Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 252

Archive 245

←

Archive 250

Archive 251

Archive 252

Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Southasianhistorian8 on 18:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC).

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 Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Southasianhistorian8 (talk · contribs) GhostOfDanGurney (talk · contribs) Simonm223 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Primarily determining the public figure/profile status of a person named Arsh Dalla. Both GhostOfDanGurney and Simonm223 are invoking WP:BLPCRIME as well as WP:COATRACK for this figure despite me highlighting numerous sources reporting on this individual since at least January 2023-thus fulfilling the requirement laid out in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, sources in which Dalla has actively sought media attention by speaking to prominent journalists in which he himself confessed to killing people thus making him ineligible to be considered a low profile person as per WP:LOWPROFILE, and naturally these confessions would make the media report on him. In addition, there is significant precedence and a near ubiquitous norm in Wikipedia crime articles in which a person accused of a well documented crime, who has not attained any notability outside their alleged criminal activity, whose conviction status is pending or criminal proceedings are underway, is named, the allegations against them are openly discussed, and their backgrounds exhaustively discussed. Simonm223 contests that to discuss accusations against a person, we must first establish notability independent of any accusations of criminal activity, and if lacking, establish that they have been convicted of a crime, to proceed. I have yet to come across any policy page which outlines such criteria. Also if a volunteer could clarify: how long am I allowed to make my section? And what are the rules for responding to others? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hardeep_Singh_Nijjar How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Through neutral mediation Summary of dispute by GhostOfDanGurney Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My issue with the edit to Hardeep Singh Nijjar re: Arsh Dalla is beyond the BLPCRIME issue. It goes into the aspect of using another person's arrest to further a POV that Nijjar was a militant extremist. Even if Dalla had a Wikipedia article, I would have still made that revert per WP:COATRACK/WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEWS. I believe that section of the article already has sufficient (if not already overly sufficient) coverage on the unproven allegations of militancy (mostly via "Nijjar was friends with x, y, and z"). Adding this "breaking news" content on the arrest (just an arrest) of Dalla was unneeded piling-on (another "coat", per COATRACK). Similarly, it fails WP:NOTNEWS, specifically 1) WP:NOTGOSSIP, because Dalla and Nijjar's connection was also only alleged. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Simonm223 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ultimately the core of this dispute is whether a BLP can become a WP:PUBLICFIGURE on the basis of media attention for a crime they have not been convicted of. It is not disputed that Arsh Dalla has spoken to the press... Regarding the crimes he has been accused of in India and for which Canada has declined extradition. However this media coverage is only because of the high profile India has placed on him as the suspect of a crime. He is otherwise an unremarkable plumber from Surrey. In light of the strong language in WP:BLPCRIME regarding discussing unproven accusations against private people it is my contention that it is inappropriate to discuss him in a Wikipedia article or, frankly, at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Hardeep Singh_Nijjar) I am ready to conduct moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D. This is a contentious topic because it involves India and so is within the scope of the ArbCom decision on India and Pakistan. By agreeing to participate in this discussion. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Hardeep Singh Nijjar) Hi, firstly thank you for agreeing to act as a moderator here @RobertMcClenon. This is a relatively esoteric and hyper partisan topic on Wikipedia, and I'm hoping this platform will guide us to consensus through Wikipedia policy. I believe some context may be needed here: Hardeep Singh Nijjar was a Sikh activist who lived in British Columbia, who advocated for the secession of Punjab from India, in order to create a religious state called Khalistan; the movement faced a heavy crackdown in India during the 1980s and 1990s, and many supporters of the movement moved abroad. India had accused Nijjar of heading a Khalistani militant outfit and directing violent crime in India, well before he gained mainstream attention and notoriety in Canada after his 2023 killing. The Indian media released photos of Nijjar brandishing an AK-47 and Nijjar alongside another prominent Khalistani militant (who by his own account admitted to having directed killings in favour of the movement) a decade beforehand. His name was included on a "most wanted person list" the Chief Minister of Punjab gave to the Canadian Prime Minister in 2018. After his killing, Canadian authorities accused Indian government agents (and later diplomats) of having played a role in the killing, which incited a major diplomatic fallout. Canada and India have long had strained relations over the issue of the alleged harbouring of Khalistani militants, with India accusing Canada of being a refuge for them and being unwilling to crack down on Khalistan militants. We have a section on Nijjar's Wikipedia page "Allegations of militant activities" where India's accusations against him are discussed. A substantial amount of that section was written through this Canadian Globe and Mail report, which analyzed some of the claims against him, and seemingly corroborated some of them (indicating that Nijjar was affiliated and involved in some capacity with Khalistan Tiger Force, had connections with prominent militants, close Canadian associates stating he led 5 men in weapons, GPS, target practice in the BC wilderness etc) and disputed others (stating that Canadian authorities did not believe India provided sufficient evidence to arrest Nijjar, that Indian diplomats were overzealous in labelling some of Nijjar's activism as "terrorism".) India, for some time has alleged that Nijjar was associated with Arsh Dalla, reportedly a gangster who absconded to Canada in 2018, accused of directing crime and murders in India in favour of the Khalistan movement. Dalla and Nijjar lived in the same city, were in the same profession (plumbing), and Dalla went to the same Sikh temple Nijjar was the head of. Arsh Dalla has himself talked to the Indian media, stating that he killed people and committed violent crimes, and was recently arrested in Ontario in connection to a violent shooting. India requested his extradition from Canada, but it supposedly was rejected. My stance is that we should include a brief few sentences or paragraphs surrounding Dalla's alleged connection to Nijjar. This is consistent with the tone and content already in the aforementioned section, which was agreed upon between myself and GoDG back in June/July. As militancy is often conducted through concerted efforts with other like minded individuals, we should provide details of associations, if 1) Those associations were discussed or alleged in length in WP:RS and 2) if Nijjar used the association to conduct or facilitate clandestine activities, either though his own direct involvement or commands. This is what the Globe and Mail report: India also claims Mr. Nijjar was connected to yet another Sikh plumber from Surrey: Arshdeep Singh Gill, a 26-year-old who came to Canada from Punjab in 2018. India alleges Mr. Gill runs a criminal network that has close ties to the Khalistan cause, but Mr. Nijjar’s lawyer and friends dispute the alleged link between the pair. Mr. Gill is the reported head of the Dalla Lakhbir gang, accused of using Canada as a base for a violent extortion ring in Punjab. He’s recently toned down his flashy lifestyle and gone into hiding, according to his family, but occasionally surfaces to give interviews to Indian media, often discussing his rivalry with other gangs. Wire-transfer records and WhatsApp messages filed in Indian court show Mr. Gill, alias Arsh Dalla, along with his wife, sent tens of thousands of dollars via Western Union and other money-transfer services to men India alleges are part of an extortion and weapons-smuggling network. India alleges Mr. Gill co-ordinated the attempted murder of a Hindu pandit priest from Mr. Nijjar’s village in 2021, under direction from Mr. Nijjar. One of the accused in that case told police Mr. Gill called him on WhatsApp from Canada in January, 2021, and “told us that as per the order of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, you have to kill a priest namely Kamaldeep Sharma,” according to sworn statements filed in court. The priest was accused of sexually assaulting women in the village, according to the confession. But the priest, in an interview in Punjabi, told The Globe the attempted murder, a shooting, was a dispute over land and he did not believe Mr. Nijjar was behind the attempt on his life. Mr. Gill, who attended Mr. Nijjar’s temple, could not be reached for this story. In an interview this past April with a Punjabi journalist, he denied supporting the Khalistani militancy, but said he killed a Hindu leader who desecrated a Sikh holy book. The Globe was unable to corroborate any links between Mr. Nijjar and Mr. Gill’s group. These are 2 recent CTV (another prominent Canadian news organization) reports: Dalla has lived in Canada for several years. According to multiple media reports in India, he’s also a known associate of Hardeep Nijjar -- a Sikh separatist activist who was involved with the Khalistan movement which calls for an independent Sikh state. This CTV report states as a matter of fact that Dalla was a former associate of Nijjar's. We also have various reliable Indian news reports which state that Nijjar was associated with Dalla. I will be citing The Hindu and The Indian Express, both of which regularly provide very well researched and comprehensive news. There is already consensus on Wikipedia that these 2 sources are reliable-The Hindu in RSP and The Indian Express in RSP. The Hindu states Arsh Dalla was a close aide of the then KTF chief Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was gunned down by unidentified assailants in the parking lot of a gurudwara in Canada’s Surrey on June 18, 2023. Subsequently, he took over as the outfit’s operations. The Indian Express states The Canada Police have arrested Arsh Dalla, a designated terrorist by India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) and a close aide of slain Khalistan separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Dalla will be produced before a local court tomorrow...The NIA had designated 27-year-old Arsh Dala as an individual terrorist in 2023. He started off as a small-time gangster in Moga, Punjab, before fleeing to Canada in 2018. There, he came in contact with Khalistan Tiger Force chief Hardeep Singh Nijjar and began collaborating with him. The Globe and Mail has described Dalla as a plumber in Surrey who frequented the Guru Nanak Darbar gurdwara, where Nijjar was the president. The paper, unable to reach him, had reported: “He’s [Dalla] recently toned down his flashy lifestyle and gone into hiding, according to his family, but occasionally surfaces to give interviews to Indian media, often discussing his rivalry with other gangs.” An NIA chargesheet filed in July 2023 alleges that Dalla used his connections in Punjab to form a “terrorist gang”. “He, along with Nijjar, raised funds through extortion and targeted killings of businessmen and leaders from specific communities in Punjab,” states the chargesheet. My stance is specifically to summarize the Globe report, the CTV reports, and the last 2 sources to provide a brief explanation about Nijjar and Dalla's alleged association, something along the lines of India has claimed that Hardeep Singh Nijjar was associated with Arsh Dalla (Arshdeep Singh Gill), reportedly a gangster accused of running a criminal network close to the Khalistan movement from Canada. In a case surrounding the attempted murder of a Hindu priest in Punjab in 2021, an accused person told the Indian police that Gill co-ordinated the murder at the behest of Nijjar. A June 2024 Globe report claimed it "was unable to corroborate any links between Mr. Nijjar and Mr. Gill's group." However, a November 2024 CTV news report, and various Indian news outlets assert that Gill was a former associate of Nijjar's. Gill has denied supporting the Khalistan militancy. BLP policy surrounding Dalla WP:PUBLICFIGURE- Has a multitude of reliable sources reporting on the subject.  Done as there are numerous Indian and Canadian sources reporting on him since Jan 2023. WP:LOWPROFILE Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.  Done per [1] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Thanks, Robert. I would like the content on "Arsh Dalla" to not be inserted into the article. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Thank you Robert. I would also like to remove any mention of Arsh Dalla from the article. Simonm223 (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC) First statement by possible moderator (Hardeep Singh_Nijjar) One editor has made a concise statement that information about Arsh Dalla should not be included in the article. Another editor has made a concise statement that the information about Arsh Dalla should be removed from the article. Another editor has made a statement that is long, when I asked for a concise statement, about Arsh Dalla, and says that a few sentences or paragraphs about Arsh Dalla should be included in the article. (A 1380-word statement is not concise.) There is no mention in the article about Arsh Dalla. It appears that there is a content dispute because one editor wants to add material about Arsh Dalla and the other two editors do not want the information included. My request to the editor who wants to discuss Arsh Dalla is: Write the draft paragraph about Arsh Dalla, and let the other two editors and the moderator read it. After we know exactly what the proposed added text is, we can discuss better, and can better assess whether it will satisfy the policy on biographies of living persons, and the guideline on due weight. Are there any other content issues, or any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Hardeep Singh Nijjar) I believe there is an issue with the "Allegations of militant activity" section overall and that it should be shortened considerably. I think it has too much WP:WEIGHT on minute details of specific allegations, either unproven allegations of criminal activity or "X was friends with Y who did Z" type statements. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 08:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Hardeep Singh_Nijjar) One editor has stated that they want to add information about Arsh Dalla to the article. Another editor has stated that they want to shorten the section on Allegations of militant activity. The editor who wants to add information about Arsh Dalla is asked to write the draft paragraphs for review. The editor who wants to trim the section on allegations of militant activity is asked to write a draft shortened section for review. After the draft sections are available for review, I will ask for comments on them. Are there any other content issues, or any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Hardeep Singh Nijjar) 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.

Eastern Tennessee seismic zone

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Mccunicano on 17:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Eastern Tennessee seismic zone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mccunicano (talk · contribs) Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article 2018 Southern Appalachian earthquake was redirected here after a discussion there rather than talk page here that it didn't warrant an article alone, but that it's content was valuable to this article. The user who initiated the afd for that article has issue with any mention of the earthquake existing anywhere despite the consensus of the closed afd. The only discussion we've had on this article is in the edit comments. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Southern Appalachian earthquake How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think that prose of the article should include mention of the event since it did garner widespread coverage. The list of events on the article may not be the best way to incorporate the earthquake, but an editor could turn the list into prose. I don't have confidence I could do that without the other user reverting the edit. Eastern Tennessee seismic zone 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.

Johanna Olson-Kennedy

– 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. Filed by 96.36.47.50 on 09:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Johanna Olson-Kennedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Usr Trj (talk · contribs) Esqueer (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This WP:BLP article has a controversy section. The controversy is about a scientific study that the author did not publish because she was worried about the interpretation of the findings, according to a NYTimes article. The following passage is what drives the dispute: The study was part of a larger NIH-funded project studying the impact of gender-affirming care on transgender youth. There was also 28 other peer-reviewed studies for the project that were published, many of which were co-authored by Olson-Kennedy and showed positive results from puberty blockers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johanna_Olson-Kennedy#Controversy I claim that this is not part of the controversy (because it is not controversial that other studies were published) and should be removed, while other editors claim it is part of the controversy and should remain. I claim that digging into the results of the studies constitutes original research, as I believe it was done in order to characterize the results as "positive", because this characterization is not part of the NYTimes article, but rather appears to be a personal assessment. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? On Oct 24, I opened a section on the talk page at [2]. The discussion has come at a standstill, there is no response from the other parties and we are still in disagreement over the content. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Clarify if the contentious passage should remain or be removed. Summary of dispute by Usr Trj I believe that it's worth mentioning the results of the other studies since the unpublished study was only one part of a larger project and many of the other studies that were apart of this project were published and showed different results than the one that wasn't published. A big part of the controversy was the fact that the unpublished study showed negative results and was believed to be purposely suppressed because of that. So I think it's worth mentioning that other studies in this project which were published did not show negative results like the unpublished one. This is confirmed in the New York Times article which is currently the main source for the section. I also agree with User:Esqueer that removing the passage will create the impression that no research from this specific project was published at all. Since controversy centers on the fact that a study wasn't published, it should be worth mentioning that other studies in the project it is apart of were published as this is important context. Usr Trj (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Esqueer NOTE the summary was written by me; I do not understand if this space is for User:Esqueer or for me to fill out. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Claims that removing the passage will create the impression that no research was published at all. Claims the material is properly sourced. Johanna Olson-Kennedy discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. References 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.

AIM-174B

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by MWFwiki on 00:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC).

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 AIM-174B (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MWFwiki (talk · contribs) Asukite (talk · contribs) ModernDayTrilobite (talk · contribs) Dispute overview "AIM-174 air-to-air missile" was moved without discussion to "AIM-174B." Consensus was reached RE: the removal of "air-to-air missile," but no consensus was reached regarding the addition or removal of the "B." After a no-consensus RM close (which should have brought us back to the original title, sans agreed-upon unneeded additional disambiguator), I requested the discussion be re-opened, per policy. (TO BE CLEAR; I should have, at this time, requested immediate reversion. However, I did not want to be impolite or pushy) The original closer (who found for "no consensus") was concerned they had become "too involved" in the process and requested another closer. Said closer immediately found consensus for "AIM-174B." I pressed-on to a MRV, where an additional "no consensus" (to overturn) finding was issued. The issues, as I see them, are as-follows: WP:RMUM: The move from “AIM-174 air-to-air missile” to “AIM-174B” was conducted without discussion, and I maintain all post-move discussions have achieved "no consensus." Burden of Proof: The onus should be on the mover of the undiscussed title to justify their change, not on others to defend the original title. I refrained from reverting the move during the MRV process out of politeness, which should not shift the burden of proof onto me. Precedent: I am concerned with the precedent. Undiscussed moves may be brute-forced into acceptance even if "no consensus" or a very slim consensus (WP:NOTAVOTE) is found? Argument in-favor of "AIM-174:" See Talk:AIM-174B#Requested_move_20_September_2024 for arguments in-favor and against. However, I would like to make it clear that I was the only person arguing WP. Those in-favor of "174B" were simply disagreeing with my WP arguments, but not offering their own in-support of "174B." That said, my primary WP-based argument is likely WP:CONSISTENT; ALL U.S. air-to-air-missiles use the base model as their article title. See: AIM-4 Falcon, AIM-26 Falcon, AIM-47 Falcon, AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-54 Phoenix, AIM-68 Big Q, AIM-82, AIM-95 Agile, AIM-97 Seekbat, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132, AIM-152 AAAM, AIM-260. 174"B" is unnecessary while violating consistency. TO BE CLEAR, I am not alleging bad faith on behalf of anyone, and I am extremely grateful to all those who have been involved, particularly the RM/MRV closers that I will be naming here. I would like to make it clear that this isn't simply a case of a MRV 'not going my way.' Again, I am concernd w/ the precedent and with the onus having been shifted to me for months. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? -Original RM/reversion discussion on article's talk page -Post-closure discussion w/ ORIGINAL RM closer -MRV -Post-MRV closure discussion w/ MRV closer -Post-MRV closure discussion w/ ORIGINAL RM closer (as-suggested by ModernDayTrilobite) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Ideally, I would request reversion to "AIM-174." Failing that, I would request reversion to the 'true' original title, "AIM-174 air-to-air-missile" and the onus be shifted onto the individual wishing to move this article to complete an RM. Otherwise, a review of my policy argument(s) weighed against the apparent "consensus" (which I, personally, deny exists). I strongly believe that this move violates WP. That said, I will happily accept any resolution offered, here. Summary of dispute by Asukite Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by ModernDayTrilobite Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. AIM-174B discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by volunteer (AIM-174B) I was about to close this request for at least two reasons, one procedural, one substantive. The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. That is procedural, and could be corrected if this were a right forum. The substantive reason is that DRN is not the forum for discussing a page titling dispute, or for discussing a matter that has been discussed via a consensus procedure such as Requested Moves or Move Review. It appears that the problem is that, first, there was a bold undiscussed move, and the filing editor disagrees with the undiscussed move. It then appears that the filing editor first filed a Requested Move to undo the move, but it resulted in No Consensus. The filing editor then filed a Move Review, and it resulted in No Consensus. So the filing editor is looking for a forum to overturn the bold undiscussed move. Is that correct? It appears that the editor who renamed the page, when there is no consensus, has a first-mover advantage. I am instead leaving this thread open at this point to discuss what if anything the filing editor should do next. My thought is that the filing editor should ask at Village pump (policy) what the next step is. DRN is not the right forum, but I won't close this thread until we can determine what the right forum, if any, is. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC) Correct, that is essentially what I am asking. I realize it’s a bit convoluted, so, I’m happy to proceed to VP. Don’t need to keep it open for my sake. But I also realize that it may a bit too early to do so and it’s a weekend. Point being, though, I will not complain if you feel that the discussion is not moving anywhere and wish to close this. That said, I was under the impression that I only needed to notify the users whom I mentioned and had taken action regarding this, I apologize for the procedural error. EDIT: Oh, I just realized I didn’t even notify the users I mentioned! I am so sorry! Should I do so? Or since this is the incorrect forum should I just leave it as-is for now?Thank you for your patience, this is my first time taking things to this level. MWFwiki (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2024 (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.

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Trumpetrep on 14:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Trumpetrep (talk · contribs) SchroCat (talk · contribs) Antniomanso (talk · contribs) NipponGinko (talk · contribs) Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) Ian Rose (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Several editors believe that Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov's article should not have an infobox. Several editors believe it should. There has been a discussion where the consensus was narrowly in favor of an infobox. All attempts to restore the infobox to the article have been reverted, and attempts to engage infobox opponents in discussion have been met with silence. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov User_talk:Ian_Rose#Rimsky_Infobox User_talk:SchroCat#Rimsky_Infobox How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Well-meaning editors are trying to engage in a discussion about the issue. Several editors are not reciprocating and revert any attempts to install an infobox. The hope is that the Dispute Resolution process can engage reticent editors in an open discussion in order to create a consensus. Summary of dispute by SchroCat Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Antniomanso Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by NipponGinko Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Nikkimaria Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Gerda Arendt Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Ian Rose Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Notes - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. The usual way to determine whether an article should have an infobox is a Request for Comments, and there does not appear to have been an RFC for that purpose. If a dispute is opened here, it will probably result in an RFC asking whether there should be an infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Thanks for explaining that. At the top of the article's talk page, there is a notice that says, "Seek dispute resolution if needed". When we hit an impasse, I clicked the Dispute Resolution link and followed the instructions. If Request for Comments is the preferred method of resolving an Infobox dispute, should that header language be updated? Trumpetrep (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC) User:Trumpetrep - I have reviewed the header language, and there is no need to change it. It says to seek dispute resolution if needed. That page lists four ways of resolving content disputes and four ways of resolving conduct disputes. One of the ways of resolving content disputes is Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which is where we are, and another is Request for Comments. You followed the instructions, and came here, and we sometimes either advise the editor to use an RFC or set up the RFC. The header instructions are correct. You followed the instructions. Do you want me to set up the RFC for you? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC) I defer to your judgment about the best way to proceed. No one has weighed in here aside from you.Trumpetrep (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC) User:Trumpetrep - The reason that no one else has responded is that you forgot to notify the other users, and I didn't tell you to notify them, because I didn't think that moderated discussion would be as useful as an RFC. I have prepared more than a hundred RFCs, so I would suggest that you ask me to prepare the RFC, but that is your call. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC) I followed the instructions I was given when I asked for the Dispute Resolution. I was told to notify the editors, and I did so immediately at the discussion page in question. That seemed like the correct way to do it. I apologize that I misunderstood the process. When I saw your Volunteer Notes, I immediately notified all of the editors on their Talk pages. I am very grateful for your explanations. I would like to see if there is any progress with the current circumstances before requesting comments. Trumpetrep (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by volunteer (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov) I am ready to conduct moderated discussion if that is appropriate. My opinion is that the question of whether there should be an infobox for Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov should be resolved by an RFC. Disputes over whether articles on classical music and musicians should have infoboxes have been common, and there does not seem to be a project-wide consensus on the issue, so it is best to rely on consensus for each article determined by RFC. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom decision on infobox disputes. If you wish to engage in discussion, please first state that you agree to the rules, and that you understand that infoboxes are a contentious topic. The article currently does not have an infobox. In order for the RFC to be informative, a draft infobox should be provided for inclusion in the RFC. So if you want an RFC on an infobox, please provide a draft infobox for inclusion in the RFC. Are there any other content issues? Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov) Thanks again for your help with this process and for your willingness to conduct a moderated discussion. I hope I'm responding in the correct format. The infobox that was created on October 13th appears in a slightly amended form below. I streamlined the image coding and added a link to Rimsky-Korsakov's wife. If the project in question is WikiProject Composers, it does seem that there is a "project-wide consensus" about infoboxes that is outlined here. Some composer articles also have a hidden text admonition not to add an infobox without consensus: "Before adding an infobox, please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes and seek consensus on this article's talk page."Trumpetrep (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC) Nikolai Andreyevich Rimsky-Korsakov Portrait of Rimsky-Korsakov in 1898 by Valentin Serov (detail) Born (1844-03-18)March 18, 1844 Tikhvin, Tikhvinsky Uyezd, Russian Empire Died June 21, 1908(1908-06-21) (aged 64) Luga, Luzhsky Uyezd, Russian Empire Cause of death Myocardial infarction Resting place Tikhvin Cemetery Nationality Russian Empire Alma mater Naval Cadet Corps, Saint Petersburg Era Romantic Employer Saint Petersburg Conservatory Known for composer, maestro, musicologist, autobiographer, music professor, music theorist, university professor, military officer, librettist Notable work Scheherazade Symphony No. 1 The Golden Cockerel Spouse Nadezhda Rimskaya-Korsakova Children Andrey Rimsky-Korsakov Mikhail Nikolaevich Rimskiy-Korsakov Vladimir Rimsky-Korsakov Parents Andrey Petrovich Rimskiy-Korsakov (father) Sofia Vasilievna Skaryatina (mother) Relatives Voin Rimsky-Korsakov (brother) Signature First statement by volunteer (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov) I have created the draft RFC for review at talk:Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov/RFC_on_Infobox . I have reviewed the guideline on infoboxes for composers, and I would characterize it as a consensus that there is no consensus: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. That is what I had remembered. So this RFC will be used to arrive at consensus. Are there any comments on the draft RFC before I move it to the article talk page and it becomes an active RFC? Are there any other content issues? Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov) 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.

Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Rusted AutoParts on 02:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC).

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? Discussion moved from edit summaries into the user's talk page. Location of dispute Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs) ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects is one of many on filmmakers who had films/series they were developing that ultimately never got made, or the filmmaker simply left. This is explained in the lead section of the article. @ZanderAlbatraz1145: has been including content on projects in which Guadagnino is still actively involved with. Thus, this does not align with the purpose of the article. Today, I had removed two of Guadagnino's more recent projects, citing that they were still being developed with Guadagnino on two instances. ZanderAlbatraz reverted me, opening with bad faith comments about whether myself or other editors would remember to reinclude them should they become unrealized (this is also ZanderAlbatraz employing assumption in regards to Guadagnino not realizing the project), and then finishing with uncivil remarks such as " Make sense? Doubt you'll understand" and remarking they'd just keep re-adding it, demonstrating disinterest in collaborative or constructive editing. I reverted, reasserting the purpose of the page is "unrealized projects", they proceeded to follow through with their intention to edit war. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I approached the editor on their talk page, see User talk:ZanderAlbatraz1145#Luca Guadagnino. Here they demonstrated a lack of understanding as to what the goal of the article was for, and refused requests for them to revert themselves. This ultimately ended with them saying to "Bite me". ZanderAlbatraz consistently engages in incivility such as this, with @Staraction: leaving them a message prior to my thread about their uncivil comments. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Given this has essentially been a 1 v 1 disagreement, looking either for third party resolution, or to see if the matter should be fielded in a bigger format for more input. Additionally, ZanderAlbatraz in my opinion should be given firmer reprimand about their conduct. Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects 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.

Breyers

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Zefr on 15:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC).

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 Breyers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Zefr (talk · contribs) Graywalls (talk · contribs) NutmegCoffeeTea (talk · contribs) Axad12 (talk · contribs) CNMall41 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Breyers is a 158 year old ice cream and frozen dessert brand owned since 1993 by Unilever. It has a fairly simple story of its American history, purchase by Unilever, products, and place among other high-performance brands. The current version includes each sentence with a verifiable, reliable source. One persistent disputant #1 has repeatedly diminished the content, such as in this version, with no constructive edits. Another disputant #2 earlier inserted this version, attempting to highlight "antifreeze" as a Breyers ingredient, while wiping out constructive sourced edits. Disputant #3 also reverted here to eliminate improvements. A fourth good-faith editor provided additional edits here. A main issue of disputants #1-3 is over a GRAS ingredient used in Breyers products 11 years ago, but not since, to make the antifreeze smear. With input in recent days, two admins on the talk page have essentially ended that claim as irrelevant to current ingredients, WP:UNDUE and having no WP:RS sources. It seems likely that disputants #1-3 will further oppose building a verifiable, accurate, sourced article. As recently as a month ago, disputant #1 reverted improvements to return to this outdated, skeletal version. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Breyers#Article_status,_part_3 - which is the latest attempt to discuss and build a better article. The talk page has been extensively organized to invite constructive input, but has been in dispute over the past 3 months, with disputants #1-3 actively participating to argue against building the article. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The Breyers article has 54 watchers, with 11 having visited in the past month. I have repeatedly attempted to provide objective, sourced statements to give the basic information, but appear to be the only editor doing so. The disputants will argue that my edits were "cultivated" by Unilever consultants who made reasonable edit requests, to which I responded in the History section. I have no COI. Is the current version objectively stated and verifiable to deter further disputes and reverts? Summary of dispute by Graywalls It has been difficult working with Zefr as I feel they're pushy and consensus is not being respected and they don't seem to be adhering to WP:AGF as they had been casting aspersions that some editors are here to "slander" or "disparage" that is up against the line of WP:NLT. "disparaging" which triggered a hinting of legal actions. They said Statements of facts supported by reliable sources do not need talk page consensus., so this seems like they have no intentions of respecting consensus. as said in here Graywalls (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by NutmegCoffeeTea Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Axad12 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I had unsubscribed from the relevant threads over a fortnight ago because the OP here was clearly being very difficult and simply would not accept that consensus was against them (on a variety of issues). Having read through the developments since I unsubscribed I'm disappointed (but unsurprised) to see that that continues to be the case. I can only interpret this referral to dispute resolution as the desperate last throw of the dice of someone who should have accepted that the consensus was against them and walked away a long time ago. Also, I do very much believe that the user was canvassed/cultivated to deal with the relevant COI edit requests in a way which undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. Also that some of the allegations that the user made during the course of those threads were massively inaccurate and ill-advised. Axad12 (talk) Summary of dispute by CNMall41 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I was gone for about a week so forgive the late response. I am not sure what to add here since this is my first DRN. I will say that the discussion has been contentious and if there is a specific question about specific content I will be glad to opine. Otherwise, I am not really interested in the back and forth .--CNMall41 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Breyers discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Breyer's) I am ready to try to conduct moderated discussion if at least two editors agree to moderated discussion. Only one other editor besides the filing editor has replied, but other editors are still welcome to join the discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and state whether you agree to moderated discussion. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Each editor should state concisely what changes they want to make to the article (in which section and paragraph) that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) I am not familiar with procedural flow so my apologies if this is not the right way to follow up. I sent reminders to others, and I would like to give it a few more days to see if they'd comment. Graywalls (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC) DRN Rule A is a good outline to which I encourage and agree for the moderated discussion. The Breyers brand story and article are relatively easy to research and describe, and it will likely not change much over time because it is managed by Unilever who intends to sell it and all the Unilever ice cream brands in 2025. From my view as an objective Wikipedia editor mainly on science topics, the two main disputed issues are 1) using best-available recent sources to update which was an outdated skeletal version containing misinformation when I began editing in August 2024. The version discussed in this talk page topic is fair, balanced, sourced, and factual, with the one exception mentioned - propylene glycol is an irrelevant issue to discuss among the many intentional ingredients for frozen dairy desserts (no source to indicate it ever applied to original ice cream products); and 2) the persistent reintroduction (by disputants #1-3) of the slur term "antifreeze" as a relevant ingredient in Breyers products. Propylene glycol - a common, safe, approved food ingredient not used in Breyers products since 2013, so a question of why it is such a sensitive, persistently-disputed issue raises concern over what motivations are behind the months-long dispute, including just yesterday here. On the Breyers talk page, I have raised discussion using WP:AGE MATTERS, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and WP:REL about why the propylene glycol ingredient deserves to be mentioned at all, but there have been no replies to advance the discussion. Zefr (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC) The consensus was clearly against you there, and will continue to be against you here. You cannot just present argument after argument in the discussion at the talkpage (attracting only disagreement and no support) and then argue here that there have been no replies. That is what tends to happen when editors remorselessly try to wear down everyone else's resistance and attention. To then bring the issues here is frankly an abuse of process in relation to discussions where there was a clear consensus against you weeks ago. WP:CONSENSUS is the way to resolve disputes, not forum shopping. Axad12 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC) You are one of 3 editors who tried to slander and WP:SPAMBAIT the article with the word "antifreeze" as a relevant ingredient. 3 editors out of only 11 who have visited this page in the last month are not a consensus, especially when two admins (Cullen328 and BD2412) dismissed the propylene glycol-antifreeze issue on the talk page. I suggest you review WP:CON, which contains tendentious editing, WP:TE - the correct description for the smearing of the article by you, Graywalls, and NutmegCoffeeTea with irrelevant content: "Tendentious editing is a pattern of editing that is partisan, biased, skewed, and does not maintain an editorially neutral point of view." The 3 of you are skewed/non-neutral to attempt describing a consumer brand with a slanderous term, while not offering a single constructive edit with recent verifiable sources over the last 6 months of article history. Zefr (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Apologies but I have no time for your continual allegations and wikilawyering. That there was a clear consensus against you at the talk page is self-evident, and admins do not get some kind of supervote. Frankly, the nature of the allegations you made at the talk page were a clear breach of WP:AGF and the post above doubles down on that kind of rhetoric. All that I have personally done on that article is reinstate (some time ago now) the previous established version because there was no consensus for the changes you had made. Accusing me of slander, smearing, tendentious editing and spambait is quite laughable (and is on top of your previous allegations of tagteaming, being canvassed to attend when I was already in the conversation, etc, etc.). If your only interest here is in continuing to attack those who disagree with you, what is the point of this exercise? That kind of behaviour is never the way to "win" an argument, and is about as far from dispute resolution as can be imagined. Also, why are you selectively canvassing previous talkpage contributors in your post above? What about also pinging the full list of contributors who disagreed with you but who weren't invited to this discussion? Axad12 (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC) You chose to be involved in resolving the dispute. You could have remained silent, but here you are attacking behavior and not observing the first rule of DRN: This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Zefr (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Oh come on, I'm perfectly allowed to defend myself from nonsense allegations - here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. And in relation to your canvassing above, here is evidence of the additional editors who disagreed with the removal of reference to Propylene Glycol. I'm not going to mention them as I don't canvass, but here are the relevant diffs to prove that the editors exist: The editor who turned down (here [3]) the original COI edit request to remove mention of Propylene Glycol from the article back in August. The same editor reiterated their position here [4] on 9 Nov. (The initial opposition clearly demonstrates that there was no consensus for removal when the COI editor repeated their request and canvassed their cultivated editor (Zefr) to approve it.) The editor who disagreed [5] with Zefr’s subsequent removal of mention of Propylene Glycol The editor who stated [6] that Zefr’s proposal amounted to promotion. Add those voices to the 3 which you choose to acknowledge and there is the evidence to demonstrate that there has always been a clear consensus against you. Axad12 (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC) There is no reasonable support for the sources applying to propylene glycol or the "antifreeze" slur, shown partly by this RSN discussion. DRN is intended to work on content and source. The current article has a statement challenged for its relevance in this discussion: "A 2013 book indicated that some flavors of Breyer's ice cream contained propylene glycol as an additive to make ice cream easier to scoop." Why is this relevant per WP:REL and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS? What content and sources do you propose to use? Zefr (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Given your rather transparent moving of the goalposts I assume that you accept that your earlier post was canvassing and an attempt to distort consensus here? Also I'd suggest you withdraw the various groundless allegations that you've made against me above, for simply reverting an edit for which there was no talkpage consensus. I'm more than happy to participate in dispute resolution, but not in an environment which you have soured with your continued personal attacks and recent canvassing post. Axad12 (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Also, the idea that your point of view is borne out by the two discussions that you link to seems quite unfounded. As I have stated, there has always been a consensus for inclusion of the Propylene Glycol mention. To be honest it is pushing the envelope to even suggest that there is a dispute here that needs resolving. For the last month you have been bludgeoning to keep the discussion alive (way beyond its natural lifespan) in the optimistic hope that you'd find enough people to agree with you to overturn the obvious consensus. When that didn't happen you brought the 'dispute' here, presumably in the hope of finding support which you didn't get at the talkpage or at RSN. The whole thing is an abuse of process. It's very disappointing that this is being done in the name of implementing a COI edit request which was a repeat of one which was quite rightly turned down back in August by another editor. The COI editor then repeatedly canvassed you to respond to various subsequent trivial edit requests and then repeated the one that had been declined and asked you to implement it. You should have been aware that there was no consensus in favour of it because it had already been turned down. Ever since then it has just been continual argumentation prompted by one individual who discounts everyone else's opinion. Axad12 (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC) You have strayed from the purpose here to resolve a dispute over content and sources. As it stands today, every sentence in the Breyers article (except for the propylene glycol issue) is verified by a reliable source. None of the disputants #1-3 has made new constructive edits, added new reliable sources or challenged the facts and existing sources. WP:CON occurs "through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Such policies include WP:V and underlying WP:RS. Without verifiability and a reliable source, a sense of consensus among a couple of users wanting to emphasize propylene glycol doesn't hold. The issue about propylene glycol as a minor modification additive (one among 14 ingredients in a single dessert) in 2013 doesn't pass WP:V. It fails because a) it is a questionable source (an unscientific book about "banishing belly fat"), b) it is self-published by an author with no expertise in food manufacturing, c) it is an old source outdated by 12 years with no relevance to current product ingredients or food manufacturing, d) it is out of context about an article describing a brand, Breyers, and e) it has no relevance to the overall article and is too minor to mention, WP:UNDUE. To help the process, please address these policy concerns as they apply to the 2013 propylene glycol issue. It would also be useful to offer text and a source that would re-address propylene glycol if applicable and relevant to a Breyers product in 2024. Zefr (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC) I continue to believe that there are many worrying elements to the history of this dispute, and in the way it was brought here, and (contrary to your suggestion above) it is entirely valid to air those concerns here. Namely: (a) whether there is an actual dispute here and not just one individual continually trying to push a POV contrary to talkpage consensus, (b) obvious canvassing by you, and (c) the COI element to the talk page history. You are continuing to try to plough on with your own narrative and disregard the concerns of other users, which has been a regrettable element to these discussions from early November onwards. Furthermore I'm not sure how you square accusing me of diverging from a content discussion with the fact that you made a number of entirely uncalled for and intemperate personal attacks against myself and others earlier in this thread (including the very serious accusation of slander, which you must surely retract). As for the other points that you raise above, those have all been dealt with by other users in the relevant talk page discussion (quite possibly on multiple occasions). Axad12 (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC) Lots of words, no focus. You're confused about canvassing - I haven't asked anyone to come here, but rather mentioned talk page discussants. To assist the moderator and clarify what is disputed: 1) what in the existing article would you change and why? 2) how would you word a revision about propylene glycol (relevant link for use as a food ingredient), and what current reliable source would apply? Zefr (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Breyer's) First statement by possible moderator (Breyer's) Please reread DRN Rule A. Your attention is called to sections A.3, Comment on content, not contributors, and A.4, no back-and-forth discussion. Most of the previous discussion has been collapsed. We will start over. Please state whether you agree to DRN Rule A. Then state what article content you want to change, or what article content you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. If you can't state what you want in terms of changes to the article, maybe you haven't been focusing on article content. If you want to talk about editor conduct, you should first read the boomerang essay, and may then report the conduct issue at WP:ANI, but we should be trying to improve the encyclopedia, and so should be trying to concentrate on article content. The objective of this noticeboard is to resolve disputes by focusing on content, which often permits the conduct issue to subside. Are there any questions? Please state them below. If there are no questions, please either agree to DRN Rule A and state what the content issues are, or state that you do not agree to the rules, or say nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC) I have a question. I am unfamiliar with this noticeboard and I wish to ask a purely procedural question which does not relate to editor conduct. I had previously read the notes at the top of the noticeboard but I did not see the point addressed. In the dispute under discussion here there has already been a month's worth of talk page discussion where the OP is clearly in a small minority. There has never been anything even vaguely close to a consensus in favour of what they are trying to implement and there is a strong consensus (consisting of at least 6 editors) against implementation. Therefore the pre-existing version of the relevant part of the article continues to prevail. To the best of my knowledge that overall state of affairs is entirely standard when it comes to the resolution of talk page content discussions and is entirely in accordance with the relevant policies and guidelines. Where a single editor has found little support for their position at the talk page, and where the discussion has effectively run its course, having had input from a good range of contributors and a clear consensus has emerged (albeit spread rather widely across a month's worth of comments), I am very surprised that an editor has recourse to this process, which I assume is intended for the resolution of issues which remain meaningfully in dispute (following adequate talk page discussion). As far as I can see that is very much not the case here. The relevant talk page discussions are this thread [7] and then all of the material from this thread [8] downwards to the foot of the talk page. Any objective reading of the relevant material will support the version of events I have presented above. I would thus be grateful for some chapter and verse on whether this referral to dispute resolution is in accordance with the intended purpose of this noticeboard. I'm perfectly open to the idea that I may be mistaken in my feelings on this question but hopefully it will be accepted that it is a good faith question with relevance to the overall discussion. Axad12 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC) Hello Robert, a response to the above post would be appreciated. You've asked twice now if there are any questions about the process - and the post above does present such a question. I'd be very grateful for your input here - if only because nobody seems to be prepared to engage with the OP's point of view until the issue of the validity of this overall thread is settled. Axad12 (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Breyers) I agree to DRN Rule A. 1) the existing article is concise and factual, with each statement verified by a reliable source (except for propylene glycol). For the Consumer concerns and feedback section, the first two sentences should be moved to History, and the last two sentences should be deleted. Otherwise, the article is a factual, sourced stub just as it should be, and should not be changed unless sources within the last 5 years are applied as relevant. 2) the discussion about propylene glycol (link for use as a GRAS food ingredient) had no relevance in 2013 and has none now. Accordingly, propylene glycol should not be mentioned in the article. Zefr (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC) First statement by Graywalls Breyer's made "natural" a selling point for a long time and the 2013 reformulation is a big deal. The fact propylene glycol is contained was covered in published sources should not be ignored and per rough talk page consensus, some inclusion is absolutely warranted. The extensive boastful fluff though, should be trimmed. Graywalls (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Second statement by possible moderator (Breyer's) I will try to answer what Axad12 describes as a purely procedural question. Now that they have clarified that they are not asking about conduct, I will try to answer. It appears that Axad12 is saying that this is a one-against-many content dispute. I am otherwise not entirely sure what the question is. Maybe they are asking whether they are required to take part in this discussion. Participation in DRN is voluntary, regardless of whether there is a rough consensus in one direction or another or not. So they are not required to take part in discussion here, and would not be required to take part, regardless of any previous proceedings. Perhaps they are asking what will happen if they do not participate in DRN. In that case, I will close this case as declined. Then discussion should resume on the article talk page, and normal editing can resume. Edit-warring is not permitted. See the Wikipedia policy on consensus. Sometimes a question is easier to answer when it is not accompanied by a long discussion. Was that the question that was being asked, or was something else being asked? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Robert, the question was whether the OP has recourse to this process when lengthy multi-user talk page discussion has already established that there is a strong consensus contrary to what they are trying to implement. My concern was that it seemed unfair to expect users to rehash the same discussion here, but this was based on the idea that if no one could be bothered to do so the OP would win the day (unopposed). However, you appear to be saying that if no one engages further then the OP's request will be declined, which would seem to me to be an entirely correct and appropriate outcome. Thank you for your clarification. Hopefully I have understood you correctly, if not please set me straight. Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Breyer's) The absence of discussion and refusal to collaborate here on the disputed content can be interpreted as the disputants having no argument to justify mentioning propylene glycol. There is no consensus when there is no verifiable reliable source for why propylene glycol is sufficiently an important ingredient that it should be mentioned for manufacturing frozen desserts (it was never applied for making ice cream). The article has no such verifiable, reliable source supporting any concerns about the widely-accepted safety of propylene glycol in frozen dessert manufacturing. 1) the existing article is concise and factual, with each sentence verified by a reliable source (except for propylene glycol). No discussants disputed or collaborated on this point to improve the article. Accordingly, it is presumed acceptable as is. 2) the only applicable information about propylene glycol is this: it is and has been since 1982 a common, safe, regulated GRAS food ingredient approved in many countries, with no safety concerns or relevance to Breyers products in 2013 or now. It is only a formulation ingredient for texture control, and need not be mentioned as having relevance to the overall article on the brand. No discussants disputed or collaborated on this point to make the article clearer or better sourced. As noted on the DRN FAQ: Wikipedia only works when editors collaborate to form a consensus. Discussion is as important in the editing process as editing itself. While participation is not a requirement at DR/N, refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building. As no other discussants made attempts to collaborate on the above two conclusions, I accept that the discussion can resume on the article talk page, and the existing content and sources apply until further discussion. I recommend the moderator close this discussion. Zefr (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2024 (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.