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:Denis Villeneuve#Intro Sentence (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JimboM32 (talk · contribs)
• Sombracier47 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement regarding the nationality of a living person in the article lead (Canadian vs French-Canadian). It is my assertion that nationality is defined by the nation-state in which you are a citizen, which is supported by the Manual of Style on Biographies.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion, Third Opinion Request

How do you think we can help?

The Third Opinion Request did not provide a lasting resolution. In my opinion, the issue requires a definitive decision from a third party in order to avoid further reverts (though it doesn't qualify as an "edit war" since the reverts are weeks apart, that is essentially what it is).

Jimbo's point of view and idea on what is a nation is wrong and, concerning the particular case of Denis Villeneuve, results in a denial of his identity and perpetrate a prejudice on smaller nations most prominent artists. Many, and I mean many, other artists from Québec are either identified as French Canadian or Quebecer, and it should stay that way. Villeneuve himself stated he considers himself a Quebecer, and yet it's still being changed back. This can't continue and needs to stop. Denis Villeneuve (you can't even pronounce his name right) is a French Canadian. If it goes the wrong way, it will set up a terrible precedent in wikipedia history, as this particular debate is not even close to be a problem on the french wikipedia. Respect the artist, respect its identity.

•  Verified Substantial discussion on article talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Verified Each participant listed in the case has been notified on their user talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• ω Awaiting case summary from Sombracier47 if xe wishes to participate in DRN discussion. --JustBerry (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done by Sombracier47. --JustBerry (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Looking at the talk page discussion, please make sure that points that either party makes are substantiated with third party sources. --JustBerry (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The filing party says that the issue requires a definitive decision from a third party to avoid further reverts. This noticeboard isn't a place to request a definitive decision from a third party; that isn't the function of our volunteer mediators. If the filing party wants moderated discussion, they may wait for a volunteer moderator to open discussion. If the filing party wants a definitive decision, they may post a Request for Comments. What does the filing party want? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: @JimboM32: @Sombracier47: Pinging both parties on their thoughts to Robert McClenon's question above. --JustBerry (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Reaching a consensus should be fine, should it not? That's essentially what I meant. Honestly, I'm not experienced at all with wiki procedure, but I would hope that we're all mature enough to respect the consensus even if it isn't technically binding. JimboM32 (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@JimboM32: Sounds good. --JustBerry (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Question: @Sombracier47: Would you also be okay with pursuing an RfC on the article talk page? --JustBerry (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That would be fine with me I suppose, though the issue is more wide-reaching than just the single article in question. If you look at Sombracier's contributions, there are a number of articles that have been modified in the same manner. Their edits seem to be exclusively of this type. Would RfC be an effective way to address the issue as a whole? JimboM32 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@JimboM32: In an RfC, you'd ideally want to leave editors' name out of the picture (perhaps subtituted with "Option 1" and "Option 2") to keep the discussion focused on the changes themselves. Secondly, you can always include the RfC in the talk page of the article linked in this case and make specific references to changes made across other articles. Does this make sense? See WP:RfC regarding making an RfC. --JustBerry (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2016 (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.

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:Fascism#Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2016 for .22Fascism.22 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sauve.sean (talk · contribs)
• Mgaudzels (talk · contribs)
• Orange Mike (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Current wording describes fascism as right-wing, when this is a highly controversial claim. The claim has no sources, and the trolls on the page actively monitor to prevent making the sentence more accurate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talk on the talk page. The archives show a long history of this dispute.

How do you think we can help?

Find the most neutral wording.

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.

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:Van Helsing (TV series) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pyxis Solitary (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Attempts have been made to edit the *Cast and characters* section based on WP:MOSTV.

1. The addition of *Main cast* and *Recurring cast* sections were reversed with the following reason given: "according to http://www.syfy.com/vanhelsing/cast/1 all edits are nonsense". [See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Van_Helsing_(TV_series)&type=revision&diff=755923325]

But what appears in the Syfy website is not the guideline for what is provided, and learned, by watching the TV show.

2. The identification of "Kelly Overton as Van (Vanessa) Helsing" was reversed to "Kelly Overton as Vanessa" with the following reason given: "Names per credits - that's how we do it." [See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Van_Helsing_(TV_series)&type=revision&diff=756694380]

However, Van Helsing is the title of the main character -- not "Vanessa". The opening credits simply provide the name of the actor playing Van Helsing (Kelly Overton). It does not display, for example, "Kelly Overton as Van Helsing". The name of the title character and who plays her is self-evident.

The topic "Dispute resolution" was posed in the Talk page on 26 December 2016 -- for which no editor has (yet) commented.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

No one has replied to the topic posted in the Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

The input by editors who understand WP policies and guidelines would be beneficial to the article and will help less experienced editors understand and follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Television.

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.

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:Greer Honeywill#Sources (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• duffbeerforme (talk · contribs)
• freshacconci (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The page on Greer Honeywill is up to date, has addressed all requests, and yet editor duffbeerforme continues (on VIEW HISTORY page and on TALK page) to block the removal of templates. His/her language is approaching bullying. And resolution seems impossible without intervention.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Corrections, improvements + logic & reason

How do you think we can help?

Review the page and decide whether or not the two templates at the top should be removed. If you decide they should not, then recommend appropriate steps to achieve that (neither of the editors appear willing to do that)

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.

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

• Hirsch Metropolitan High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Greatlight2 (talk · contribs)
• Xx236 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

user: User:Xx236 is preventing editors from updating ANY information for the page that he does not agree with: Hirsch Metropolitan High School. Specifically, he is deleting a notable, particularly Dr. Jody W. Reed, MD, from the notable section. He sent several messages on my page suggesting that this is a "conflict of interest". We are a Department at Norwegian American Hospital where Dr. Reed is the Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry. He is well published and is the author of several books. This user has no basis to exclude Dr. Reed from the notables section.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I expressed to this person that they had not right or basis to exclude Dr. Reed. This person inferred that "we" are Dr. Reed and that "we" are "self promoting".

How do you think we can help?

Dr. Reed meets that criteria for a "notable" and this user has no right to sensor information for ALL the people who have ever attended this high school. This user should not be allowed to remove Dr. Reed from the notable section.

• Greatlight2 (talk · contribs) has blanked Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and part of my Talk page.
• Greatlight2 (talk · contribs) has not informed me s/he filed this complaint.
• I have reverted one edit [1] which contained spam.
• If Greatlight2 (talk · contribs) wants to write about Jody Reed, s/he should quote reliable sources.
• S/he claimed we are the Hospital Physician Coordination department. It means there exists COI.
• See what Greatlight2 (talk · contribs) writes probably about me. User talk:Greatlight2 Little man. There is no need to discuss these issues with you. You do not control anything.Xx236 (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• ++++Response of Dispute by Greatlight2+++++

> Xx236 is missing the point of Wikipedia. Dr. Jody Reed, MD is an accomplished Psychiatrist who graduated from this urban High school in the inner city of Chicago. Chicago has a murder rate that is similar to many war zones. Current and former students should be aware that Dr. Reed is from their school. This editor does not have the right to prevent ANYONE from becoming aware that Dr. Reed is a graduate from this school.

Xx236 was made aware of this complaint and refused to cooperate.

Dr. Jody Reed, MD being a Psychiatrist is not an "citable" issues, just google his name.

Xx236 continue to write on Dr. Jody Reed,MD and would not stop when asked repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatlight2 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• [2] is blatantly promotional and bordering on spam. The OP has not made any real attempt to engage on Talk, so this is not ripe for DR. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Closed as per admin comment above. Also, blanking the talk page of this noticeboard is not a way to open a dispute and may be treated as vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2017 (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.

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:Gender dysphoria#Changing .22GID.22 to .22gender dysphoria.22 throughout the article (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Megathon7 (talk · contribs)
• Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• Funcrunch (talk · contribs)
• Bluerasberry (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The title of the article is gender dysphoria, yet the term very frequently used in the article is GID (for gender identity disorder). Gender identity disorder was the old name of the article, and GID is an outdated term. So, I attempted to update the term GID to gender dysphoria throughout the article.

This created a dispute over whether gender dysphoria is an equivalent term for GID, and therefore a dispute over whether the term should be updated. Consensus on the talk page has not been reached on whether to use the term GID or gender dysphoria.

Edit: The relevant section on the talk page is Changing "GID" to "gender dysphoria" throughout the article Megathon7 (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies has been alerted of the dispute by another user.

How do you think we can help?

Provide guidance on next steps to resolve dispute, or provide clarity on whether the term GID or gender dysphoria should be used.

A new article is not needed in this case. That would be an inappropriate content fork. Use of alternative terms are usually fine, and those terms should usually be covered in the same article. In this case, it's not simply a name change. The GID criteria was changed as well, and I think it can be problematic to use the term gender dysphoria for cases, including studies, that are referring to GID. And I explained why on the talk page. So when it comes to using "gender dysphoria" throughout the article, I think it's best to update the references (as in sources, not the mentions) with the text. If a 1992 study is referring to GID, I am not sure that it's appropriate to state, "In a 1992 study on gender dysphoria." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

To be clear on my involvement here, I have not made any edits to the Gender dysphoria article itself during this dispute. I merely pinged the LGBT Studies WikiProject and then offered some scholarly sources along with my opinion that using the term gender identity disorder does not seem to be in favor at this time. Funcrunch (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this issue can be resolved as a matter of process without considering the subject matter.

I see two sides - one side wishes for the subject of the article to be described by its title. The title is somewhat controversial, as it was set by a move discussion. I favor this side, because it seems right for the decided title of an article to be the term used to describe the subject of any article.

The other side is arguing that the subject of the article be described by a term other than the title. I disregard all sourcing and context presented because I do not think this is a defensible position. Instead, I feel like if another term should be used, then the article could be renamed with due process or someone could create a new article with the new distinct term.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors. I have corrected the spelling of one user name. Waiting for the filing party to notify the other editors and for responses from them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

 Verified All involved editors have been notified on their respective talk pages by the case filer. --JustBerry (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Added case filer Megathon7 as one of the involved editors of this case. --JustBerry (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: 4 out of the 5 involved parties have provided a dispute summary/overview. The case is ready to be moderated. --JustBerry (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: I would note that this particular request may not be ready for DRN as the requesting editor has stated in his reply to How do you think we can help;
  • "Provide guidance on next steps to resolve dispute, or provide clarity on whether the term GID or gender dysphoria should be used" DRN cannot decide how a term is used on Wikipedia. Consensus determines that with discussion. That need not be on the noticeboard and guidance for next steps is not what the noticeboard should be used for. There are many other venues for process questions. I suggest closing this request for the moment. From what I can see, there may already exist a rough consensus of editors. The closing note would be where the next step in process would be suggested as well as mentioning the MOS guideline for consistency in articles and how that may pertain here.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Also of note for guidance of involved participants would be the Wikipedia guideline; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Of importance to this dispute would be the sections; WP:MEDDEF, WP:MEDSCI, and WP:MEDDATE.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: This dispute is pretty simple. The article's title is not consistently used throughout the body of the article. There are two editors that support changing all reference of GID to simply gender dysphoria and two editors that support leaving the mentions as they are. In this situation, with no clear consensus, the original content remains and the parties continue discussion. This can be accepted here or can be discussed at the project talk page or an RFC at the article talk page. This content dispute is evenly split with good arguments on both sides. The article had originally been titled Gender identity dysphoria Gender identity disorder but a recent move discussion on 24 June 2015 resulted in the article being retitled as you see it now. A further discussion on the infobox resulted in a consensus for the explanatory note to be added in brackets as; (such as the previous DSM manual, the DSM-IV-TR, under the name "gender identity disorder"). This later discussion took place in September of 2015. The basic argument for the change is to comply with consistency throughout the article and has been argued that there is further consensus to use GD in place of GID in the general academic consensus of experts. However...it has also been argued that the change needs to be made with actual, newer medical sources per guidelines of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). As a process dispute this might be better discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where further community input can help determine if sourcing the change is needed with newer medical research. As a content dispute this might do better as an RFC as the current consensus is formed from a stalemate that cannot hold. I have recused myself from this dispute but wanted to give a quick overview of what I see as the main issues. I have no objection if another volunteer wants to begin discussion or close, as I can do neither.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Megathon7: @Flyer22 Reborn: @Jytdog: @Funcrunch: @Bluerasberry: Do you have any thoughts, questions, or concerns regarding Mark Miller's suggestions above? I wanted to check in, as there seem to have been multiple discussions prior on this particular topic. --JustBerry (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  Just a note, the previous name of the article was Gender identity disorder, not Gender identity dysphoria (although both are redirects to the current title of Gender dysphoria). Mark Miller's summation sounds accurate and reasonable to me otherwise. Funcrunch (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you for the correction.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, Mark Miller, that this dispute is not likely to be resolved at this noticeboard. I don't think that the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard is the place to resolve it, though, since I don't consider this a reliable sources dispute. I guess it can be called a WP:Verifiability dispute, which is why one might want to list it at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, but I don't think I've ever seen this type of dispute at that noticeboard. And I want to clarify that I'm fine with using "gender dysphoria" throughout the article if the sources are not specifically about GID. After all, even before GID was renamed "gender dysphoria," it was sometimes called "gender dysphoria." I am concerned about using "gender dysphoria" in cases where the sources are based on the old criteria and/or historical cases concerning GID. The Gender dysphoria article is going to mention GID in some cases because of the history of the term. Furthermore, I don't see any authoritative medial source stating that the term "GID" is now defunct; because of this, I don't think we should have the lead sentence state "formerly GID" when mentioning the term, as some editors have tried to do. At some point in the future, probably the near future, it will be okay to state "formerly GID" in the lead sentence, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This may need an RFC at the article talk page level. If the dispute is unable to resolved in that manner, parties can always return to DRN for informal mediation. The RFC can be mentioned at the project to garner interested parties. I think this really comes down the most common term that defines the subject today with mention of any historical or even optional terminology. Since there really is only one subject, one article needs to cover the subject as broadly as possible but as accurately as possible. Since I have had past interactions with Flyer22 Reborn, I ask if @Megathon7:,@Jytdog:, @Funcrunch: and @Bluerasberry: have any objection to me closing this request for now as "RFC is recommended on article talk page" I will wait 48 hrs for responses from participants and other volunteers before taking any action.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Confirm acceptance of Mark Miller's proposal. I appreciate the mediation because it contributes to the respect and care given to this matter which is likely to be ongoing. Having this framework for conversation will guide newcomers who come to comment.

Before beginning an RfC I would like more conversation with some of the current contributors. Instead of closing this to begin an RfC, I would rather close this mediation and discuss more to consider whether RfC is the best next step or whether we can find some other way forward. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If all parties agree and other volunteers do not object, a closing in 48 hrs will be with a recommendation for further talk page discussion before a formal RFC.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to closing this mediation request. Funcrunch (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections to Mark Miller's proposal. Megathon7 (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2017 (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.

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

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Javed Malik and Haider Qureshi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Saqib (talk · contribs)
• Justice007 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue started after I found that two bio pages contain questionable and non-reliable references which question the neutrality of the pages. I tried several times to tag the articles but User:Justice007 keep reverting my tags and accusing me for being personally against the subjects of articles.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussions on my talk page as well.

How do you think we can help?

I'm not sure

I am very clear on my stand. Please view the discussions on the talk pages, and as an admin, even he did not inform me ãbout this discussion on my talk page. Justice007 (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

1. . A

1. . B

I've informed you at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Javed_Malik_and_Haider_Qureshi. --Saqib (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

1. . You should and must inform on the user talk page; it is the proper way if you know. Justice007 (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2017 (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.

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:L'estro Armonico#Transcriptions of concertos (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Francis Schonken (talk · contribs)
• Mathsci (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

How extended should the section on transcriptions of this famous set of concertos be? Is the prose I produce in mainspace unintelligible? Which references format to use?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

No other steps thus far

How do you think we can help?

Help keep the discussion on the talk page before operating sweeping changes.

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.

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

• User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#deleted Simone Ahuja (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I tried to update Simone Ahuja's info on her Wikipedia section. The entire section of her name has been removed. I am fine with it being reverted back to the original section.

I didn't understand why my edits were challenged, but that's fine. I just need her section back up please.

Thanks, Carissa Belford Buckrun 10

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have contacted him twice

How do you think we can help?

please revert the changes I made and get her section up and running.

I believe she is an important role model and I don't want to be the cause of people searching for her in Wikipedia unprofitable.

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.

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:Rolfing (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cyintherye (talk · contribs)
• ronz (talk · contribs)
• roxy the dog (talk · contribs)
• alexbrn (talk · contribs)
• thatcher57 (talk · contribs)
• karinpower (talk · contribs)
• jytdog (talk · contribs)
• tronvillain (talk · contribs)
• AaronMFeld (talk · contribs)
• markbassett (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A handful of editors are monitoring the Rolfing wiki page to ensure that it remain biased against Rolfing, and include the work "quackery" in the lede, despite majority opinion by active editors that this is inaccurate and biased. The citations that use the work "quackery" are evaluating Rolfing as a psychological technique, while many peer-reviewed resources evaluate it as effective for many physical conditions, like other massage techniques. It is classified by MeSH as a "massage technique" not pseudoscience, but these comments and edits are deleted as soon as they are completed.

specifically, you can view the same argument being hashed and re-hashed in current talk page, and archives 4, 5, & 6.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

initiated and participated in talk discussions. made small edits to improve accuracy. careful reading of citations, and explanations of the content in edit description and talk pages, which are discarded and immediately reverted.

How do you think we can help?

either by helping move the page into unbiased territory and locking it from edits for one year, or by deciding arbitration that the editors agree not to change afterward. by helping with a solution none of us have yet considered.

thanks for reading!

A handful... [3] Could Cyintherye make a clear case to support that accusation? Such statements, without diffs or other evidence shouldn't be the basis of any good faith attempt at dispute resolution, especially when working with an article under discretionary sanctions. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Responding to Robert McClenon's comment, noting I have read all the thread so far, and will monitor progress on it. Roxy the dog. bark 22:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline. This has been widely discussed in a RfC, at article Talk and at WP:FT/N[4][5]. The editors notified of these DR are a subset of those who have already expressed a view and several editors apparently on the other "side" of the filer have been omitted, e.g. CFCF, Sławomir Biały, and Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. Thus any result here can only reflect a narrower consensus than is already reflected in the current article. Alexbrn (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Put simply, accuracy isn't bias. Even a cursory examination of the various sources on Rolfing makes it readily apparent that Rolfing is a pseudoscience. If present day practioners had widely renounced the various pseudoscientific claims and declared themselves to simply be another variety of massage, that would be worth reporting, but the available evidence doesn't appear to support that.--tronvillain (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

(summoned by ping) This again ? Well, I will generally agree it's run amok with overemphasizing and distorted portrayal of fairly poor sources. The article simply has given excessive WP:WEIGHT and prominence to a few isolated critical sources. I would hope that strong language required strong evidence -- but it seems that is lacking here.

• The lead prominently puts in "energy field", apparently from just skepdic.com, who reportedly got it from quackwatch.org, who reported getting it from an 1971 unnamed brochure. This seems a poor sourcing for WP:V, and if there was some word salad on the fringes just doesn't seem worth asserting as central theme of the practice so lacks support from WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD guidelines. Gotta ask why is this in the header.

• The label 'pseudoscience' is a vague pejorative that seems inappropriate. Again, it is lacking significant number of reputable sources saying this -- it's just not something reputable sources typically use in phrasing. And it is provided by optional insurance plans so ... really the label seems entirely inappropriate.

• The paraphrasing of the Australian study seems misleading, and contrary to WP:INTEGRITY. The study was directed towards saving money in their health programs by eliminating things not strongly supported -- by numerous studies (in a 5-year period) showing strong effectiveness. Rolfing factually had few studies, it's more of a 'little evidence' than a 'not known' which seems something to be expected of a niche technique.

Cheers 01:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Markbassett (talk)

According to the reliable independent sources we cite, rolfing is pseudoscience, based on principles that lack any basis in empirically tested fact, and there is no credible evidence it works for any condition. Devotees of rolfing who dislike this have tried everything they can to change the article, short of the one thing that will actually work: bringing high quality WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that show a change in the real-world consensus the article reflects. DRN cannot resolve this dispute because it is not a Wikipedia editing dispute, it is instead a completely standard defence of Wikipedia content against a vested interest in suppressing the best scientific evidence: much like the dispute between creationists and those defending our content on evolutionary biology, the fix is to robustly enforce our policies and if necessary exclude those whose deeply-held beliefs will not allow them to accept the facts as science finds them. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, the filing party is a WP:SPA with less than two months on Wikipedia, whereas most of the rest of the parties are veteran Wikipedians with tens of thousands of edits to thousands of topics. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This isn't so much a dispute as single editors coming along every now and then and being mortified to find out that their pet-treatment doesn't work. Instead of looking at the sources they freak out and exclaim "Bias" — with a capital "B". There is nothing that Dispute resolution can do here, we will be forced to let this pass through the ordinary chain of events:

1. A period of intense time-wasting where we present good sources to have them ignored in favor of lower quality ones
2. We point to WP:MEDRS
3. The editor ignores MEDRS
4. more time-wasting
5. We insist on MEDRS
6. The editor finds one clause of MEDRS that they misinterpret
7. more time-wasting
8. The editor realizes they have misinterpreted MEDRS, but argues that it should be changed to favor their misinterpretation
9. More time-wasting
10. Edit does something undeniably disruptive (e.g. multiple breaches of WP:3RR)
11. Editor is topic-banned

I wish there was a better way, but this is how just about every alt-med WP:SPA ends up getting banned. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Verified All participants have been notified of the DRN case on their respective talk pages by the case filer. --JustBerry (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Verified Extensive talk page discussion. However, this content dispute has already undergone an RfC and multiple sections of discussions (spread out through multiple article talk page archives). The discussion closer and summarizer for this discussion appears to be JzG. Pinging said admin for weighing in on this case filing. --JustBerry (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - This noticeboard, which works by moderated discussion, doesn't usually work very well with such a large number of editors. When one editor identifies such a large number of other editors, one possible explanation may be that they want to edit against consensus. I will advise the filing party that if you think that such a large number of editors are 'monitoring' an article to ensure a negative viewpoint, it may be that you are in a minority. Waiting for comments from the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Still waiting for comments by other editors to see if they want to engage in moderated discussion. Otherwise, will close this thread. However, moderated discussion is voluntary, and if multiple editors are not interested in discussion with one editor, there may be a consensus. If one editor insists that a group of editors is "monitoring" a page to prevent the insertion of a viewpoint, it may be that the viewpoint is against consensus. Consensus appears to be that the scientific basis for Rolfing is pseudo-science. The filing party is encouraged to try to work to present the basis as a fringe viewpoint; otherwise this thread will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem for which I have sought mediation is actually occurring within this noticeboard. First, observe that my complaint is about the word "quackery," which mostly Alexbrn has repetitively reverted edits to keep in the lede, despite ongoing consensus processes that have at various points agreed to remove it from the lede. (Archives cited above - please request quotations if you cannot find said discussions). Second, observe that my complaint is being misrepresented as an issue about the pseudoscience terminology, which would make it simple to dismiss, because this term is included per consensus currently. I personally have no issue with the pseudoscience label. Nonetheless, a body of research has emerged that challenges it, and even skeptics are no longer referring to Rolfing as "quackery" when considered as a postural manipulation bodywork.

I say this is the same problem occurring on the Rolfing page, because 2-3 editors include the most obscure references with the most absurd-sounding descriptions of the "energy work" of Rolfing, making it simple to dismiss. Then, they omit or actively remove any balance of articles summarizing its benefits. The page, simply put, is reifying rather than simply representing the pseudoscientific aspect of Rolfing.

For example, two of the three 'quackery' citations are 7 or more years old, and none are scientific - this terminology does not represent scientific consensus. The third citation, Rolfing#cite_note-sd-4, from the Skeptic's dictionary online, states that "Some Rolfers claim that Rolfing is a 'scientifically validated system of body restructuring and movement education.' They claim that there is scientific proof that each of us has life-long patterns of tension and that realigning releases this tension, so that "overall personal functioning tends to improve." The expression 'tends to improve' is a common weaseling expression used by quacks." This is a weirdly tangential, cherry-picked phrase to include on a Wiki page when we could just say: 'some Rolfers use vague and unsubstantiated language to discuss possible benefits, while others suggest the benefits are due to "loosening bound-up fascia" to "ensure smooth movement patterns.'

But the Penguin Dictionary of Alternative Medicine, the citation for the above quotation, (2007; ISBN-13: 978-0143063070) citation has been removed from the article multiple times, which discusses the potential benefits and skepticism about Rolfing with actual NPOV.

What I request and hope for is merely for the same standard of WP:MEDRS to be applied to all citations, whether they support or criticize the credibility of Rolfing.

I am not a single voice on this, and it is only 3 of the many editors I listed enforcing the biased language.

I do not have COI, but rather a PhD and a sense of dismay and responsibility upon finding the word "quack" inserted four times into a page in a purportedly NPOV encyclopedic text. Cyintherye (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Is there any interest by any of the other editors in moderated discussion? There hasn't been any interest so far expressed (not even by the filing party, whose post is long, but doesn't seem to be a request for moderated discussion). It does seem to this neutral observer that it might be appropriate to discuss whether judgmental words such as "quackery" are overused, but it is the consensus of Wikipedia that any scientific claims for Rolfing are pseudoscientific. Unless there is some interest in moderated discussion expressed, this discussion will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2017 (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.

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.

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Advent#Advent-Labyrinth (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Elizium23 (talk · contribs)
• Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs)
• Urmelbeauftragter (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute concerns the inclusion of a video and description of the practice of building an Advent Labyrinth in a specific church which has been observed for about 5 years. Whether it is a legitimate Christian custom or tradition and qualifies for coverage in this article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The original involved editor proposing inclusion has had two (now 3, that I just added) messages on his user talk page warning him about WP:PROMOTION of his favorite subjects.

Elizium23's comments here are skewed at best. Elizium23 has referred to this as "sugar-coated heresy with a cross painted on top" and has attempted to dismiss any references provided, even when the editor has provided said references. The editor removed the content calling it a "New Age/pagan practice" and when asked to give proof could not. The references do not clearly support the claim.

How do you think we can help?

By providing a neutral evaluation of the state of the sources provided and decide if this practice merits inclusion in any articles, particularly Advent.

I removed the video that was added by Urmelbeauftragter. When Urmelbeauftragter started a discussion, per WP:BRD, I started looking for sources and found some to support that this is not a regional or local practice. There's no question that this is not a universal practice, but it has been celebrated in many locations. A simple Google search for "Advent Labyrinth" shows more than 4000 hits. The first page is an even mix of blogs and primary sources. Elizium23 claims that one of my sources is behind a pay wall. It could be that Elizium23 is in the wrong country because it's accessible from Canada. Both sources clearly indicate that advent labyrinths are not unknown. They also state that they are not common. I selected articles from Christianity Today because it is a fairly conservative Evangelical publication, but I wrongly assumed Elizium23 was an Evangelical. It appears that that Elizium23 is a [Roman] Catholic.

It's clear the practice is not mainstream, but then again, the section where this was added includes "a custom of Advent images" from Northern England, one from Normandy where children where encouraged to set farmers' fields ablaze, one from Italy, and an advent candle. None of these are mainstream practices. The first are very regional. It was placed there at my suggestion on the talk page although Urmelbeauftragter did not change the section as I suggested. I did that after reverting Elizium23's removal.

I'm not sure why Elizium23's tune has changed though. Here there is no mention of heresy or New Age/pagan practice instead focusing on promotion. Since Elizium23 raised it perhaps the editors who placed the warnings should comment here: @Joshua Jonathan: and @Moxy: (my old friend from editing Canadian articles).

I pointed out on the talk page that most of the traditions associated with both Advent and Christmas that are commonly practised today including the wreath, the tree and exchange of gifts were all at one point considered external to Christianity, but it is the practice not the origin that makes them Christian. While I too would like to see a more neutral discussion of the subject of advent labyrinths, without focusing on a specific practice, I don't think there is any reason to exclude it.

Elizium23 (talk · contribs) remvoved the Advent labyrinth from the article Advent because it should be New Age/pagan practice. In the article Labyrinth in the section Christian use he removed it and replaced it by a text telling why the use of labyrinths in Christian context is "the latest fad in spirituality".

The way through the Advent labyrinth is a symbol for the way through the life. In the middle of the Advent labyrinth in the Centre for Christian Meditation and Spirituality of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Limburg was for the last years the evangelistary. When the course participant or later the visitors of the church service walked through the labyrinth there is only one way without possibilities to stray off the course to the aim in the middle. The course in the labyrinth is sometimes near and sometimes further away from the middle but if somebody stays on track the aim will be reached. The aim in the middle of the labyrinth is the evangelistary including the Gospel.

I cannot agree with the opinion why this should be New Age or Paganism.

If I search for the German word "Adventslabyrinth" in Google I find a lot of hits (4770) like: Church of Scotland, Falkirk Presbytery Protestant Church in Heidelberg First Congregational Church Boulder CO Video about the Advent labyrinth in the Centre for Christian Meditation and Spirituality of the Diocese of Limburg by KNA (Katholische Nachrichtenagentur=Catholic News Agency)

May be the Advent labyrinth with candles like in the "Centre for Christian Meditation and Spirituality of the Diocese of Limburg" is not the most important one but it isn't the only one worldwide.

•  Verified Noticeable discussion on article talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Resolved Notified two other involved editors of this DRN case's filing on their respective talk pages for User:Elizium23. --JustBerry (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• ω Awaiting summary of dispute statements from User:Walter Görlitz and User:Urmelbeauftragter. --JustBerry (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done--all three parties have provided case dispute overviews. --JustBerry (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I am KDS4444 and I am a DRN volunteer who is willing to have a look at this dispute to see if I can help resolve it. Before I get started, I wanted to be sure that the dispute is still in progress-- it looks like this case was classified as "needing attention", which implies it was started up awhile ago and is now classified as behind schedule (though the filing date suggests otherwise). Let me also be clear that I have interacted with User:Walter Görlitz in the past and consider him a professional and ethical editor, which is bound to have some affect on my thinking process here (by laying that out, I am acting to disable its effect... Wait, isn't that fun? "Affect" and "effect"? Anyhow...). I will provide further commentary shortly. It is New Year's Eve, so my comments may have to wait for a 12-24 hours. But I am here, and am glad to see what I can do. KDS4444 (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I am back. Apologies for the delay, was under the weather there for a bit. I have now read over the discussion on the Talk page and have reviewed the current article on Advent. The article has a very brief mention of labyrinths in the last sentence of the section on local practices. There is no video at the moment. I get the sense that the filing editor would prefer to exclude discussion of labyrinths from the article altogether, and has objected to the presence of the video as evidence of a fringe religious activity that has no bearing on the subject. Of course, it is not for any editor to independently decide which practices are or are not heretical, nor is it Wikipedia's role to support or deny any particular view or event. What matters is does (or did) the "advent labyrinth" take place, and was it the subject of reliable independent verifiable coverage. Whether it is heresy is irrelevant. Whether it is New Age is irrelevant. Whether it is in good taste is irrelevant. Was it covered in appropriate sources? It doesn't appear to me that anyone disagrees with the idea that it was. Is it uncommon? Certainly. But it was observed at a Christian church during the Advent season (whether or not it was so used in the medieval period is irrelevant, unless someone where claiming that the labyrinth was actually used in the medieval era during Advent, which no one is) and it was covered in appropriate sources. Given this, I have to ask the filing party about the basis if his/ her objection-- if the objection is to the inclusion of a practice that the filing party finds personally offensive and would rather not see, or if the objection is to the inclusion of unsourced material which compromises the encyclopedic integrity of the article. KDS4444 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@KDS4444: And what happens now with this dispute? Can I add a picture or a video of an Advent labyrinth to the article or not?--Urmelbeauftragter 12:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Pinging case filer. Please see KDS4444's note: Given this, I have to ask the filing party about the basis if his/ her objection-- if the objection is to the inclusion of a practice that the filing party finds personally offensive and would rather not see, or if the objection is to the inclusion of unsourced material which compromises the encyclopedic integrity of the article. --JustBerry (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I hereby withdraw my dispute and concede the point to my fellow editor Urmelbeauftragter (talk · contribs). Merry Christmas! Elizium23 (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Case resolved. My thanks to those involved. KDS4444 (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2017 (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.

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:Pablo Picasso (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• C.Gesualdo (talk · contribs)
• Modernist (talk · contribs)
• Coldcreation (talk · contribs)
• Freshacconci (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the introduction of the article of Pablo Picasso this sentence can be found: Picasso, Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp are regarded as the three artists who most defined the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the 20th century, responsible for significant developments in painting, sculpture, printmaking and ceramics. This is not only arbitrary and arguably incomplete, there are also no sources given that actually support this statement. I brought these arguments to the Talk Page and extensively explained them, however no one is directly responding to them with counter arguments.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I explicitly asked for arguments, but none were given.

How do you think we can help?

By sending people who at least know enough about art history to understand that a bold statement like: 'Picasso, Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp are regarded as the three artists who most defined the revolutionary developments...' is absolutely ridiculous.

To be brief; it only takes common sense to realize that the sentence being ridiculed and objected to is completely correct and easy to understand especially in the context of an article about Pablo Picasso. Picasso is undeniably one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. Early in his career he encountered through Gertrude Stein a relationship with one of the leading living artists in Paris - Henri Matisse who was 10 years his senior and a leading force behind Fauvism. Picasso and Matisse [6] soon developed an artistic rivalry that they engaged in for decades that followed. When the Fauvist movement began to fade from the centerstage and artists like Georges Braque abandoned that movement for something new Cubism and it's spacial and it's textural implications predominated the avant-garde art scene. Picasso soon expanded his artistic vocabulary along with Braque by essentially inventing Cubism, modern collage, and constructed sculpture with the help of Julio Gonzalez. Picasso's work morphed during the Surrealist and Dada era; as he emerged as a titan of that time period. Marcel Duchamp slightly younger than Matisse and Picasso gave up painting and sculpture altogether in creating his readymades and declaring it's art if I say so....ultimately opening the door to Conceptualism. By the 1930s Picasso was the leading living avant-garde painter in the world. Matisse had moved to the South of France to continue his sensual, and radically decorative and articulate color paintings. The impact of Matisse begins to appear through the teaching of Hans Hofmann and the writing of Clement Greenberg. Hofmann who moved to the USA in 1933 becomes the most influential art teacher in New York from the 1930s through the 1950s. Hofmann and his knowledge of color and Matisse opens the door to artists like Mark Rothko, Clyfford Still, and Jackson Pollock; while Picasso has an enormous impact on Arshile Gorky, Willem de Kooning and Pollock as well. In essence Matisse, Picasso and Duchamp had an enormous impact on art in the late 20th century...Modernist (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Modernist (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

To add:

• Abstract Expressionism, Color field painting, Neo-Dada, Pop Art, Conceptual Art, Performance Art, and Installation Art - major late 20th century movements can be traced to the important, vital influences of Picasso, Matisse, and Duchamp.....Abstract Expressionism is clearly also rooted in Surrealism; it was inspired by both Picasso and Joan Miro as well as Andre Masson. Matisse was a primary inspiration for both Abstract Expressionism, Color field painting and what came next including some works by the Pop artists like Tom Wesselmann and others, and finally Duchamp was enormously influential to the Nexus movement, anti-art movement, and conceptual art, installation art and performance art as well...Modernist (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Your comment is not an argument, but an introduction in 20th century art history. But apart from that, I haven't denied the fact that Matisse, Picasso and Duchamp were highly influential. But to say that they're the three artists who most defined the revolutionary developments (which the article does) is simply not true and quite ridiculous. And the fact that you're unable to provide any scientific sources that support the claim makes the sentence unsuitable for Wikipedia. C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I really do not appreciate your using the word ridiculous as your comment, by the way...Modernist (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• • @Modernist,

I would very much like to see proof and sources that state that specifically Picasso, Matisse & Duchamp are the three artists who most defined the revolutions in 20th century art. That's all I'm asking.

This is becoming more and more absurd. I only edited a clear inaccuracy in the introduction of the article of a painter and I have to go through this kafkaesque situation?

C.Gesualdo (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors on their talk pages. The filing party says that this dispute can be addressed by "sending people who at least know enough about art history to understand that a bold statement like" [is incorrect]. The purpose of this noticeboard isn't to find knowledgeable editors. Will the filing party be satisfied by moderated discussion with the other named editors (which is the purpose of this noticeboard)? If they want additional editors, they might try a request at WP:WikiProject Visual Arts. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - User:C.Gesualdo - You are the filing party. You have filed this request. Do you want moderated discussion? If so, you are in the right place. Do you want other editors with a knowledge of art history to comment? If so, go to the Visual Arts project talk page. A third option is a Request for Comments. You are the filing party. You have filed this request. Do you want moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon Yes, I would like to have a moderated discussion, because this is going nowhere. The two people who are now responding in the discussion - Modernist and Coldcreation - are not supplying scientific sources and refuse to give proper arguments. C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: @C.Gesualdo: I would like to welcome to you the dispute resolution noticeboard, as I realize this is your first time participating in a case here. As User:Robert McClenon did in xis comment above, DRN volunteers, mediators, and case volunteers often use third party pronouns or references, such as "case filer," to process the case. These comments are not meant to be rude or derogatory, but are a part of case handling to process disputes more smoothly, e.g. ensuring that the 'case filer' has notified other involved editors of the DRN case. In case you have not already done so, feel free to read through the top of this page, i.e. WP:DRN.

•  Volunteer note: @C.Gesualdo: @Modernist: I understand that editing can become a personal experience when there is a dispute or disagreement between two editors or among multiple editors. I'd ask that we refrain from making any personal attacks or references. Personal pronounces, such as "you," should also be avoided if possible. Direct quotations to refer to the other party's statements are fine, as long as such references are made to further discussion. As I realize mediation may be helpful, I have opened this DRN case. In the opening statements above, you have provided a brief overview of your concerns. I would appreciate if (in the section below) both editors would include reliable third party sources to substantiate arguments. Please note that if the argument you are trying to support is "x person is the one of the most influential people in the advancement of string theory," you should provide links to multiple textbooks and scholarly articles, for instance, that precisely support such a claim. Referencing some of x person's largest accomplishments doesn't necessarily qualify the phrase "one of the most influential." Also, note that promotional pieces and statements x person's advisers are not truly third-party nor independent. Although 'common sense' may be usable in real-world conversation, information in Wikipedia articles should be sourced so that fellow editors or readers can verify the information. Feel free to click on the blue links in my comment to read more about the topics I have covered. Also, please feel free to pose any further questions, comments, or concerns about this dispute (or DRN in general) that you may have in a calm manner. Thanks for reading! --JustBerry (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@JustBerry, this is getting crazier and crazier! Where on earth did I say that I have a problem with calling Picasso 'one of the most influential artists of the 20th century'? Nowhere! All I said was that a sentence that specifically claims that three specific artists are SPECIFICALLY the ones who 'most defined the revolutionary developments in 20th century art' is arbitrary and incorrect. Especially if it's NOT supported with proper sources. Why do we have to go through all this nonsense to perform one simple edit? Unbelievable! C.Gesualdo (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Please keep discussion here to a minimum until it is opened by a moderator. Please refrain from comments about other editors. The purpose of this noticeboard is to discuss article content, not to discuss other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Please note that a volunteer has opened a section labeled Involved Parties. That section is for the parties to post their comments for moderated discussion. Please also note that the moderator has control of the discussion. Do not post further comments here; post them in the section opened by the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: @C.Gesualdo: @Modernist: Pinging involved parties who have posted their dispute overviews to review Robert McClenon's two prior notes. Please post bulleted one/two sentence overview for each issue you would like to discuss (without personal statements) along with reliable third party sources for each bullet. I have italicized the guidelines I had posed previously below:

I would appreciate if (in the section below) both editors would include reliable third party sources to substantiate arguments. Please note that if the argument you are trying to support is "x person is the one of the most influential people in the advancement of string theory," you should provide links to multiple textbooks and scholarly articles, for instance, that precisely support such a claim. Referencing some of x person's largest accomplishments doesn't necessarily qualify the phrase "one of the most influential." Also, note that promotional pieces and statements x person's advisers are not truly third-party nor independent. Although 'common sense' may be usable in real-world conversation, information in Wikipedia articles should be sourced so that fellow editors or readers can verify the information.

Also, please post in the subsection created below (created for involved editor postings). --JustBerry (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2017 (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.

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:Orgelbüchlein#Question (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mathsci (talk · contribs)
• Johnuniq (talk · contribs)
• Francis Schonken (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I did changes to the article formatting, mainly to remove excessive links (WP:OVERLINK), and I added a section in the talk page with some further comments on the article content and how it could be improved. Following a revert, we (me and Mathsci) continued the discussion on the talk page. However, that has so far not led to much constructive discussion, mainly because the user does not seem to be interested in discussing the issues I mentioned but ever keeps acting is if he owns the content and has final say over everything (WP:OWN) and he also keeps attacking me for not having access to the 2 books he says are "essential" to create content for the article, despite a comment from an admin Talk:Orgelbüchlein#NPOV_far_from_restored, which clearly states the opposite. I am not denying that he worked hard on the article or anything like that, I am only proposing changes to formatting and he keeps making personal attacking/questioning my intentions (and that of another user, Francis Schonken) and going off topic, which is (I tried to assume good faith, but at some point you can't look the other way), but at some point, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried to remain calm and civil. This is the first step I'm taking so far.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like to have an un-involved party come and help resolve the issue we are having in a more civil manner, since my attempts don't seem to have had any effect.

•  Verified Extensive discussion on article talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Verified All parties have been notified of case filing on their respective talk pages. --JustBerry (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• ω Awaiting dispute overviews from other parties. --JustBerry (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - An issue cannot be considered both here and in another dispute resolution forum at the same time. There is already an open thread filed by User:Mathsci at WP:ANI, and the unregistered editor who has filed this thread has also filed a complaint at WP:ANI. This thread will be on hold until the ANI proceedings are resolved. When the ANI proceedings are resolved, this thread may be re-opened or closed, depending on the disposition. (For instance, if all but one of the parties are topic-banned, this dispute becomes moot.) The parties may make statements, but they should know that this case is on hold. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The ANI complaint was filed before or at the same time as this. You have made some obnoxious comments about me at WP:ANI. So if there is any discussion here, I do not wish you to be involved in any way. Thanks. It is the middle of the night here and I am very tired. Mathsci (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2)  On hold until WP:ANI discussion has been closed. Reflected in case status. --JustBerry (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2017 (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.

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

• Trust Euro Therm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Keffr3n (talk · contribs)
• Samtar (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

20:37, 13 January 2017 Samtar (talk | contribs) deleted page Trust Euro Therm (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11 (TW))

nice one Samtar... deleting original created page, that follows the same criteria and information as this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romstal

this is NOT the first time admins from wikipedia deletes a conclusive page, tell me something, do you all have something against Romanians ?

Waiting for a reply.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

replying to me what is the difference between the page i made, and the similar content already on wikipedia about another romanian based company

How do you think we can help?

by UNDELETING my page and by STOPING the racism against the Romanians

The deleted article was spam. The rest is a mixture of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ABF. There's no dispute to mediate. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

so is this article ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romstal - i followed the same information standard for the category "romanian companies" HOW can it be SPAM ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keffr3n (talk • contribs) 13:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - This noticeboard is not the place for discussions of whether articles should have been deleted in accordance with speedy deletion. Take such issues to deletion review, but be aware that most speedy deletion decisions are sustained. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2017 (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.

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.

I would like to cancel this request, no longer in need of dispute resolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meretechnicality (talk • contribs) 00:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:Bryanturnerhca (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Meretechnicality (talk · contribs)
• Bryanturnerhca (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This user created an article, which was deleted under CSD A7. He then requested that the article be restored, saying "This page was created by the 5th grade class at Hillsborough Christian Academy utilizing information for the non-profits website. The editor that marked the page for deletion is STUPID and preventing students from writing an article" This user was warned not to attack other editors, but he responded somewhat angrily, saying "I have a habit of saying what is true and accurate. I don't plan on changing that" and "I will say whatever I want to. The article was pulled down for a STUPID reason by a STUPID editor. I have discouraged kids now." I attempted to explain why his article was deleted, but he continued to disparage me and other editors while defending that the article should not have been deleted. I believe that it was deleted rightfully (due to neutrality issues, considering his position at the school, and notability issues). Please note that while his conduct is a concern, the problem in need of resolution is whether his article should have been deleted or not.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I warned him about his conduct and linked him to the appropriate Wikipedia policies as to why his article was deleted. However, this does not seem to be working.

How do you think we can help?

I hope that you can end this dispute by either confirming to him that the article was deleted for good reason, or to tell me that I was in the wrong/misreading Wikipedia policy. Or something else entirely.

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.

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

• User talk:Malik Shabazz (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Factsdontlie (talk · contribs)
• Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Wikipedia page Crime in Atlanta. I noticed a previous version had been undone while it had backed up information with resources however it was undone because a user "Malik Shabazz" claimed it was POV pushing, however the editors opinion was in no way expressed and recent facts were added. I took the liberty to edit the additional information even more and add more references to avoid any possible biases, as well as updated the FBI UCR from 2014 to 2015 and linked to the FBI XSL page. The user "Malik Shabazz" then seemed to report me for using multiple accounts (this is my first and only account of Wikipedia you can check my IP) and then claimed I myself was pushing a narrative, I don't see how updating a FBI UCR to the most recent information is pushing anything but factual information. I then proceeded to post to the user "Malik Shabazz"'s talk page to have a discussion yet he has deleted my post. To me, editing facts for whatever reason when they are backed by reliable resources is the person who is actually pushing a narrative and I believe Wikipedia should be kept up to date and keep its integrity for the truth, otherwise it will be known as a cite for biased information.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

through description on edits as well as talk page yet my voice has been silenced through the deletion of my posts on his talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I believe reviewing the versions and additions of facts on to the Crime in Atlanta page should be done so objectively. If there is an issue with the revisions' sources provable by anyone then of course its not the truth. But when information is added with no opinion or bias in anyway then is deleted I feel there are serious violations occurring. Especially refusal to update the FBI UCR which is dumbfounding to me. Does the FBI push its own POV through its factual findings? I don't think so.

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.

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:Rousas Rushdoony (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sigeng (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Editor is claiming that direct quotes from primary sources is not good enough to include. The original edit was simply quoting what RJ Rushdoony said, not making any claim whatsoever. Editor keeps on insisting we need additional proof that this is what Rushdoony said, even though we have an actual primary source.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page

How do you think we can help?

Protect the edit

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.

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:Russo-Georgian War#Text removed from lede (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Banedon (talk · contribs)
• Toddy1 (talk · contribs)
• Kober (talk · contribs)
• Staszek Lem (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It's two disputes in one. The first is about a line in the lede which I'm contesting. The other is about explicitly giving something that was said in a speech, which I think is unnecessary.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Only the talk page discussion.

@Volunteers - I'm happy to discuss this on the talk page but please note, 10 days passed in which neither Toddy1 nor Kober responded. I therefore draw the conclusion that they're either not interested in dispute resolution OR they no longer object. Toddy1 reverted (without responding further on the talk page as well), which is why I'm here. I'm happy to put this on hold but if it goes another 10 days with no response from Toddy1 / Kober on the talk page, I'd like to reopen this.

How do you think we can help?

I don't perceive this as a particularly difficult dispute to resolve. But to resolve the dispute, it is necessary to discuss, and at the moment, I don't think either Kober or Toddy1 are willing to discuss. By bringing this to DR/N, I'm hoping this will sort itself out, especially with the help of an experienced editor's oversight.

The rule for DRN is that "The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN." This has not happened.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been little discussion on the talk page. Discuss at more length on the article talk page before moderated discussion here may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Verified that the involved parties have been notified about the case filing on their respective talk pages. Note to @Banedon: In the future, please use {{subst:drn-notice}} --~~~~ to notify involved users of the case filing on each of their talk pages. This time, I have already notified them for you. --JustBerry (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: @Robert McClenon: Are you planning to procede with  On hold or a general close after some time? I would say a general close would be fine. Involved parties can always file another case post-extensive discussion on the article talk page if necessary. --JustBerry (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: @Robert McClenon: Kindly consider this note. --JustBerry (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2017 (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.

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:Ibn Tumart#Additions reverted by user (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Aṭlas (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It's a well known fact that Ibn Tumart claimed and is said to have an Arab lineage. This was validated and reported by multiple sources. So, I added this Arab lineage to his article, but the user Aṭlas keeps reverting it and only wants to keep the mention of his Berber lineage (that I retained in the article by the way, asking for sources). Also, I removed an incorrect Berber name for Ibn Tumart, and Aṭlas is reverting this also.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I opened a discussion on the talk page of Ibn Tumart mentioned above, to ask Aṭlas why is he reverting my additions.

How do you think we can help?

I can't uderstand why his famous Arab lineage is not clearly stated .

My points about this topic are in the Ibn Tumart Talk page. I think that my words are clear and understandable. The problem in this case is is primary sources are reliable than secondary sources? As I think wikipedia politicies are clear, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.", "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." (see WP:PRIMARY). This editor just don't like (secondary) reliable sources like: "The encyclopedia of islam 1st edition, 2nd edition", "The cambridge history of africa", "Encyclopédie de l’islam (the french version of EI)", "Encyclopedie Berbère", "Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century", "Genealogy and Knowledge in Muslim Societies: Understanding the Past"....., instead, he's using primary sources (and he/she interpert them as he want) and unreliable sources like: "Mafakhir Al-Barbar", "ديوان المبتدأ والخبر في تاريخ العرب والبربر ومن عاصرهم من ذوي الشأن الأكبر ", unreliable sources like: "Ibn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary (english translation of the primary source)", "The rise of the Spanish empire" is more related to Latin American history and general spanish history then islamic history (or african history).

•  Verified that involved party has been notified on their talk page. Note to Fulgery: Please make sure you notify involved parties on their talk page with the following template: {{subst:drn-notice}} (refer to Template:drn-notice for documentation) in the future. --JustBerry (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• @Fulgery: @Aṭlas: Some of the initial concerns presented in the case appear to be related to editing behavior. Do both parties agree to a) refrain from editing/reverting on the article and b) participate in moderated discussion at DRN? Also, do both parties confirm that they are not involved in discussing this case on any other noticeboard? --JustBerry (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

a) Yes b) Yes. And I'm not discussing this case on any other noticeboard.

The other user in conflict alerted a third user, and this user ended up supporting his views. A fourth user entered the dispute and made edits again, also supporting the other user views.

The arguments have been shown and the discussion did no result in an agreement. What should be the next step ? Get a third opinion ? Request comments ? Isn't more appropriate to go directly to Formal mediation as the two parties are firm on their positions  ? Fulgery (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Fulgery says "Isn't it more appropriate to go directly to formal mediation as the two parties are firm on their positions?" Well, formal mediation is a process that can take a few months. If both parties want formal mediation, they can request formal mediation. Discussion here takes one to two weeks. It sometimes results in resolution, and may detect an impasse a little sooner than formal mediation. If the editors want formal mediation, request formal mediation. Actually, if both editors are certain that they are not willing to compromise, the best solution is a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

So let's go for a Request for Comments. I'm sure I'm not willing to compromise, and I'm telling the other editor to come here to confirm too. Fulgery (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fulgery: Not 'willing to compromise' in unsuitable for DRN, as DRN emphasizes compromise and resolution through moderated discussion. Awaiting responses from other involved editors, but case leans towards a general close. --JustBerry (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I already opened a WP:RFC for this page. As it was the suitable choice in this case. --Aṭlas (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2017 (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.

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:Donald Trump (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Twitbookspacetube (talk · contribs)
• MrX (talk · contribs)
• Rick4512 (talk · contribs)
• RedBear2040 (talk · contribs)
• Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs)
• Vjmlhds (talk · contribs)
• Mandruss (talk · contribs)
• SW3 5DL (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A consensus was formed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_38#Trump_Photo_2_Rfc that a specific photo be used as the lede photo in the article until an official photo was released. Since then, a photo from an official source and used for an official event has been released and is currently what is in the article. However, other users are insisting that we wait for an even more official photo. I am of the belief that the current photo is official for all intents and purposes at this moment, when an even more official photo is released, that one will be considered officially official, but until that happens, I firmly consider the current photo to be the official photo for all intents and purposes.

However, despite the photo being, for all intents and purposes, official, some editors have edit warred against the consensus to use the official photo and caused the current full protection. And, as far as I am aware, all editors involved are aware of the discretionary sanctions surrounding the topic, including myself.

UPDATE: It turns out, that is the official photo after all. No point to this now. Anyone removing the image goes against consensus unless a new consensus is found. End of debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitbookspacetube (talk • contribs) 05:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I, and other editors, have tried, multiple times, to explain that a photograph from an official source used for an official event is an official photo. However, other editors disagree and as such, the article is under full protection.

How do you think we can help?

Simply determine which reading of the consensus is correct and if the photo from an official source and used for an official event is actually official.

The previous consensus can be summarized as "Overall, most editors expressed a desire to use an official image once Trump becomes President. ... Once an official portrait becomes available, there's a fairly clear mandate that among the discussants and through precedent that we use that image."

The photography in dispute was extracted from the PDF version of the inauguration program hosted on the US Senate website. Nowhere in that document is the photograph attributed, nor is it described as official. In fact, it's not certain that it was even produced by a US Government employee or contractor, and may very well be a copyright violation. On top of that, a Wikipedia editor re-colored the photo, presumably in Photoshop. To so modify a photograph intended for use in an historical biographical context violates WP:V, WP:OR, and good editorial judgement.

Aside from the unclear provenance and intellectual property rights associated with the photograph, what is certain is that it is not "an official image once Trump becomes President". Any speculation to the contrary carries no weight in determining if the photography satisfies the outcome of the RfC. If the administration that begins tomorrow at noon decides to adopt the Wikipedia-editor-re-colored photograph as the official Presidential portrait, then my objection to placing the image in the article is of course withdrawn. - MrX 01:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too concerned about this dispute. When the official White House image is released (which should be by the time the page protection expires), it will replace the current image. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My main issues are these: Firstly, as far as I'm aware, the current photo is supported by current consensus and it was being constantly taken down on the basis of not being in line with the consensus, being a colorized version of a black and white picture, and being visually unappealing in the eyes of some editors; and secondly, I and several other editors were threatened with sanctions over our Good Faith Edits, which goes against the final ruling on the case cited. I personally am not concerned over the picture used as, at the present hour, the inauguration is less than 12 hours away, and by that time the issue should be resolved. RedBear2040 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I second @MrX:'s comments. His explanation best describes what has happened. Earlier, I supported the photo but I also mentioned that it needed to be the official one and without any copy vio for Wikipedia. It had been decided a while back when discussing a new photo for the article, that the best thing would be to wait for the presidential photo if he won, and if not, what was there would suffice. When this photo appeared it certainly looked official, but as MrX rightly points out, it has a murky provenance. I was very surprised when I saw editors putting the photo into the article. I didn't think the question of copyright had beens settled and was dismayed to see the edit war and the subsequent locking of the page. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks as if Twitbookspacetube missed a few of the involved users. Pinging User:Calibrador, User:Muboshgu, User:Ihardlythinkso, User:Dervorguilla, and User:GoodDay. --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Followed mention on talk page by Twitbookspacetube - I also object to the image. This may be moot as the image was put up for deletion 18 Dec at the commons here and [7] Meanwhile I will offer the following. 1. Procedural issues, appearance of WP:FALSECON - this was a bit rushed in, and have been multiple over-statements about it going into airports and such. I believe the prior consensus was to have the prior image until the white house releases something formal after inauguration. 2. Lack of provenance - it is not from the transition office or whitehouse, and was not posted as image file or posted in location making it clearly intended as a release, or what and where the base image originates from. It's seems scanned from a PDF and then colorized/airbrushed. We simply have no knowledge showing of what the original photo image was. 3. Not really a photo - since the pdf seems a composite photoshop of Trump onto a fake backdrop and colorized, then editors here photoshopped more, it's kind of a good artist rendering at this point. 4. Lack of clear copyright - it seems to have been assumed that anything on senate.gov is open domain, but that is demonstrably wrong. The senate may simply be making use of a limited use exclusion or a limited license on items. If you google site:senate.gov and names you will find that senate posts images from AP, Fox, CNN, etcetera. Again, without having the original file the PDF came from or where the original image came from, copyright seems questionable. Markbassett (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been pinged but I'm very involved, so here goes. When the colorized and cropped version of Donald Trump's inauguration portrait appeared on the Talk page, I noted that it fulfilled the conditions to trigger the change of headline picture per the December 12 RfC closure. Consequently I switched to the new picture and added an update note to item 1 in the Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs section. Little did I expect that some editors would argue that this picture was not "official enough" to replace the old campaign image that had been so maligned. In the ensuing discussion, I wrote:

The final RfC on picture choice was concluded with: Once an official portrait becomes available, there's a fairly clear mandate that among the discussants and through precedent that we use that image. It didn't say "once Trump is sworn in" or "once the White House web site is updated" or "once there is an official portrait that a majority of Wikipedia editors do not dislike". This is an official portrait and it must go into the article with no further discussion or moving the goalposts.

Indeed I have a feeling that editors who oppose this admittedly retouched image are moving the goalposts and re-igniting a wholly unnecessary debate. In response to a comment arguing that 5 people in the RfC discussion had explicitly requested to wait for a "White House" picture, I replied: Sure, 5 people said they want an official White House photo, and 23 more people said they just want an official photo, without mentioning the White House.

This situation arose from the initial lack of clarity on provenance and copyright status of this portrait, and from the haste with which some editors (not me) decided to close down the discussion. Given the overwhelming Keep opinions in the deletion request at Commons, it is very likely that the copyright status will be accepted and the image will stay. And obviously if an "officially official" portrait later emerges, we will update it. — JFG ^talk 13:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

"Begging the question... The problem with the claim is that it's made on grounds that cannot be accepted as true because those grounds are in doubt." (Lunsford, "Fallacies of Argument".)
An argument against the photo was made based on the grounds that the actual official photo was yet to be released. Maybe so, maybe not, according to the Talk discusion. So, those particular grounds appeared to be in doubt.

"official. Governmentally approved..." (Black's Law Dictionary.)
Arguments against the photo were made based on the claim that it wasn't "official". True enough. Only the B&W photo had been approved. We did however have at least a quantitative consensus that the photo was (in some sense) more official than the old one. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: @Twitbookspacetube: Please notify all involved parties on their talk page using {{subst:drn-notice}} --~~~~ --JustBerry (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Verified that all parties have been properly notified on their respective talk pages. --JustBerry (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Question: @Twitbookspacetube: Can you please provide a link to the discussion in which consensus was previously established for this dispute? --JustBerry (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_38#Trump_Photo_2_Rfc Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Resolved --JustBerry (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Question: @Twitbookspacetube: Were the sanctions you referred to in the dispute overview from WP:ARBCOM? If so, can you please provide a link to the discussion in which the sanctions were decided? Please note that this forum is not appropriate for 1) issues with editor conduct (see WP:ANI), 2) overturning editor/editing sanctions established at other noticeboards (appeal at WP:ARBCOM by their guidelines if sanctions decided upon by WP:ARBCOM), or 3) establishing consensus (see WP:RfC). Moreover, it should be noted that there is no correct reading of consensus. @EvergreenFir: Pinging admin editor who weighed consensus here to reach some modest resolution for the editors, after which RfC and article talk page discussion (to clarify consensus) would be advised. Heading towards general close after modest discussion below. --JustBerry (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.3C11.2F0.2F0.2F0.3E? --JustBerry (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sanctions are from WP:ARBAPDS. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Resolved --JustBerry (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I closed that discussion (though I'm not an admin). It seemed that the White House photo was the "official photo" that folks agreed we should wait for. I do not know if the current photo under dispute is a White House one or not. I did see the dispute occurring on the talk page and to be honest I think it will be resolved in a matter of days since Friday is the inauguration. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:  Resolved Thanks for your input. Seems like this has been addressed per my note below. --JustBerry (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

•  On hold for 24 hours per impending inauguration. By tomorrow, there may be inauguration photos, which may be more suitable as he takes on the role of incumbent (potential photo candidates in an RfC discussion). Moreover, like U.S. President Barack Obama currently has, Donald Trump's article will eventually receive a formal oval office photo. --JustBerry (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Resolved per placing Donald Trump's official photo. --JustBerry (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2017 (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.

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:Soviet–Afghan War#Drafting._US_role_cont._.3D 

Users involved

• GPRamirez5 (talk · contribs)
• TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have been trying to add relevant information from credible sources to the Soviet- Afghan War article. I have been consistently blocked by this user. There was decent moderation between us on the Talk page by Guccisamsclub. However TheTimesAreAChanging refused to compromise on any point, despite my extensive documentation and my offering multiple revisions of my own edit. After weeks of futile discussion, I was forced to back away due to the vast time commitment. I now have openings in my schedule and wish to resolve this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive debate on Talk page

How do you think we can help?

Foster an edit which adds the relevant information to article.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. However, the filing editor primarily refers to a dispute withTheTimesAreAChanging, and that editor was blocked a week ago for approximately a month, so that any dispute there appears to be moot. There has also been discussion with User:Guccisamsclub. If the issue is with that editor, discuss on the article talk page with them and notify them on their talk page of this filing. No action is being taken at this time until the filing party clarifies who the dispute if any is with. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Since the filing party says that Guccisamsclub was attempting to act as a mediator, it may be that the block of the other editor has resolved the issue. Waiting for a reply from the filing party.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I kinda lost interest and reneged on my commitment to put write my own version, for which I do apologize. I'm too busy to do it now as it requires going back to do actual research, but will let GPRamirez5 know when I come up with anything. Times's obstinacy, while real enough, is not much of an issue here since he cannot block well sourced text supported by two editors. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2017 (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.