elevated status, however, Khan is the subject at hand, and his dominant commercial standing is a noteworthy fact that merits coverage in-article and summarized in the lead, in part to maintain an international perspective, not a US- or Anglo-centric one. --Tsavage (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @User:Tsavage, nope, misapprehension on your part, that's not my "argument," this is going around in circles, you do know I accepted those sources right?, bottom line, "biggest" suggestion is patently false based on the evidence at hand, that's the only truth here, any claim to greatness is dubious, and needs to be framed appropriately. But hey I tell you what, I see what's happening here, done, take this bullshit, put it in a pipe, and burn it up, then drop me me a note about your trip on my talk page when you come down. Adios amigos. Semitransgenic talk. 00:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@Semitransgenic:: As you wish. But seriously, as it stands now, He has been described in the Los Angeles Times as "perhaps the world's biggest movie star".[3][4][5] I have an extremely hard time seeing as anything but what it is, a comment framed from a Western POV, indicating, "this actor you probably never even heard of is as big or bigger a star than anyone on the Hollywood A-list." And it passed FAC review (don't know how rigorous a review that was, but it is what it is). And this DRN process is negotiating to undo that... --Tsavage (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tsavage: Thank you for your eloquent remarks. Could everyone who is left now perhaps settle on a statement such as "Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein has called Khan the ‘biggest star in the world’." ??? Here is the source from the times UK in 2013: [5]. BollyJeff | talk 01:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bollyjeff:: Still in moderator/mediator mode, I believe successfully resolving this dispute by coming to an agreement perhaps favors a paraphrase in the lead rather than using a "world's biggest" quote - quotes can be included and developed in the article, it's more convenient but not absolutely essential to conveying the point, and respecting the not unfounded concerns of other editors at this time, can be worded in a more qualified way. And quoting Harvey Weinstein in the lead seems further from the point of establishing Khan's relative commercial stature than the original "perhaps the world's biggest..." Maybe something along the lines of, "In terms of audience size and income, Khan has been described as one of the biggest film actors worldwide" - with the appropriate citations? --Tsavage (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, income was already covered in the previous sentence as "He is one of the richest actors in the world, ..." but yes something like this is fine with me. I want to hear what the others have to say now. BollyJeff | talk 03:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

DRN Coordinator's Note: Cases here at DRN have a 14-day lifespan and this case reaches the end of that tomorrow. After that time if any 24-hour period passes during which no one posts to this discussion, the case will be archived and, in effect, autoclosed by our bot. The moderator may extend that date by advancing (but not removing) the "Do not archive until" date in the case header, but should not do so unless progress which is both substantial and continuous is being made towards a positive resolution of the dispute. If that is not happening, the case should be allowed to close and the parties should consider one or more Requests for Comments or moving on to Formal Mediation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tsavage's thoughts here. "World's biggest" could be mentioned in article's body, rather than in the lede. Fideliosr (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

To do away entirely with that troublesome "biggest" (which is indeed a rather vague, hype-y term), something like this may work:
"In terms of audience size and income, Khan has been described as one of the most successful movie stars in the world.[refs]
That would seem broadly neutral, well-supported, and sufficiently self-contained, yet also leads the reader into the article for more detail. (Wouldn't it be nice to actually resolve something once in a while?! :) --Tsavage (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
That sounds good, but should I then do away with the specific richest actor statement prior to that and just use this statement for the whole thing in the lead? BollyJeff | talk 14:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as an editor, yeah, maybe lose the net worth estimate entirely (it can be included in the article body), keep the summary of film accolades (net worth is interesting and notably high, and seems to fit well in the third paragraph of the lead, which mentions his other business ventures). Maybe something like:
Shah Rukh Khan (born Shahrukh Khan, 2 November 1965), also known as SRK, is an Indian film actor, producer and television personality. Referred to in the media as the "Baadshah of Bollywood", "King of Bollywood" or "King Khan", he has appeared in more than 80 Bollywood films, and earned numerous accolades, including 14 Filmfare Awards. Khan has a significant following in Asia and the Indian diaspora worldwide. In terms of audience size and income, he has been described as one of the most successful movie stars in the world.[refs]
Overall, that should remove any concerns with hype, promotion, inaccuracy, and non-neutrality, while still conveying the essential message to any reader, that Khan is a top tier movie star, globally. The body of the article can develop that, to indicate how near to the very top he may be. Maybe ping other involved editors to see what they think? --Tsavage (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@Semitransgenic:@Fideliosr:@Human3015:@Vensatry:@Kailash29792:@Winkelvi:@Hasteur: Can you all agree with Tsavage's recommendation in italics just above? BollyJeff | talk 16:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I was busy for a while so I could not able to take part in this discussion very actively, I wanted to say many things. But just to close this issue in good faith I am agree with whatever community decides, though I am also part of community still I don't have any opinion regarding this right now. I am out from this discussion. Thanks everyone for cooperation and my apologies to those who think that my behaviour was not good either here at DRN or at talk page of article. --Human3015TALK  16:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with it and thank Tsavage for helping out with this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems good to me as well. Thanks Tsavage and BollyJeff. Fideliosr (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That's more than half of the participants in the affirmative. Can I go ahead and make the change now? BollyJeff | talk 14:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and did it. If there are no further comments in 24 hours, this will get closed. Thanks everybody! BollyJeff | talk 21:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Madhubala#Spousal Name_Change_from_Kishore_Kumar_to_Karim_Abdul

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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I believe that the article pertaining to the actor, Madhubala, should include the fact that her spouse changed his name upon marriage. The fact that Kishore Kumar changed his name to Karim Abdul to marry his wife is an important piece of information that I believe should be included in the article. user:The Avengers, however, does not think so.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss the matter on the talk page of the article with the user.

How do you think we can help?

To provide for an environment that fosters meaningful discourse on the matter.

Summary of dispute by The Avengers

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

Talk:Madhubala#Spousal Name_Change_from_Kishore_Kumar_to_Karim_Abdul discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Foundation for_Economic_Education#Oldest_free_market_organization

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Unregistered user seem to think that only plagiarism is valid text in a Wikipedia article: "In 'History' it says FEE is the oldest free market org." 107.107.61.73 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

"The Clash of Economic Ideas by Lawrence H. White 'The oldest free-market American think tank is the foundation for Economic Education, founded in 1946, which as noted was ...' The Making of Modern Economics by Mark Skousen 'In his eighties, he continued to lecture at the Foundation for Economic Education in IrvingtononHudson, New York (the oldest free market think tank, founded in 1946 by Leonard Read), and ...'" Abel (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

"These refs do not say 'oldest org' just thinktank ..." 107.107.61.57 (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Foundation_for_Economic_Education#History

How do you think we can help?

By having someone explain what plagiarism is and explain how demanding plagiarism in no way shape or form helps Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by 107.107.61.57

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

Talk:Foundation for_Economic_Education#Oldest_free_market_organization discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  •  Volunteer note: no Declined The last case on this subject did not go well, as the IP user mentioned failed to respond to reasonable questions. This all seems a little far fetched. I'm not taking another case on this subject. I suggest instead that disruptive editing by anonymous users may be dealt with at WP:ANEW or WP:ANI, or the simplest method is just to request page semi-protection. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Sri Lanka_Matha

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Multiple sources for over 70 years say Ananda Samarakoon composed and wrote the lyrics for "Namo Namo Mata" including the records of it released. Based on 2 articles published in 2011 by Bengali writers Obi wants to remove any presentation of this fact and instead present that Rabindranath Tagore wrote and composed it. This goes against bulk of sources out there - but he feels that these 2 sources are more reliable than every other source.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Present sources

How do you think we can help?

Consider the relevant weight being given to each source

Summary of dispute by Obi2canibe

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

Talk:Sri Lanka_Matha#Deletion_of_the_fact_that_Tagore_wrote_the_national_anthem_of_Sri_Lanka_in_Bengali.2C_Ananda_Samarakoon_later_translated_it_into_Sinhala_language discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  •  Volunteer note: The issue has been discussed on the talk page, but the majority of the posts occurred in April 2012. The filing party has contributed one post to the discussion. I will leave to the judgment of a more experienced DRN volunteer whether this should be closed as premature. /wia /tlk 16:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The issue has been discussed but the opposing party involved ignored the discussion and unilaterally continued to impose his preferred version of the article. It's unlikely anything more can be done in the talk page without administrative assistance. CaptainPrimo (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:OpenIndiana#Screenshots removed

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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Originally, I added several screenshots of the OpenIndiana operating system running in console mode. User:ScrapIronIV deleted them saying they violate WP:NOTGUIDE, despite the fact that they were never meant as a guide and their thumbnail captions were clearly descriptive rather than instructional.

There was a discussion on the talking page, and User:ScrapIronIV continued to cite WP:NOTGUIDE with convoluted reasoning. He refused to discuss the matter further and suggested an RfC.

I opened an RfC and received opinions from a number of other editors, all of whom agreed that the thumbnails did not violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Since all other editors had agreed that there was no violation, it was sufficiently obvious that no such WP policy was being violated by simply adding a screenshot (I should also mention that many other pieces of software that run in console mode also have screenshots).

As a result of the RfC, I added one screenshot of the OS running in console mode, but User:ScrapIronIV again deleted it. This editor is not seeking dialogue and consensus, and even when other editors all disagree with him, he continues to delete this useful and appropriate content from Wikipedia. I think at this point, his editing has clearly become disruptive and is obstructing the editing process rather than constructively working with other editors toward a consensus.

I think there needs to be some arbitration or dispute resolution to address this issue, so other editors can work constructively without having their work deleted by one editor with an axe to grind. I have tried to reach some consensus or a compromise, but User:ScrapIronIV has been very belligerent and combative in his approach.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried discussion and also opened an RfC, in which all other editors agreed that the screenshots were not a violation of Wikipedia policy, which User:ScrapIronIV had claimed.

How do you think we can help?

I think some statement that the thumbnails do not violate Wikipedia policy and are appropriate for the article would be sufficient. We have already had an RfC in which all other editors agreed with me, but I think some other statement may be necessary for User:ScrapIronIV to actually "get it" and understand that he does not have ownership of this article.

Summary of dispute by ScrapIronIV

C:\>

I have now added as much value to this conversation as the proposed images do to the article.

But because I do take Wikipedia seriously, and appreciate our processes, I will add this:

1) The result of the RfC was that no value was added to the article by the images.

2) The opening statement of this DRN is full of accusations and bad faith.

3) The WP:IDHT is strong with the editor who has opened this thread.

It is far too early to even consider wasting the limited resources of the DRN with so minor an issue. Scr★pIronIV 15:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:OpenIndiana#Screenshots removed discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  •  Volunteer note:  Verified All participants have been notified on their talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note:  Verified that the matter has been discussed and is not the subject of ongoing dispute resolution elsewhere that I can identify. While the RfC mentioned has not been formally closed, it has proceeded for longer than the standard one month, with no new input being made into it for over two weeks, and closing it formally would be probably be routine (though it is not required that all such processes have formal closure, anyway.) Still awaiting input from the other party, ScrapIronIV.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - I recommend that this case be closed after the RFC is formally closed. Since the closure of the RFC will probably be that the screen shots can stay, the removal of the screen shots is editing against consensus. Either the RFC is still open, in which case we should defer to letting the RFC run its course, or the RFC has been completed, in which case the RFC establishes consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - I've closed the RFC. I am recusing from accepting or declining this case because I am now involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: @ScrapIronIV: Now that the RFC is closed against your reasoning, do you intend to continue reverting the addition of the content? @Huihermit: Can you take to heart the suggestion of putting an illustration of something besides console window (which is not unique to OpenIndiana) or man pages (which is also not unique to OpenIndiana) so as to help relieve ScrapIronIV's complaints? Hasteur (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hasteur: A generic console window is not what is being illustrated by the thumbnail. It is the console window and its contents which are illustrative. This is also true for other software running in a text terminal, many of which have thumbnails on Wikipedia precisely because they are illustrative of the software itself. This includes many pieces of Unix and Linux software, as well as other operating systems. User:ScrapIronIV seems to be claiming that anything that appears in a text terminal is no different from anything else that appears in a text terminal. This is neglecting the fact that a normal terminal has 1920 cells for displaying text and other symbols (80x24), which may be displayed in 16 possible colors. If we look at the article for virtual console, we see a colored terminal running for Linux running in a framebuffer, which is completely different from the virtual console in OpenIndiana. A perusal of thumbnails in command-line interface also shows a number of different windows which are all quite different from one another. There is also the matter of the contents of that console window. The thumbnail that I added shows a listing from "ls -l" of the root directory, which illustrates the most basic structure and organization of OpenIndiana's root filesystem. I have previously compromised by adding one thumbnail following the RfC (rather than three or four), but even that one thumbnail was deleted by User:ScrapIronIV (editing against consensus). I have tried to develop a consensus and make compromises where necessary. The result of the RfC is that the thumbnails were found to clearly not violate WP policy. Given the prevalence of thumbnails for software running on console mode throughout Wikipedia already, it is clearly not unusual or inappropriate to have at least one such thumbnail for OpenIndiana. Best regards. Huihermit (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Turkey#Armenian issue

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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Hi, I'm trying to add the point that some historains and scholars exist who deny an event popularly referred to as the Armenian Genocide in the article on Turkey. I have added seven references and can proivde another seven, but find it unnecessary. If a NPOV is to be observed, then this fact needs to be mentioned.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have requested a volunteer to have a look at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.

How do you think we can help?

You know better. I am not trying to remove information but trying to add a significant point while providing ample references.

Summary of dispute by Étienne Dolet

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

Summary of dispute by Tiptoethrutheminefield

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

Summary of dispute by Dr.K.

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

Talk:Turkey#Armenian issue discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  •  Volunteer note: Editors listed have not been notified by the filing party. If the filing party does not notify the other editors within 48 hours, this case can be procedurally closed due to "lack of notification". Please be aware that posting a message on the article talk page does not count as notification. I am neither accepting nor declining this case for now. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I understand that I have to notify each and every one on their talk page. -Dominator1453 (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Follow up -  Verified all parties have been notified. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:List of highest-grossing animated films#Spongebob movies

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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

We are discussing that Spongebob movies (The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie and The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water) are animation/live-action hybrid movies or animated movies with live-action scenes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to explain the movie(s) as my evidence.

How do you think we can help?

I recently realized that this discussion is going nowhere. So my solution is to categorize both movies at both styles because both movies are combination of animated style and hybrid style. They can be included in animated movies and also in animation/live-action hybrid movies. This solution can make both sides happy.

Summary of dispute by DCF94

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

I said all I have to say on the previous discussions, if Sponge Out of Water can be added, then let's add everything hybrid (Avatar, Star Wars, Alice In Wonderland, etc.). DCF94 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 82.38.157.176

We talk about it before it's rales and decide then to not inculd and class it as a hybrid film we try to creted a highest grossing hybrid page but failed.

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

Talk:List of highest-grossing animated films#Spongebob movies discussion

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

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. I also note that the talk page discussion in this case appears to be sufficient, if minimally so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: Notice to the parties has now been given. We're waiting now to see if the other editors care to participate (since participation in moderated content dispute resolution is never mandatory). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am accepting this case for discussion to see if there are any remaining issues. Here are some general ground rules. I will check on this case at least every 24 hours. Each participant should check at least every 48 hours and should answer any questions with 48 hours. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Please do not discuss the article or articles in question on article talk pages and do not edit the articles while centralized discussion is in progress here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Can each editor please restate what they think the issue is? It appears to be whether to list the movies as both hybrid and animation. Is that the issue? If so, to what extent is there live action/hybrid action in the movies? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In the current lists of highest grossing hybrid films and highest grossing animated films, are there any films that are listed in both lists? If not, then adding these two films to both lists would be contrary to current consensus and might require an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

First statements by editors

First statement by Paleocemoski

Hello everyone. The main problem is the difference between animated and hybrid movies. Both of these movies are combination of both kinds of animation. In my opinion, they can be classified as both styles or just traditional animation but they can't be classified only as hybrid movies.

  • Majority of both Spongebob movies take place in underwater - Animated characters in animated locations - Traditional (2D) animated movie style
  • And final acts of both Spongebob movies take place on land - Animated characters in live action locations - Animation/Live-action hybrid movie style

Robert McClenon, There is no lists of highest grossing hybrid films article on Wikipedia but there are 2 draft about this topic;

The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, Wall-E, The LEGO Movie, Happy Feet are listed in List of highest-grossing animated films and both of these drafts; even before I began editing the article. And I have to point out that both of these drafts include movies like Wall-E, The LEGO Movie, Happy Feet. Spongebob movies; I can understand but those movies are absolutely not hybrid movies.

Like I said before this discussion is going nowhere; there is a clear difference between voicing opinions and ignoring facts.

Paleo

Second statement by moderator

We are discussing articles in article space, not drafts. A discussion about the content of drafts can be deferred until one of the drafts is in article space. Is there a question about whether to list SpongeBob in the list of high-grossing animated films, or can this discussion be closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

I have a new proposition, clearly there's conflinct because we don't have an exact rule to define a animated film, so I suggest we establish a rule using a source like say, The Academy's[1]. This way we can avoid future confusion, but also this may change some of the current content of the page. DCF94 (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/88aa_rules.pdf
DCF94 I agree with your statement, we definitely need the definition of animated film from a reliable source. According to your source, both Spongebob movies are animated movies. Are we all agreed on that? Paleocemoski 18:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
An animated feature film is defined as a motion picture with a running time of more than 40 minutes, in which movement and characters’ performances are created using a frame-by-frame technique. Motion capture by itself is not an animation technique. In addition, a significant number of the major characters must be animated, and animation must figure in no less than 75 percent of the picture’s running time.
— Rule Seven - Special Rules For The Animated Feature Film Award : I. Definition

Comment I think using the Academy's definition would be a step forward, but even then its application is open to interpretation. The academy provides a film index which categorizes the type of the film, presumably in accordance with how they define animation. It is worth comparing several examples:

AMPAS seems to divide films into three broad types: Animation, Animation/Live-action, while live-action/motion capture films are not allocated a type (presumably this is the default). The only problem with the index is that there seems to be a 2-year lag in adding entries, but since AMPAS has an explicit rule and a clear categorization structure then everybody's life will be much easier if they simply observe AMPAS' categories. Betty Logan (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

Since the Academy has a clear rule, what do the editors think of including the Academy's 75% rule in the criteria for listing in the list of highest-grossing animated films? I haven't researched whether any particular films will have to be dropped from the list as a result. Is it agreed that the Spongebob films in question are at least 75% animated? (Also, does hybrid footage count as animated footage under this rule? That is, do movies that are primarily hybrid footage, such as Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, count as animated? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC))

If no one objects to using the Academy guideline as the criteria for listing in the list of highest-grossing animated films, and no one has an alternate idea, I will close this thread as having apparently resolved the issue. The drafts of lists of hybrid movies are only drafts and are not in the scope of this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

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

Talk:List of military occupations

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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I am not personally involved in this dispute, but I am filing it to help the parties (with their agreement) in the wake of my own, failed, attempt at informal dispute resolution. On 28th November I closed an RFC. There followed questions on my talk page about my close, and I went over to the talk page to try to facilitate a discussion about how to implement it. This discussion is stuck and stalled and I'm afraid I'm out of ideas. I hope that an experienced mediator will be able to do more. Although I am filing the case, I take no position on it and there is no need to inform me of the outcome.—S Marshall T/C 22:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The steps I have taken are fully outlined in my overview above.


How do you think we can help?

I hope you will be able to break the logjam and allow the consensus to be implemented.

Summary of dispute by Serialjoepsycho

I'm absolutely interested in DRN. I'm interested in only talking about about the RFC because it's the only thing that has been extensively discussed on the talk page. Everything else is unrelated to that discussion and hasn't been extensively discussed. Any time the discussion was steering towards productivity an unrelated matter was brought in. The blank space has nothing to do with implementing the consensus. I view this as stonewalling. There is already a consensus. I'm not willing to negotiate or make a compromise on a host of unrelated and never ending things to implement it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware that we came to any agreement. The lack of agreement was the purpose of this DRN. Since we have come to an agreement though the situation is resolved and you can close this. Thanks for your time.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm unsure. It's not clear. But if we had come to an agreement as Sir Joseph mentions then this matter was settled before this was opened.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
It's still not clear, though they are discussing matters unrelated to the consensus, it seems there are no matters to discuss here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sir Joseph

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm not sure how this will help considering that Serialjoepsycho owns the page and will ultimately do as he pleases. All you have to do is look at the talk page and see how he deals with those he disagrees with. He has "chased" away several users already and he has tried to do the same with me. He is extremely uncivil and tries to Wikilawyer everything. He is now trying to place restrictions on what this DR is going to be. Almost everywhere I go he claims I do things for nefarious purposes and fails to assume good faith.

I have agreed to EVERYTHING S. Marshall placed on the table. And then he goes and changes things. He's the one that loves consensus one day and then the next he claims it changes. This is Wikipedia. I have stated I am OK with what S. Marshall proposed. It makes the most senses logically and it makes the most sense for this contentious subject.

1) A blank section for 48-67, or I will even agree to having Palestinian Territories and 48-67.

2) East Jerusalem should be included in West Bank. It is part of the West Bank, indeed the WB article's lead even states that.

a) An inline citation on the West Bank section can state that Israel claims to annex East Jerusalem.
Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Considering that Serialjoepsycho is not interesting in DR, I'm not sure what is the point. He is interested in having the page as he proposes. Anything else is just window dressing. The whole point of DR is to take it a step further and see if we can get past things and resolve differences and propose things. I have agreed to almost everything S. Marshall proposed and in this area that is saying something. Serialjoepsycho needs to compromise and he needs to realize that on wikipedia he needs to AGF and be civil with others. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Serialjoepsycho keeps changing stories. We agreed to what was in his sandbox, now that he doesn't like it, he changes his sandbox and goes to a different version. I have already agreed and compromised to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox&oldid=693533890. If it's good enough for Iceland, it's good enough for Israel/Palestinian territories, to not do so would be WP:UNDUE. There was no Palestine in 1967, so just as Iceland is split into two territories during WWII, the WB/Gaza should also be split into two, one for 67-88 and one for 88-current. I don't know why that is such a big deal. If you look at the latest talk page items, I have agreed to everything, even omitting something S. Marshall proposed because Serialjoepsycho didn't like it, and if he doesn't like it, then it can't go in the page. Read the talk page, see how it works. Look at the Tibet discussion, I even opened up an AN about it. He even posted on Archive that we should discuss Tibet, then when we discuss Tibet he says there's a consensus, a consensus of one is not a consensus. He needs to be reminded about using Wikispeak and wikilawyering to such an extent and quite possible being a SPA. Look at his edits. It gets quite tiring to have to defend myself with every single edit. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Possible, but I don't think he will agree to add East Jerusalem to the historical section. I just want to resolve the issue and get the talk page cleared up. I do think that since it's a contentious issue, if East Jerusalem is not going to be part of the West Bank (as per S. Marshall's suggestion) and it will stay its own entry, then it should be its own entry in the historical, while that might not make the most sense, 1)it's a Wikipedia list, 2)we need to make sure we don't violate undue, 3) it would then be better to go back to include East Jerusalem as part of West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and then include a note in the citations. I think you might want to keep this open if only then to discuss that part of the DRN. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of military occupations discussion

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

Volunteer's note: Notices given or unneeded due to response here. Discussion is adequate. S Marshall is not a participant or party, despite being the filer (and thanks to him for his efforts at dispute resolution before coming here). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Volunteer note - This statement refers to an RFC about Palestine that was opened on 15 October and closed on 28 November by User:S Marshall, who is filing this request as a neutral party. There is also an RFC that was opened on 18 November and is still open concerning East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem has been occupied by Israel since 1967 and is claimed by Palestine. This raises questions as to whether the ongoing RFC is an existing forum for this issue or a part of this issue. Can discussion take place here concerning Palestine with the exception of East Jerusalem, which is claimed as the capital of Palestine? I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but will leave this up to the coordinator. In view of the complexity of this case, I would suggest that formal mediation might be more appropriate than the informal mediation at this noticeboard, but I am neither accepting nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: - I would remind any and all parties of this dispute to not cast personal attacks at, nor create aspersions concerning, involved editors of this dispute. Also, DRN does not extend to covering conduct issues as part of the informal mediation offered by our volunteers. If there are questions about either of these statements, ask either myself or the DRN Volunteer Corps. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Note to participants: - Is this case still needed to resolve a dispute Serialjoepsycho and Sir Joseph, or has this been settled "out of DRN (diff link)"? (Never thought that would get said;) Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Menachem Mendel Schneerson

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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The article makes a claim that US Congresses and Presidents have designated Schneerson's birthday as the national Education Day U.S.A ...since "commemorated as Education and Sharing Day, honoring his role in establishing the Department of Education as an independent cabinet-level department. It references for this

  • Joseph Telushkin, Rebbe: The Life and Teachings of Menachem M. Schneerson, the Most Influential Rabbi in Modern History
  • Fishkoff, Sue. The Rebbe's Army, Schoken, 2003

However, none of proclamations, none of the original one, nor as made by at least 4 presidents and subsequent congresses, ever mentions this role. The department of Education does not mark this history. The editors now claim this is original research, and that their sources are better. I have urged that they can claim that those sources claim that Schneerson was honored for it. They cannot claim that he was honored with that day for that role. That is false. I have repeatedly cited evidence on the Talk page but the only response I get is that they are right, I am wrong.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have urged that a neutrality tag be placed on the article until this is resolved. I have asked for a Rfc for commentary before changing my statement.

How do you think we can help?

Is the text of the proclamations by the US Congress and the President of the United States explaining why they are honoring Schneerson's bday as Education Day, USA, and later Education and Sharing Day, useful as evidence that he was not honored for helping to establish the Department of Education as a cabinet level department?

I recommend that the ideas be separated, that if the editors wish to argue that Schneerson has honored for that role, it is the only the opinion of their sources.

Summary of dispute by TzviMichelsohn

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

Summary of dispute by Debresser

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

Menachem Mendel Schneerson discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:List of_converts_to_Hinduism_from_Islam#Changes_by_D4iNa4

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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

There are issues pertaining to who should be included on the list. I believe that Bukka I, Khusro Khan, Harihara I, Netaji Palkar, Hassan Palakkode, and Sarmad should not be included. Firstly, including Palakkode is a clear BLP violation, since there is no strict and direct statement from the source that indicates a clear conversion from the apparently living person. Second, no where in the source indicated does it definitively state that Sarmad converted. Thirdly, Bukka I, Khusro Khan, Harihara I, Netaji Palkar, are all said to have been forced to convert and reconverted back to Hinduism shortly after capture, according to non-neutral Hindu sources. I do not think forced conversions or allegations of forced conversions should be included in such a list as it does not indicate any meaningful transition from one religion to another. Also, it is a common tendency amongst Hindutva nationalist groups to make false allegations of forced conversions. Such allegations may be seen against Aurangzeb, whom neutral sources have vindicated of ever having introduced any forced conversions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss this matter on the article's talk page. I have also expressed my reasons for not wanting to include these people on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

To help to try and solve this issue and by providing an atmosphere of meaningful discourse.

Summary of dispute by D4iNa4

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

Summary of dispute by Rhododendrites

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

Xtremedood started to remove some names from the list in May leading to an edit war with a sock puppet of OccultZone (see ArbCom case), Delibzr. (I mention this bit of background primarily because he was also the most vocal opponent to the changes before and would otherwise be a named party here). I don't remember how I came across the dispute, but took a look in June and started talking to Xtremedood about the removals in this thread. Some of the rationales for removal seemed to have a sound basis in policy while others were less clear. For the latter, I didn't have a strong opinion and was mainly concerned with best practices for discussing changes and sourcing. Then last month D4iNa4 reintroduced many of the names. Through that discussion we figured out that the questions that need to be answered are:

  1. Should a list of converts from one religion to the other include forced conversions.
    • WP:BLPCAT, which applies to lists, prevents this for BLPs. That seems like a good indication of a general policy, but it's certainly not a given.
  2. If the list does include forced conversions, how should they be presented?
    • I had suggested either a separate table or color-shaded rows, feeling that simply using the description to remark doesn't do enough to separate forced converts from willing converts.

I think that I would support omitting forced conversions from a list like this. The issue is, there's a wide spectrum. On one end is someone like Bukka I, who was "forced to convert to Islam [but] eventually escaped and retained their Hindu traditions...". On the other end are those who may have been forced to convert when young but practiced Islam most of their lives -- or people for whom there are conflicting reports about their conversion. It's sticky business. At the very least DR would invite outside voices. I feel pretty neutral about the issue, but I've since stated my clear preferences which seem more in line with one "side" of this dispute, so I probably can't be considered neutral anymore. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TheRedPenOfDoom

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

Talk:List of_converts_to_Hinduism_from_Islam#Changes_by_D4iNa4 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note 2 - I've added and notified a party, TRPoD. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: - I will be accepting this case for informal moderation in 12-24 hours. I will have a list of guidelines for discussion of this case between involved parties which will be included in my first statement tomorrow (for me at least). I will expect involved editors to check this section at least every 24-48 hours. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

First statement by informal Mediator (Drcrazy102 (talk))

Conditional acceptance of case

I am accepting this case for discussion based on one rule and several guidelines. They are as follows:

  1. Rule: Civility is not optional. Comments on the actions of an involved editor - unless directly related to the content and changes, and neutrally worded - will be collapsed using the {{cot}} and {{cob}} templates, as will any comments deemed to be a personal attack or close to being a person attack. This is in accordance with Wikipedia:Mediation#Control of mediation and the DRN's own self-restrictions.
    1. If editors continue to uncivilly comment on the actions of any involved editors, I will close this discussion as having failed. I typically work by a "3-strikes-each" guide for this.
    2. If any editors have questions about whether something would count as uncivil, or as a personal attack, see my response to a user here about (minor) wording to avoid. I will also accept talk-page questions about this and seek to help any users who are not sure if one of their comments they wish to post (or have posted) is civil.
    3. As stated on my talk page, if you wish to have a comment uncollapsed then proceed to the DRN talkpage for discussion on possibly removing the collapse templates.
  2. Guideline: Respond within 72 hours (3 days), or I will close the case 24 hours later, i.e. after the 3 day limit, due to a failure to respond. If there is a reason that you will not be able to participate for a period longer than 3 days, let me know or I will assume that the discussion has been abandoned and close the case with the same reasoning.
  3. Guideline: Do not create threaded discussions amongst each other's statements/comments on this case. You may respond within your own statement area if needed to refute a point, or to answer a question, raised by myself, another DRN volunteer, or another editor. This will not result in case closure, however this practice makes for far easier to understand statements which allows me to respond more efficiently.
  4. Guideline: When discussing content changes please use {{diff}} (this template) or a diff link to the change. If editors do not include such diffs, then I will assume that the change did not actually occur and will ignore the related section of the comment. Not using a diff link of some sort won't result in a case closure, but will impact the discussion between yourselves (the involved editors) and myself (as a mediator). I do not do history/revision trawling, as I am lazy and do not have to carry that burden of proof.
  • I may update this section at a later date due to unforeseen problems that I haven't predicted yet. These conditions do not have to be accepted, and I will withdraw my acceptance, but these are pretty standard amongst the DRN volunteers; I just blurt them out at the start to avoid issues later.
  • If any involved editor or DRN volunteer feels that I have acted improperly they may request a change of mediator at the DRN talkpage for consensus. I will suspend the first Guideline during such proceedings, if they arise.
  • If any involved editor wishes to they may join or leave the discussion at any stage, but this can cause the discussion to be closed due to a lack of conflicting parties.
  • Please indicate below if you accept these conditions for discussion. Pinging involved parties; Xtremedood, D4iNa4, Rhododendrites and TheRedPenOfDoom. I am aware that only Xtremedood and Rhododendrites have responded, but the time-frame given to D4iNa4 and TheRedPenOfDoom to respond has been ample. They may join the discussion at any point by adding a summary of the dispute and/or by creating a statement section following this section.

I would like to ask if the two currently involved-in-discussion editors could clarify my understanding of the dispute.

  • There are currently, or have been, people on the List of converts to Hinduism from Islam, i.e. people go from Islam to Hinduism, that have been alleged to have been forced to convert from Islam to Hinduism?
  • Is this a dispute centering on sourcing? If you believe it is, please make that explicitly clear in your response statements below.
  • Is this a dispute centered only on the manner in which to mark forced conversions of any "spectrum", alleged and/or proven?

Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC); updated 02:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to acceptance of case
@Drcrazy102: as Xtremedood and I aren't too far apart on this and it's only D4iNa4 that has actively pressed for inclusion of the names (well, there's another user, like I mentioned above, who is now blocked for more or less unrelated reasons), this is a non-starter until he/she participates. Regarding your second question about the dispute above, sourcing is part of almost every dispute, and this is no exception, but I think more important is what to do when the sources say something in particular (i.e. that someone was forced to convert). I don't really want to spin my wheels without D4iNa4 participating, though (TRPoD only commented once at the request of D4iNa4 -- certainly could be considered a party, but secondary). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Rhododendrites, re: Sourcing concern; it is the difference of "Is this content correct per sources" vs. "Are sources reliable". Very close dispute discussions but the focus and reason of the dispute is very different. As for "start/non-start" of discussion, I've left a second notice on each user's page now and if there is no response within 48 hours, I will close as a "General: No dispute discussion between opposing sides". Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@Drcrazy102: No, it is neither "is this content correct per sources" nor "are sources reliable". Whether someone has converted, whether the sources which say someone converted are reliable, and whether the consensus among sources is that the person converted is not a question. Nor is, for the most part, whether the conversion was forced or not. There are a few examples where those are real questions, but that's not what brings us to DR. The question is how to handle forced conversions in a list of conversions is the question. I don't know how else to say that. I did not notice before, but I have to express strong reservations about dispute resolution on Wikipedia being handled by someone with just over 300 mainspace edits. I understand there are no hard rules with that regard, but it's impossible to have a solid grasp of the interplay and application of various policies and guidelines with 300 mainspace edits. I don't mean that to be disrespectful, and I think it's great you want to get involved in these sorts of processes -- I just don't think this is the sort of issue that can be taken up easily (while doing it justice). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Rhododendrites: As I said earlier "...[you] may request a change of mediator at the DRN talkpage..." and I will respect any such requests' outcome. At any rate, I will wait 48 hours for D4iNa4 and TheRedPenOfDoom to respond on whether they will participate or not in this discussion, because:
  1. If they don't wish to participate, I will close this case as a "General: opposing parties not participating in DRN discussion" and recommend parties file the dispute at WP:MedCom.
  2. If they choose to participate, then we can get started on discussing the dispute concerns and you may choose to request a new mediator on the talk page, not participate, or simply continue to participate in good faith.
Now then, I asked about sourcing as it was a part of Xtremedood's "Dispute Overview" and I wanted to see if this was actually a source dispute, or predominantly a source-based dispute, as opposed to a dispute about only the content of the list, or mainly about the content with some sourcing concerns. Different editors view the dispute from different perspectives, hence my concerns.
If there are any other concerns, feel free to let me know. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Queen Elizabeth_University_Hospital#Request_for_input_on_how_to_move_to_GA_under_current_title

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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

User consensus has agreed on removal of the recent addition 'Campus' to the title of an article about a hospital, the hospital contains many facilities and occupies a campus area however the use of the term campus has been discontinued to to feedback of staff and various third party opinions relating to the WP:Common name. A user is contesting that this is not a good idea and has become quite abusive and dismissive, despite consensus on the issue. I would like this dispute resolution process to provide closure on the matter.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Move request, third party opinions.

How do you think we can help?

By providing closure and external opinions relating to both the civility of discussion and validity of remarks made.

Summary of dispute by Blethering_Scot

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

Talk:Queen Elizabeth_University_Hospital#Request_for_input_on_how_to_move_to_GA_under_current_title discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Dengue fever#Management_of_Dengue_in_Tamilnadu.2CIndia

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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

In Tamilnadu,India, under Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, the Government is using Indian medicines along with conventional medicines in control of Dengue. The Government of India King_Institute_of_Preventive_Medicine_and_Research did a case-control approach [6] for using the specified Indian medicines in combat of Dengue. The information that these Indian medicines are used in Dengue is provided by the Department of Health and Family welfare website [7]. I included only this same fact that these Indian medicines are used in Dengue without any other claim [8] in the management section of the Dengue fever article. But user KateWishing is having his personal opinion that "The government of India is known to sponsor pseudoscientific medicine" which he has expressed in the talk page and he is saying the government website source is not a reliable source to include this fact which is a major step taken by Government of India in Tamilnadu. For the content which i have included, the source which i have included is sufficient.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have not yet tried other steps

How do you think we can help? 

I believe anyone by looking at the fact can provide their opinion.


Summary of dispute by KateWishing

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

Talk:Dengue fever#Management_of_Dengue_in_Tamilnadu.2CIndia discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Imperial State Crown

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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Dhtwiki's argument seems to be that my edit was 'too big', and he doesn't want his favourite image of the crown replaced with a better one. Two other users have tried adding it so there is 3:1 consensus. Other images were moved to a gallery section which is more appropriate for an article of this size. I moved the salient points into the prose and deleted gossip of the sort you find in tabloid newspapers. Everything else was still there in a more concise and easy to read format. I also added many citations from a plurality of sources per the refimprove notice dated 2007.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion.

How do you think we can help?

Advice.

Summary of dispute by Dhtwiki

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

Talk:Imperial State Crown discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Second Battle of Tikrit#The ranges Given by the article

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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

For the article Second Battle of Tikrit, the editor Parsa1993 removes my edit consistently. My edit uses a reliable and up to date reference and gives the minimum range value for the number of fighters. However, Parsa1993 removes my edit and his excuses for doing so in the edit summary are often rude or outright lies, such as the claim that i agreed with his removal of my content when i clearly hadn't. Also, i have addressed Parsa's issues and behaviour on his talk page here, as well as the aforementioned article's talk page; however, he has not responded yet continues to undo my article edit. I would like a resolution to this continual content removal.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried addressing the issue on the article talk page and Parsa1993's talk page, with no response.

How do you think we can help?

To stop the user from reverting my edits using strange excuses or claims.

Summary of dispute by Parsa1993

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

Talk:Second Battle of Tikrit#The ranges Given by the article discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_128&oldid=1138443067"