 |
|
|
| |
|---|---|
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General |
|
| Articles and content |
|
| Page handling |
|
| User conduct |
|
| Other |
|
| Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
| ||||||||||||
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Naseem Hamed | Closed | Mac Dreamstate (t) | 15 days, 23 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 22 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 22 hours |
| White Zimbabweans | In Progress | Katangais (t) | 5 days, 20 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 14 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 14 hours |
| Bernese Mountain Dog | In Progress | Traumnovelle (t) | 5 days, 14 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 13 hours |
| Macarons | Closed | 62.211.155.242 (t) | 4 days, 4 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 22 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 22 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 00:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 | If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Mac Dreamstate on 13:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
 | Closed. After minor technical difficulties, an RFC is in progress. The RFC will run for 30 days and then be formally closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is an impasse on how to describe, in the lead section, this boxer who was born in the UK, has only ever resided in the UK, and has only competed under a British boxing licence. He has Yemeni parents, which may qualify him for citizenship by descent. Various MOS have been invoked: MOS:ETHNICITY, MOS:IDENTITY, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT. In the boxing world and Western mainstream media, he is primarily notable as a British boxer; in the Arab world, his Yemeni heritage is heavily emphasised. There are numerous reliable Western sources which describe him as solely British, and some Arab sources (of varying reliability) which describe him as Yemeni. Hamed self-describes as "British-Yemeni" or "Yemeni" on social media, and did so during his career by means of Yemeni flags and other symbology. Extensive discussion at the talk page has resulted in a three vs three dispute on how to word the lead section: "British professional boxer", "British-Yemeni professional boxer", or "British professional boxer of Yemeni descent". How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Naseem Hamed#British / British-Yemeni How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Assist us in deciding how to describe Hamed in the opening sentence of the lead section, and whether it needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis or per the abovementioned MOS'es. Summary of dispute by ActionHeroesAreReal[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Abo_Yemen[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by JFHJr[edit]Greetings. I am a WP:BLPN volunteer and have participated in talkpage discussion but never edited this article. Because the subject identifies as Yemeni as supported by at least one reliable reference, I'm comfortable with that self-identification appearing anywhere in the article. I'm also of the position that WP:BLP and related either outweigh WP:MOS concerns or present a defensible position to WP:IAR. I do believe an identity datum as basic as this merits reasonable WP:WEIGHT. I do not agree with disputing its presence in the lede, even if it's worth exactly one mention in the body. Otherwise, I'd comment of the overall dispute that concerns stated and implied on the talkpage regarding chauvinism (countries claiming a champion) are themselves inherently chauvinistic. I'm not from either one. I have no committed preference for how this is resolved other than finding a resolution. Ta. JFHJr (㊟) 01:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Jahalive[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by The_MK[edit]First of all, contrary to the dispute overview, it was mentioned that only some (which are Arab) sources mentioned “Yemeni” or “British-Yemeni”, this is false, 3 sources (which are [1], [2], [3]) inserted in the discussion has stated “British-Yemeni” or has mentioned him being of Yemeni heritage and are not Arab sources at all, and are in-fact mostly western, with only two sources provided being Arab. For the summary of dispute, I’ve inserted several sources that prove the notability of Naseem’s Yemeni heritage, with him identifying as a Yemeni, and raising the Yemeni flag in a lot of his fights, and other acts of emphasis and symbology of him being Yemeni. All of this makes him being Yemeni/of Yemeni origins notable to his identity, and hence as per WP:ETHNICITY we would have to mention both British and Yemeni, because if not, that would be a violation of WP:NPOV as we are only taking into consideration him being British only, even if being Yemeni is as or more notable to his identity. At first I supported “British-Yemeni” in the lede but for more clarity, we should say “British professional boxer of Yemeni heritage” as we can’t confirm him having only one citizenship as per Yemeni naturalization law, he was always qualified for citizenship by descent (as both his parents are Yemeni), also using “British professional boxer of Yemeni heritage” allows us to include sources for both “British” and “Yemeni”. |MK| 📝 Naseem Hamed discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by volunteer (Naseem Hamed)[edit]I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. It appears that there is a dispute over what to say the subject's nationality is. Are there any other content issues? Please read DRN Rule A, and indicate whether you are willing to take part in moderated discussion in accordance with the rules. Please state, in one paragraph, what you think should be listed as the subject's nationality, and why that should be listed as his nationality. It appears that we may have to use an RFC. If anyone has any suggestions for compromise in place of an RFC, please provide the suggestion now. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] First statements by editors (Naseem Hamed)[edit]
I thought this was settled. He's British. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Second statement by volunteer (Naseem Hamed)[edit]Is the question only about what to say in the lede sentence? Is there also a question about the body of the article? I am also asking each editor, again, what do you want listed in the lede sentence as his nationality and ethnicity, and why that is how it should be listed. If you have already answered this question, please answer it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Second statements by editors (Naseem Hamed)[edit]
I am willing to take part in the discussion following Wikipedia:DRN Rule A. I think his nationality should be described as British. MOS:ETHNICITY explains that when "the person is notable mainly for past events" as Mr. Hamed is, the country "where the person was ... when they became notable" should be in the opening paragraph. He lived, trained and competed mostly in the UK. He has not lived, trained or competed in Yemin. The same section of the MOS also says "Ethnicity, ... should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." His ethnicity is not relevant to his notability. I don't think there is any dispute about the body of the article.--Jahalive (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third statement by volunteer (Naseem Hamed)[edit]
Did you read DRN Rule A in detail? Rule A.9 says: I have prepared a draft RFC in Talk:Naseem Hamed/RFC on Ethnicity. Please review it and comment on it. Do not vote on it yet, because it isn't active. After we agree on it, I will move it to the talk page and activate it by pulling out the deactivating things. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third statements by editors (Naseem Hamed)[edit]It looks good. I think those are the three options that have been disputed.--Jahalive (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth statement by volunteer (Naseem Hamed)[edit]After some complication, the RFC is now running. If there are no further questions, I will close this thread. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Fourth statements by editors (Naseem Hamed)[edit]
|
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Katangais on 16:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
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
This concerns the population estimates in the infobox of White Zimbabweans, which have been continually updated with figures that are either unsourced or attributed to a series of phone and door-to-door interviews conducted by another contributor as part of an unpublished research project. Specifically the addition of a population estimate of 55,000 white people resident in Zimbabwe.
This has been going on since late March, and I have continually disputed these additions for insufficient source information or original research. The subject has been broached on the article talk page as well as on the user talk page of the sole named contributor responsible (the rest are IP edits which have been pretty consistently reverted). This individual states he is a credentialed expert on the subject matter and qualified to speak with authority on the current population figures. He also agreed that he is willing to participate in a mediated dispute resolution process.
I understand that extensive discussion is usually required on the talk page of the article, but I have received no response to my concerns as expressed there. There is an topic on the talk page for this issue which was started on May 3, and it has received only two comments - one by myself and another by an unregistered IP. None of the other contributors involved, either those adding the new unsourced figures or those reverting it, have participated in the discussion there. To get the attention of the other contributor, I have had to contact them directly on their personal user talk.
Since the other contributor seems happy to participate in the mediation process, and nobody else has engaged with the discussion started on the article talk page, I would like to request that an exception be made to the general rule that "extensive" discussion needs to have taken place on the article talk page first. We have tried that; the talk page discussion has been ignored for over a month while the additions continue.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Clarify whether the added information in question is original research, and appropriate to remain on the article or not. Perhaps clarify the policy on reliable sources vis-a-vis experts with credentials on the subject matter as well.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This has been a waste of time. I was asked to open a case for moderated discussion without the usual prior discussion, and was unsure about how to respond, but then opened a thread for possible discussion. There have been no comments in three days. The editors should resume or begin discussion on the article talk page. Edits to the article should be based only on reliable sources. If one of the editors is asking for an exception to the policy on reliable sources, perhaps because this is the people's encyclopedia, there will be no exceptions, because the policy of verifiability is non- negotiable. I will be closing this thread unless there are any late comments or questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I don't know whether I will be opening this case for moderated discussion, because it appears that one of the editors is not making use of the article talk page. However, I am asking for preliminary statements. Please read DRN Rule A and state whether you agree to follow these rules. The purpose of moderated discussion, like the purpose of other editing activities, is to improve the encyclopedia, so I will ask each editor what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change. If there is a question about the reliability of sources, we will ask the reliable source noticeboard for guidance.
If there are questions about policies, including about the reliable source policy, please ask them here.
Article talk pages exist for discussion of how to improve the article. I am asking each editor why they think that this dispute should be resolved at DRN rather than on the article talk page. If you have not used the article talk page, please explain why you have not used the article talk page.
I will open this dispute for moderated discussion if I think that this dispute will benefit from moderated discussion, after trying to understand why there has not been discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Traumnovelle on 23:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
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 dispute is over this [4] diff, whether sources meet WP:V, and considering NPOV/DUE how many sources should be listed for life expectancy claims.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Bernese_Mountain_Dog#Reliability, as well as in other talk page discussions.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Provide consensus on the changes, choose a version to work off, and decide what sources are suitable for inclusion as currently it is one editor against another (third opinion declined this).
The issue is in the LONGEVITY LIFE EXPECTANCY section, not the HEALTH section.
The real dispute is about how long Bernese Mountain Dogs live.
The sources are independent and reliable. He keeps cutting text and references. User:Traumnovelle doesn't like the results. The disputed sources are corroborative of the professional studies. He has been WP:Edit warring over it.
There is a continuing and ongoing discussion at the article talk page. I am awaiting a consensus there. I will not address the needless personal attack other than to cite WP:Civil and WP:SAUCE. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to multiple issues with 7&6=thirteen's edits such as using self-published sources, synthesis, etc. I decided that when I had the time I would sit down, review every health claim in the article, see if the source was reliable for the claim, and if not look for alternate sources. I spent an hour or two doing this. Even ignoring the issues with synthesis and verifiability and focusing on the sources that are RS, they undue: the studies I removed were two decade outdated kennel club surveys with noticeably smaller sample sizes, it is undue to give them the same weight as more modern studies with better sampling methods and larger sample sizes. Things change and studies do become out-dated and irrelevant.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I am willing to act as the moderator for moderated discussion about this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Do each of you agree to follow DRN Rule A?
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the encyclopedia. The first question is that each editor should say exactly what section of the article they want to change, or what section of the article they want to leave alone that another editor wants to change. If there are multiple sections whose content is disputed, please list all of them separately. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a question about the reliability of sources? If there is a question about the reliability of sources, we will ask for advice from the reliable source noticeboard, and either discuss other issues while waiting for a reply, or put this dispute on hold while waiting for a reply. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to follow rule A. I believe the health section should be changed to what I have in my sandbox. Reliability of sources is one issue but other issues include undue weight to studies that are obsolete due to being older and having smaller sample sizes than more recent ones. Apologies if this isn't concise enough but I do feel I need to specify which sources relate to which problem.
Unreliable: Bernese Mountain Dog Club of America, "Individual Breed Results for Purebred Dog Health Survey" (Also OR), 2Puppies, Pullman.com, a-z=animals.com, Canine Weekly, American Kennel Club
Undue: The Bernese Mountain Dog Today (1998), Dog cancer: Dog owner's mission seeks to find help for pet and human cancer victims", "Virginia-Maryland Veterinary College launches oncology program for pets", "Mortality of purebred and mixed-breed dogs in Denmark", The Complete Guide to Bernese Mountain Dogs, Bernese Mountain Dog: An Owner's Guide to a Happy Healthy Pet, WebMD
Impossible to verify due to being dead: "All-breed eye clinic for dogs to be held at 4H Center in Bridgewater" (unlikely to mention breed based on: [5], "Life in dog years: A look at the longest-lived and shortest-lived breeds",
Synthesis/OR: "Genomic Diversity and Runs of Homozygosity in Bernese Mountain Dogs" (Note: WP:MDPI) "Epidemiology, Pathology, and Genetics of Histiocytic Sarcoma in the Bernese Mountain Dog Breed" (Note: Study fails to reach conclusion on heritability and cause of HS) "Statistical analysis regarding the effects of height and weight on life span of the domestic dog" "Lifespan of companion dogs seen in three independent primary care veterinary clinics in the United States" (Unfortunately it does not specify the breed in question so applying it to a specific breed requires original research). Traumnovelle (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One editor has made a statement. The other editor has not made a statement in response to my request for statements, but did provide an opening summary, which includes:
There is a continuing and ongoing discussion at the article talk page. I am awaiting a consensus there.
I am neutral, and I disagree with the statement that there is an ongoing discussion at the article talk page, and with any idea that it will result in consensus. There have only been two editors involved in the discussion, the two who are parties to this case. I infer that the editor who is waiting for consensus is declining to take part in moderated discussion, and moderated discussion is voluntary. I can see three possible steps that might lead to consensus. I recommend that they be done in this order, although the order is not critical:
Those should be the next steps. I am leaving this case open for any late statements or questions, but will close it soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 62.211.155.242 on 08:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
| Closed. This appears to be a dispute between two unregistered editors, one in France, one in Italy, that has come here while the article is semi-protected for one week. During the week of semi-protection, the two editors can register accounts and become autoconfirmed, which will enable them to edit the article (but if they simply resume edit-warring, they will be blocked). The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Moderated discussion between unregistered editors whose IP addresses shift between different ranges would be too confusing to be productive. Register accounts, and discuss on the article talk page while the article is semi-protected. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I think the source Larousse gastronomy should be cited as it was previously and citing Italy in the infobox. The changes are a bit biased and not justified in my opinion How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macaron&action=edit§ion=21 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Seek which version is better based on sources available Summary of dispute by user 77.205.18.165[edit]He thinks his change are good but they aren't as he keeps ignoring the content of the source. He kept revertimg editing to the version he liked and not what might have been the best oneMacarons discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
