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

• Greater Middle East (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• WashingtonPrime (talk · contribs)
• Dawn Bard (talk · contribs)
• C.Fred (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Greetings. The article "Greater Middle East" is being incorrectly edited repeatedly. The offending party is generalizing the article to such an extent, that it is changing the whole context of the article. The "Greater Middle East" region was a term defined by the USA (formally in 2004) when it declared it as part of the GMEI (Greater Middle East initiative). This region was subsequently labeled as part of the BMEI by the G8 (Broader Middle East initiative). I can provide dozens of proper sources to show you what I mean by doing a search through reputable sources in the internet.

The article was consistent from 2006 (from when it was originally written) until February 2013 when the whole context of the article was generalized to the point of misrepresentation by user "Washington Prime". I tried to discuss this with the offenders in the TALK section, and in fact my arguments were ignored. I was blocked from editing Wikipedia for some number of days and I am not sure why. I presume it is because the offending user claimed that I was vandalizing this article. I seriously question the intentions of why this article is being generalized and would like to request a dispute resolution. Any person familiar with political science will know that I am right and someone may be trying to misrepresent this article by generalizing the term to irrelevance.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Provided sources for my rationale. Tried to engage with other party in the "Talk" section.

How do you think we can help?

Someone would need to compare how both myself and the other user is representing the term "Greater Middle East" (preferably someone with a political science understanding). When contacted, I will be glad to be available.

• I've only edited the article once, to revert what looked like an unconstructive edit - an IP deleting a huge chunk of sourced content without an edit summary, when they had previously been reverted by another user for the same reason. There was a conversation going on on the talk page, as I see now, but an edit summary that pointed to the talk page might have helped the IP's edit look less like vandalism. I was, I can now see, perhaps a bit hasty in my edit, and for that I apologize, but I honestly didn't think I was getting involved in a content dispute, and I was surprised to get the dispute resolution notice. I don't really have anything to say about the content itself without researching it some more, so I will happily support whatever consensus emerges on that front, and I won't edit the page again in the meantime. Is this all OK? Someone please just let me know if you need more of a response from me; I've never participated in a dispute resolution process at Wikipedia before. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree in principle with what the requester says: these changes need discussed at the article talk page.

What got me involved was the IP's deletion of nearly 3/4 of the article. Further, the IP had deleted talk page comments [1][2]. Based on that, the edits appeared to be disruptive, so I reverted the changes to the article and warned the IP.

That's the extent of my involvement in the page. Again, I suggest that the IP and WashingtonPrime discuss the changes the IP wants on the talk page. I'm sure other editors will get involved, but this article is outside my area of interest, so I will likely not be one of them. —C.Fred (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. This case is not yet open, nor have I "taken" it. The participation of Dawn Bard and C.Fred is not required (though they are welcome to participate if they care to, of course). The case will not be opened, however, until we have a response from WashingtonPrime and it is to be noted that since s/he is a short term editor (February 5 - March 2, 2013) and has not edited since that time, it is entirely possible that s/he will not return to Wikipedia or will not return before this listing is closed for staleness. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Closing notice: Unless WashingtonPrime responds to this listing by 12:00 on 22 March 2013 (UTC), this listing will be closed as stale. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:01, 20 March 2013 (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

• Lutici (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pomerania during the High Middle Ages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Skäpperöd (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Volunteer Marek added information to articles and drew a map based on details from Michalek, A: Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne. These claims include:

• A campaign of Bolesław I Chrobry against Stralsund/Stralow in 1121 (which includes the claim that that place even existed by 1121) [3][4][5][6][7]
• A joint Danish-Polish campaign against Rügen in 1130 leading to the defeat of the local tribe who swore allegiance to the Polish duke.[8][9][10]

I contest the accuracy of these claims, as these are errors stemming from an overview work which can not be supported by any secondary sources. There are secondary sources confirming a campaign of Boleslaw into the Müritz area in 1121 and others confirming a Danish-Polish campaign against Wollin in 1130, which the overview work had just confused for above-named places. Michalek has published a series of overview books about crusades, West Slavs (where the contested details are from), South Slavs and East Slavs, so one would expect errors in detail rather than unreferenced novel theories about said details. I contest the inclusion of these errors in articles per WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

Volunteer Marek insists on keeping these claims in the resp. articles / map.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

• Talk:Lutici#Attempts at removing well sourced material
• Talk:Pomerania during the High Middle Ages#1130
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Andrzej Michalek "Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne"

How do you think we can help?

• Mediate the discussion that is running in circles for days
• Participate in solving the case(s) by commenting from a neutral, policy-based perspective

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:Parker (2013 film)#The budget was 'Mid-30's', according to one of the people who made it. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Xfpisher (talk · contribs)
• Status (talk · contribs)
• Arre 9 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I found an interview in Variety where one of the studio heads central to making and financing this movie said the budget was 'Mid-30's'. I accordingly listed the budget on the article page as $35,000,000--it had previously been $30,000,000--this was based on early estimates from less well-placed sources, and specifically The Numbers. This led to an edit war, the ultimate result being that no budget information was provided on the article. I took another tack, and emailed The Numbers, Box Office Mojo, and IMDb, informing them of what the studio exec had said, and where he had said it. They all agreed the best estimate was now 35mil, and accordingly changed their budget estimates (Box Office Mojo had not previously had one) to that figure. I informed Status and Arre of this, and they insisted that this was not a 'solid' figure, and that no budget info could be provided until one emerged. Neither showed me any Wikipedia rule that says budget info can't be provided until there is a specific number from a primary source, and it became evident that if I hadn't told them I'd emailed those websites, they would have accepted any one of them as an authority. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (without any urging from me) edited in the 35mil quote, and Status promptly undid it, insisting there was no solid figure--it's entirely possible no such figure will ever appear at an accredited source. There was some mutual recrimination, and Status threatened to ban me from Wikipedia, but I've disengaged, and am now simply looking for a resolution to the dispute. Neither Status nor Arre seem to have a great deal of experience editing movie pages, and I question whether their position on this is the correct one. I don't believe most Wikipedia film articles could have any budgetary info if they are correct in this, but they will clearly not listen to me on this subject.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None.

How do you think we can help?

The main difference of opinion here is whether or not a Wikipedia article about a recent film can quote a budget estimate. It is my position that all or nearly all film budgets quoted on Wikipedia articles, and elsewhere, are in fact estimates. Box Office Mojo, IMDb, and The Numbers all agree 35 million is the best estimate at the present time. They are all using that figure, and Wikipedia routinely uses all three as sources.

Well now, I thought that this was settled a long time ago. Apparently not. Let's keep this brief (as I have to). First of all, I want to make note that for some reason, Xfpisher has been listing me as a main person in this dispute, when I actually came into it late in the game. Not sure why that is. A Variety article had quoted a producer of the film saying that the budget of the film was "mid-30 million", which Xfpisher then listed as "~35 million" in the infobox. I stated, calmly, in a dispute that was already flaming, that we should just wait for an exact number before putting anything. I thought that was pretty responsible. Xfpisher then emailed out a bunch of sources, telling them to put 35 million as the budget. Any person in their right mind would be extremely suspicious by that, as both Arre 9 and I were. So both Arre 9 and I stated that the budget should be left alone until we get another source, as those have been contaminated in our eyes. Xfpisher didn't appear to disagree with that, and only said how much he will "keep an eye on us". This dispute resolution thread is extremely unnecessary and I would hope that a volunteer doesn't pick it up. This could have been handled with a simple requests for comment on the talk page, so other film editors could way in on the sourcing of the budget.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and this: "There was some mutual recrimination, and Status threatened to ban me from Wikipedia" never happened. LOL. Unless you are referring to the standardized template message that I gave you when you were serving out personal attacks like you were a bartender serving drinks at a bar.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition, in reverting Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk · contribs) I said "per talk"; which our agreement was to not list a budget. I never said anything other than that.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I only made ten comments to the discussion on the talk page about this (so I don't understand why I'm being cited as a primary person here), while Arre made 34 and Xfpisher made 39.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I too thought we had reached a decision. Regardless, I'd like Xfpisher to know that Status and my experience with film articles have nothing to do with this dispute. I'm not interested in engaging further in this. Xfpisher was very vocal in his need to list the budget as 35 million when he started this (30 million was the most widely reported figure by news blogs, newspapers, etc) and had major sources not updated their budget for the film right after he bragged about telling them to, I'd have no problem here. That is my only problem—an editor contacting the sources to alter the outcome of a dispute, with all respect. This wasn't Xfpisher's track to take, if patience was involved. "mid-30s" is not precise. Right now, no other sources apart from the ones contacted by Xfpisher list the budget as 35 million (most report it as 30). Us wanting another concrete source (published before sources like Box Office Mojo, etc) which is available is completely justifiable, Arre 05:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I'd be happy to help facilitate a discussion of this issue. Let's wait for user Arre9 to post an opening comment before we get underway. --Noleander (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Is there any way to determine whether Arre has been notified?Xfpisher (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Noleander, thanks again, but it seems that Arre9 doesn't want any part of this discussion, and Status has indicated a similar reluctance. So what now? Xfpisher (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's wait one more day. There is no rush. --Noleander (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Though Status seems to have definitively refused to participate. Arre9 was the person I was dealing with originally, and she was more inclined to compromise, at least before Status turned up. I'm not actually clear on how Status originally got involved in this dispute.Xfpisher (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That's funny coming from the one who said this: "but the fishy smell is coming from you, Arre." Well... let's see... Wikipedia is an open project that anyone can edit. Interestingly enough, I saw the discussion and took part. Are you telling me I wasn't allowed?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I should even respond to that. Status, it seems remarks by both of us have been deleted for inappropriate language, so maybe you should reconsider the way you're approaching this, and I'll do the same. I was simply wondering what your interest in the article was, since you don't seem to have ever previously edited an article on a theatrical feature. "That's funny coming from you" is a great example of the kind of language neither of us should be using. Now--will you participate in this discussion, towards the end of reaching a compromise? You clearly do have the time. And for the record, I was not the one who introduced the word 'fishy' into that earlier discussion, and anybody reading that discussion would find that I was not the only one who made personal comments. All three of us were guilty in that regard. Which is why we need somebody else to help us get past that unpleasantness, and focus on the actual facts of the case. Otherwise, I'll have to try other forms of dispute resolution. Surely you could at least take the time to explain why you believe Wikipedia bans the use of estimated budget quotes. Shall we assume that you do not, in fact, have any basis for this contention at all? If you leave this discussion without producing something other than your own opinion about what 'should' be permitted, that would seem to indicate this is the case. Xfpisher (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest all editors involved remember to assume good faith and stop acting incivil to each other. DRN is a content dispute notice board, we do not discuss conduct here. Not only that, it's considered bad practice to argue in someone's opening statement. I collapsed the argument so that the original opening statement could be viewed easily but that has been undone by the editors involved in favour of continuing the finger pointing. Remember, this a voluntary process so if you're not willing to participate and calmly discuss the content dispute then let us know so we can close this request. I would like to see an acknowledgement of this by all parties involved without any "but he started it" or "let me just say it wasn't me that..." type comments. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, but you can see why we needed help. I'm all for giving it another try, without the personal comments. To me, it seems like a pretty simple case--we have multiple legitimate sources saying the film's budget was 35 million (which is an estimate, and so are nearly all film budgets you see online). Status admits there's no basis in the Wikipedia guidelines for rejecting these sources because I happen to have provided them with information that led them to use this figure (as a means of trying to resolve the dispute with Status and Arre9). The administrators of these websites made the decision themselves that 35 million was a good estimate, based on a published comment from a studio executive. So I'd like Status to explain why it's necessary to wait (possibly forever) for another source that may never appear, before using the budget quote that now exists on three independent and respected websites compiling financial information about movies.Xfpisher (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you for participating. As far as I can understand itm three respected websites (IMDB, Boxoffice Mojo and The Numbers) all list $35m based off the interview which you sent them? The other party is contesting that because you provided them with the interview it's not a reliable source or are they contesting the original interview to begin with? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to reply to this in the section below rather than here. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's go ahead and get started on the issue. As Cabe says above: DRN is all about content issues, so discussing other editors' behavior is not permitted. It looks like user Arre9 may not be participating here, so that is not an ideal situation. But let's do the best we can. First off: I've read the talk page discussion, and it looks like there are 1 or 2 sources that suggest a figure for the film's budget. Can those sources be identified here? Name the sources and give quotes from the sources. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The original source is an interview in Variety with a film executive (Nick Meyer of Sierra-Affinity) who was directly involved with financing the movie in question, and he said the budget was "Mid-30's". This does not necessarily mean 35 million dollars, of course----could be slightly lower or (more likely) higher, but that seemed like the best possible estimate. I emailed Box Office Mojo, The Internet Movie Database, and The Numbers, informing them of what Meyer had said, and they independently agreed this was the best estimate, and accordingly put it up on their pages for the film in question. IMDb used the word 'estimated' in their quote, the other two did not. My point was never "This is the only number that can ever be used", but rather that "This is the best available estimate given what we now know, and three independent experts on this subject have concurred, so let's bow to their expertise for the present time." I'm a bit wary at this point of trying to explain the opposing views of the other two editors, but in a nutshell, they felt that the original interview quote wasn't specific enough (ie, didn't say 35 million), and that the other sources had been 'tainted' by my having contacted them. My own feeling is that nearly all film budgets you see online (including in Wikipedia articles) are estimates based on similar quotes, and that these three impartial observers with long experience in this area had agreed that 35 million is the best translation of the term "Mid-30's". Xfpisher (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

For that Variety source: can you provide a link here if it is online? Can you give the full quote from the source (sentences before & after)? You say the "mid 30" figure is from Nick Meyer of Sierra-Affinity ... can you supply a source identifying what his connection is with the picture (or is that fact in the Variety article)? Is there any other source (that you did not contact) besides Variety? --Noleander (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Variety article was available online when I first used it as a source, but Variety's website is going through some changes, and it's not available there now, last time I checked. It's in the physical edition--the January 28-February 3 2013 issue. I have a photocopy of the article. Nick Meyer is the head of Sierra-Affinity, one of the several companies involved in producing and releasing the film. His exact quote was "I feel like we executed on what we said we were going to execute. We've got a great partner in Film District; I'm confident that they're killing it for us. We have a solid filmmaker in Taylor (Hackford) and he executed on the money. We have Jennifer (Lopez) and Jason (Statham) out promoting the movie. It's a great piece of IP, (by) Donald Westlake, one of the greatest crime novelists in the past 100 years in America. Budget is in the Mid-30's: that's pretty good, given the caliber of the movie. It wasn't easy--the financing, keeping it on the rails. We started work about three years ago. We had the script; there were a lot of different elements attached to it. We were the sales agent, and then Incentive and us became the production company. Sometimes you got to bet on yourself." So I think that clearly establishes that nobody would be in a better position to know what the film cost than Mr. Meyer, and he clearly didn't want to give an exact number (it's not actually so easy to say EXACTLY what a movie cost, even for those who financed it). This is actually unusually good information for a film's budget--you rarely get anything this informative directly from a studio executive. And now that the film in question has failed to do well at the box office, he's unlikely to want to talk it up in the future, meaning this may be the best quote we ever get. If we wait for something more specific, that may mean the article never has any budget quote at all. I only contacted the three websites I've already mentioned. I only had to contact them once apiece, and they added the 35 million quote very quickly in all three cases. I got a thank-you email from Bruce Nash, who owns and operates The Numbers--which was previously used as a source of budget information on this very article--they had an earlier pre-production quote of 30 million, which is now clearly outmoded, as he agreed was the case.Xfpisher (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the quote. Question for other parties: Does anyone object to including a statement in the article's body that the the budget is in the "mid-30s"? If you object, please by very specific as to why: is the source not reliable? Is the vagueness of the value a concern? Is it the fact that there is just one source? For the moment, let's just focus on whether or not this information can be added to the article's body. We can address the InfoBox later. --Noleander (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The article from Variety was perfectly acceptable to use in the body of the article. Saying something like "The film's budget was in the 'mid-30 million' range" would have been perfectly fine. Xfpisher added it to the infobox, using "~35 million", which was, in terms, WP:OR. The issue then became him emailing out several places telling them to change it to what he deemed the budget to be (assuming mid-30 million meant exactly 35 million), to "win" the dispute. He even appeared to be bragging about it. That was both mine and Arre's problem with it. It has nothing to do with the website itself, and Xfpisher is being dramatic saying that the website should never be used as a source. The website isn't the problem, it's that they got there from a user emailing them to win in a dispute. Simple as that.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Because no source exists that says the budget was 35 million. That's what WP:OR is. This is a dispute resolution noticeboard and in this case, your conduct is directly related to the content.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 10:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining that. I don't agree with your interpretation of that guideline, which I think we can all agree is often used inappropriately. First of all, I wasn't originally saying 35 million. I was saying AROUND 35 million (ie, using the tilde, which doesn't seem to violate any guidelines). It is around 35 million--that's what "Mid-30's" means, and in confirmation of that, we have three independent respected sources agreeing that was a good estimate to put up--Entertainment Weekly also said the budget was around 35 million, probably after reading Meyer's comments (since I never contacted them). To say I told any of them to do this is deeply misrepresenting the situation--I made a suggestion, they agreed with it--Box Office Mojo in particular will often never list a movie's budget, because they are particularly finicky about sources, so it's noteworthy that as soon as they became aware of what Meyer had said, they listed the budget as 35 million. I would be fine with indicating that 35 million is an estimate, not an exact figure (and probably most movie budget figures on Wikipedia should be considered estimates--one could argue that's implicit, whenever you put up a round number as a film's budget, since it's never EXACTLY that amount, and many budget estimates on Wikipedia and elsewhere are probably several or even many millions off--and given the complexities involved in financing and producing a major motion picture, it may not even be POSSIBLE to come up with an exact figure). Secondly, that's not original research--original research would be along the lines of me directly contacting Nick Meyer, somehow compelling him to tell me the exact budget, then using my conversation with him as a source. I don't agree that your perception of my behavior is necessary to discussing any of this, btw. I would argue that three different outside experts on financial data in the film industry interpreting "Mid-30's" as 35 million makes your or my opinion on this matter irrelevant. Wikipedia cites authorities, and they are authorities. They did not change the data on their websites to please me, or to resolve a dispute between Wikipedia editors that they didn't even know existed. They did so because they felt it would improve their respective entries on this film. And they surely must have done this many times before, in response to other emails from people who use their websites, and provided information of a similar nature, so this falls under the heading of standard practice for these sources that have been cited countless thousands of times on Wikipedia articles. And therefore what I did cannot remotely be considered original research.Xfpisher (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Writing "mid 30s" in the body is perfectly fine, and I think it would be a good move. I think it'd be fine for the budget to be listed as 35 million if a reliable third party source is provided, one dated before Xfpisher told websites to update the budget. Arre 05:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Telling the websites to update their listings vs providing them with a reliable source and allowing them to make their own judgements on whether to update are completely different. I see no reason to discount those sources simply because Xfpisher provided them with a reliable source for updated information. Also using 'approximately 35m' and 'mid-30s' are very similar. Mid 30s would normally be considered 34, 35 and 36. I see no issue with 'mid 30s' in the body and '~35m' in the infobox. The key being the tilde meaning approximately Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"Mid-30s", technically, mid-30s could be anything between 30 and 40. Wikipedia is for facts not assumptions. Xfpisher may have had good intentions but sure seemed to be bragging about e-mailing sources. My observations. If you have visited the Parker article, you can see that I have added the "mid-30s" figure both in the lead and production section. Hopefully this will meet satisfactions the time being. Arre 08:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Arre, I'm still not sure I see how "Mid-30's" could mean anything between 30 and 40. To my knowledge, that is not how the term is used anywhere, and certainly not in the entertainment industry. The possibility of the budget being 30mil-33mil is effectively nil--if it was anything less than 34mil, Meyer would have said "low-30's"--it's a bit more likely that it could be 40mil (since film executives routinely lowball their budgets), but not much--probably no higher than 37mil. Yes, Wikipedia is for facts, and it's a fact that we never have the exact amount of money a movie cost--it's an accepted practice to list estimates, and that three important sources of budget info so readily agreed to say 35mil based on an executive saying 'Mid-30's' proves that. I don't believe I was ever bragging, and I'm sorry you saw it that way--you can see now that my interpretation of the existing data and the way I presented it in the article seems at least reasonable (though hardly beyond dispute) to a wide variety of outside observers. Still, I appreciate you making the change. Whether that edit should stand in its current form can be discussed further here.Xfpisher (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I said "technically", no need to go on about it. The concern is that you emailed those sources to win a dispute; its partially obvious. You made notable points, although be careful about your conduct (saying I made our discussion on the talk page "entertaining" to you). Regards, Arre 10:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's what we are here for--to go on about it, ie, to clarify our differences of opinion, and seek a reasonable compromise, towards which end I think we're making progress. I think we both need to be more careful about personal comments in future, but for the record, you're bringing up comments that are not part of this current discussion, and are irrelevant to content. What's relevant here is that technically "Mid-30's" means more than 33 million and less than 37 million. Under no circumstances can it be made to mean 30 million. Three independent and respected sources agree that 35 million is a reasonable interpretation of that term, in the context of a movie budget. But again, thank you for making those changes--they don't end the dispute, but they significantly advance its resolution.Xfpisher (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It was relevant, I was addressing your statement above about not bragging. Like I said, I meant nothing of it, just "technically", no need to discuss that further. Arre 11:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

We're never going to agree about any of that, so let's focus on what we're supposed to be talking about. Let's say that no other acceptable source with a specific budget number ever arises (which is entirely possible, and indeed overwhelmingly probable). The DVD comes out on May 21st, I believe. This movie is unlikely to ever get any significant amount of ink after that, and the people who made it will not be over-eager to discuss it, now that it's conclusively bombed at the box office, all over the world (btw--what happened to the Australian release? It was supposed to open there last weekend, but apparently it didn't). Would you agree to putting up '35 million (estimated)' in the Infobox (let's say) three months from now, if no source that is both more specific and equally credible has appeared anywhere? Again, it was not my decision to list the budget that way on three websites I have no power to edit. They are not in any way involved in our dispute, or even aware of it, so their opinions have to be considered more objective than yours or mine, as well as being vastly more qualified. Your doing this would not violate any Wikipedia guideline, and would fall well within the range of normal procedure on movie articles here.Xfpisher (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"Would you agree to putting up '35 million (estimated)' in the Infobox (let's say) three months from now, if no source that is both more specific and equally credible has appeared anywhere?" I'd agree to that.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 13:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If Arre is amenable, I believe we have a deal. I'd set the date at July 1st, and leave source citation to you and/or Arre9, assuming that you use one or several of the sources cited in this present discussion. If a new source does appear which would serve to displace the 35mil (estimated) quote, we can discuss it at the Talk page for Parker. I would again stipulate that it must be an equivalently good source, ie from an insider to the film's production (studio exec, producer, director) speaking on the record. Arre may not respond for some hours, due to the time difference, so let's wait to see what she thinks. Xfpisher (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a good resolution. Just to recap: There is agreement that the body of the article could - today - mention the "mid 30s" figure (probably should be accompanied by naming the source of that figure). But for the Infobox, wait a few months to see of any other sources become available - and if none arise, we use "35 (estimated)". --Noleander (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a fine compromise, and am quite satisfied with it (assuming Arre agrees). She has already, as mentioned, put up the Mid-30's figure in the body of the article, and cited the source. She even located the article online--Variety must have finished migrating it. The original link stopped working several weeks ago. So if she agrees to updating the Infobox in about three months (if no better source with a more specific budget figure can be found), I think we're done. Really appreciate your help in this. We just needed a push in the right direction. Xfpisher (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's wait another day or two to see if there are any more comments - then we can close this DRN case, and further discussion can continue at the article's talk page. --Noleander (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned Arre hasn't responded yet. She certainly would have seen this by now, unless something major came up elsewhere. It would be good to know if she has any problems with the agreement, or any suggestions to improve it.Xfpisher (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well she seems to have been active in the time since the compromise was proposed. I would suggest leaving a nudge on her talk page and, if she still doesn't respond here while remaining active elsewhere close the case Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I already left a message on her talk page. But yeah, no reason to leave this open indefinitely. Give it another day, and then close it. And again, thank you for your time. This has been quite interesting. Hopefully I'll never be involved in anything like this again, but if the need arises, I certainly hope to avoid more pitfalls next time out. Xfpisher (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not see this until now, I was preoccupied working elsewhere. 35 million (estimated) by July 1 is fine. Arre 23:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure you were okay with it. Thanks for participating, and for doing such a great job editing the body of the article to incorporate the Variety article. If there's any need for future discussion, it can be on the talk page for Parker, but I think we all have other matters to address now. Happy to end this on a positive note.Xfpisher (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2013 (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

• Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• GreekParadise (talk · contribs)
• North8000 (talk · contribs)
• Grahamboat (talk · contribs)
• SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs)
• SMP0328. (talk · contribs)
• ‎Kvng (talk · contribs)
• Celestra (talk · contribs)
• Miguel Escopeta (talk · contribs)
• Inijones (talk · contribs)
• Yaf (talk · contribs)
• J8079s (talk · contribs)
• Pre-1967 English student (talk · contribs)
• Justanonymous (talk · contribs)
• Gaijin42 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a disagreement over which sources are reliable. I (and others) claim the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the Constitutional Accountability Center, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and several federal appellate cases from 1943 to 1995 are all reliable sources.

Every one of these sources states that the judicial decisions by federal appellate courts after the decision in the Supreme Court in Miller (1939) and before the decision of an appellate court in Emerson (2001) limited the right to keep and bear arms to militia service. To me this is an objective fact -- what the courts ruled -- and not an opinion. I'm not claiming these appellate courts are right or wrong. I just want to state what they said. (And I'm willing to summarize.)

A number of editors disagree with me. While they concede they cannot find a single source that contradicts my sources, they claim all my nine or ten sources are biased and therefore the statement I want to make cannot be in the article, even though I have proposed to quote verbatim from any of the nine sources I have proposed.

Here's the statement I want to make: "For more than sixty years following the Supreme Court decision in Miller (1939) until the DC Court of Appeals' ruling in Emerson (2001), federal appellate courts found the right to keep and bear arms to be limited to service in a militia, i.e. a collective rather than an invidual right. E.g. Cases (1943), Warin (1976) (“[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right") and Love v. Peppersack (1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right")

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on talk page for three months. Also posted on each individual editors' talk pages. Repeated at least a dozen times verbatim quotations and links from these sources. Repeatedly asked editors who disagree to provide contrary sources. They refuse, saying my sources are unreliable and they do not have to come up with a contrary source. Occasionally, there is the claim I am misreading the sources but no specific discussion of how. Also sought editor assistance. Told to go to DR

How do you think we can help?

I would like someone to declare that the above sources I have named are legitimate sources and that what they say may be quoted (verbatim or not) in the article. And if folks ever find a contrary reliable source, they are welcome to put that source in as well. I merely want to quote cases and say what they said. Those who disagree are welcome to do the same (except they will find no cases that support their point of view exist)

This is not an appropriate venue at this time. There is an active detailed discussion going on. What GreekParadise has been seeking / trying to put in is the most extreme and violates several policies, and they are defining a "dispute" as them not getting fully their way on that. Further, the question is malformed. The actual question (GP wanting to put certain statements into the lead) bears no resemblance to the question that was framed for this thread, and so this is fatally flawed from the start. North8000 (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This will probably be my first and last comment on this page as there has been recent and active discussion on the 2A talk page and that is where this issue should be resolved. The question is not about the reliability of sources: the issue is the way GreekParadise wants to use them to dominate the lede with “collective rights” spin in order to diminish the real meaning of 2A. It takes a whole lot more than reliable sources to change the characterization of the meaning of 2A in the lede. There has been some sentiment to include a brief collective right historical statement in the lede, but GreekParadise wants to take to a much higher POV level. The relatively few lower court decisions do not translate into a two century collective right view and pale in the light of the SCOTUS decisions which are the ultimate authority. GreekParadise has used selective editing distorting the full impact of the Miller case see here as the individual aspect was never at issue because there was never a defense presented because of a lack of money and the death of Miller. GreekParadise’s pleas for other editors to support his position smacks of canvassing see here and here.

In summary: GreekParadise’s sources do not justify or give any validation to include his politic spin in the lede. Please do not comment here as I have no interest in rehashing the whole saga anywhere other than the 2A talk page.Grahamboat (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that article is that a small group of politically motivated editors have dominated by "owning" that article for a number of years now. Notice that I have not mentioned any specific names. Yet when I mentioned this bias problem recently on the talk page, a number of editors took personal offense complaining of my lack of civility and claiming personal attack. (This is evidence of an awareness of guilt.)

My suggested solution is difficult. This is a systemic problem in Wikipedia. Neutrality is supposed to be balanced according to the balance seen in the reliable sources. What we are seeing here is a neutrality balance point being set by the energy level of a group of editors exerting personal politics who are 'owning' an article. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The article's Introduction should reflect the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment (Miller, Heller, and McDonald). Somewhere in the body of the article can refer to other interpretations (collective right and modified individual right). This would allow the article to show what the amendment is currently held to mean, while at the same time showing what others think it means. This can be done without making major changes to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead should follow the rest of the article. User:GreekParadise should revise Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Late_20th_century_commentary to reflect a more balanced view and we can go from there. It does feel like some editors have worked to deemphasize any material which discusses interpretation prior to 2001. I believe it is important to include such a discussion to avoid WP:RECENT and to present a WP:NPOV. -—Kvng 13:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The dispute has not been correctly characterized. The dispute is not about the validity or non-validity of sources. Rather, it is about the undue synthesis of a now fringe viewpoint using specially-selected sources that pre-date, and/or that disagree with the landmark Supreme Court rulings in 2008 and 2010 that first incorporated the Second Amendment against the states, and that also first ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Prior to these rulings, the meaning of the Second Amendment was never clear, being the Supreme Court had never ruled on the meaning(s). A good analogy would be demanding a flat-earth description of the Earth be given equal coverage in the lede of an article describing the shape of the Earth, just because a specially-selected set of sources gleaned from the past supported such a viewpoint, and then stating that editors were not being "fair" in dismissing the dated viewpoint from being given equal prominence in the lede. The article already includes discussions of the former uncertainties regarding the historical meanings of the Second Amendment in the body of the article, in the absence of court rulings, and the consensus of editors has been not to include speculations from the past in the lede, being that the meaning is now no longer speculative, but has become established law. Unfortunately, when an editor failed to change editor consensus on this point, a dispute was filed here at the DRN, wasting everyone’s time, with the false claim of having a dispute regarding validity of sources. The sources are not in dispute, they are only dated and cherry-picked, pre-dating the definitive court rulings that clarified the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of problems in the current dispute. I would like some formal mediation as well.

The current version should be considered stable. It was first identified as "last stable version" (march 8) by North8000 at 18:15, 11 March 2013‎, backed later by myself when reverting some aggressive edits by GreekParadise, and again by SMP0328 just prior to bringing the article under full protection.

Editors have divided into roughly two camps defined by the following propositions:

1. The second amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, and always has in exactly the same way, by founder intent

2. The second amendment concerns the collective right to bear arms in relation to militia service, and has been interpreted by the supreme court to also protect an individual right to bear arms unconnected to militia service.

I have proposed several edits aimed at mitigating or balancing the two views.

3. Changing "protects" in the first sentence to "concerns" is a compromise because "concerns" includes "protects" but "protects" strongly implies view 1. above. This wording is fully or partly backed by at least two other editors.

4. I have an open comment at Inijones (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC) requesting help broaching the subject of the debate without taking sides, using a sourced statement: "In the latter part of the 20th century, some linguistic debate centered on whether the first clause of the amendment is a general statement of purpose or preamble, or whether the first clause is a dependent clause that modifies the independent clause.[8]" Some additions by other editors are preserved on the talk page.

Lastly, there seem to be arguments aimed at avoiding central issues.

For example, before the current edit, the intro was un-editable for over a year, giving undue attention to the last 5 years of case law. If the intro is going to discuss case law, it should do so in a balanced way. The Heller case did not overturn Miller. Therefore Miller is still current -- it is as just much the law of the land as Heller. If Heller belongs in the intro as current case law, so does Miller. A concise discussion of Miller provides useful context for readers. The current text is taken verbatim from the wiki on Heller as an attempt to compromise. Attempts to exclude Miller as "outdated" reflect a misunderstanding of the courts or a bias.

Inijones (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This is roughly twice the 2000 character limit; please could you shorten it. Removing remarks about user conduct might be a good start, as the DRN does not deal with conduct disputes. Please keep your comments focused on the content issues only. CarrieVS (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Edited to be shorter. 1,997 words excluding spaces. Inijones (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Inijones (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC) wording tweak after edit to shorten

The sentence GP wants to include in the lede is out WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The "Truthiness" is not an issue for this page. The sources give little or no weight to the cases in question nor to the now discarded "States right model" . This dispute is mischaracterized and is really about WP:Original Research which I will adress elsewhere. J8079s (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Further: I have approached the user at talk with no success. WP:Assume no clue. An uninvolved editor could teach the basics at User talk:GreekParadise‎

This article is an encyclopedic article about the second amendment. It is not a place to promote a pet theory or fringe interpretation. The article needs to be consistent in tone and content to the other amendment articles, not a place for a big pro con fight in the article. It is an encyclopedic article not a random dumping place for quotes.....this needs to read like a well put together article. Its a substantive entry on a very important topic. Numerous editors have explained to GreekParadise that he is cherry picking his sources. Numerous editors disagree with GreekParadise attempt at WP:SYNTH. Administrators have locked the page.. Now GreekParadise wants to waste the valuable time of a dozen editors here through this laborious process. He lost on the talk page. The facts stand for themselves. It's ok to come at it strong but when the consensus is against you, move on! I've done it. It hurts sometimes but we all live by these rules. I hope we don't wind up regurgitating all of this yet again. End this quickly please. Unless an administrator and a bunch of very hardworking editors with substantive editing histories are somehow very wrong here. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a note from the last protecting admin: the full protection was implemented because edit-warring took place, to allow editors to concentrate on a constructive discussion on the articles talk-page. It was in no way that "Administrators have locked the page to prevent GreekParadise disruptive edits, mainly from GreekParadise" (sic). Lectonar (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the statement. -Justanonymous (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I have several issues with Greek's attempted additions/arguments. 1) He is attempting to define the problem to his advantage. He wants to discuss only federal court cases from Miller, but before Heller. State courts? Don't count. Outside the time period? Don't count. Some other form of evidence other than a court ruling? (including state constitutions, commentary by notable legal experts etc? out. By framing the issue this way he can eliminate most of the contrary sources. 2) He is excessively relying on WP:PRIMARY sources, and interpreting them using WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Almost all of the cases (including miller) address the issue tangentially, and ambiguously. Only one actually uses the words "Collective right" none use "Militia right". 3) Lower courts are overruled by higher courts constantly; this is one of the defining features of the court system. Heller has absolutely, irrefutable, and unambiguously ruled on this matter. Further in doing so, it clarified explicitly what the earlier rulings meant, and in a way contrary to Greek's interpretation. We can absolutely discuss previous and alternate interpretations of the amendment and right in the history or controversy sections, but the primary and main descriptions of the amendment should be the most current, and most authoritative one.

The statement that is actually supported sufficiently by sources that Greek wants is so watered down and convoluted as to be worthless. It would be something like :

"In the time period after Miller, but before Emerson, Federal lower courts (but ignoring state courts, state constitutions, and lower court rulings outside that time period, and ignoring the vast amount of other commentary and evidence to the contrary ) ruled in a way that was interpreted by some scholars to support a collective rights view, but generally did not directly attempt to answer the collective/individual question. The collective viewpoint was determined to be an incorrect interpretation of both the constitution, and a misinterpretation of previous US supreme court rulings in Heller". Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the section below should be deleted for reasons I give in bold below.GreekParadise (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone object to my describing the 60 years between Miller and Heller in the body of the article based on the CRS, LOC, WP, NYT, Miller, lower case law, and other sources I have provided here?GreekParadise (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I do.

• Miller is ambiguous. It can be read to support both the collective and individual rights. To define its meaning is WP:OR
  • McClurg, p. 139. "But when all is said and done, the only certainty about Miller is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact. For example, Professor Eugene Volokh describes Miller as 'deliciously and usefully ambiguous' in an article about using the Second Amendment as a teaching tool in constitutional law. That is probably the most accurate statement that can be made about the case
  • http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_law_and_liberty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf
• Many people did interpret it to mean collective. Thats fine and we can discuss those opinions. We can also discuss that lower courts often ruled under that interpretation.
• We should similarly discuss the instances where it was interpreted to be an individual right.
• Its was authoritatively NOT a complete examination of the issue, and did not directly address the nature of the right.
• You consistently skip addressing the argument that a militia right can easily be read as an individual right, since everyone, by tradition, by statute, and by judge (including Miller) agrees that everyone (all adult males anyway) is a member of the unorganized militia. The miller decision repeatedly uses terms such as "every citizen", "all able bodied men", etc.
  • Most importantly "These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense"
    • Capable of. not actually involved in, not organized in, etc.
• From Presser "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."
• Cruikshank - "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. "
• Cooley, 1880 - It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.
• You are trying to cheat in your argument, by narrowly defining the evidence which is valid "Only cases after miller, but before heller". If Miller wipes out everything before it, Heller does the same to miller. If it does not, then we need to look at the entire body of law and tradition.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I likewise object to a one-sided false history spanning 1939-2000 being synthesized into the article. The reason is that there are several cases that support an individual rights viewpoint, instead of a collective rights viewpoint, dating from between 1939 and 2000, that GreekParadise has chosen to ignore. As noted above, Miller specifically did not provide any clear "victory" for collective or individual interpretations in 1939. As has been noted previously, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990), the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment was investigated. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolved any doubt that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right, as the people in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments did not apply only to collectives of people. Without the Supreme Court providing any rulings between Miller and Heller, there was no clear interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment during this span of time. There are numerous indications, though, Verdugo-Urquirdez being just one of these, that indicate that the Supreme Court always held an individual viewpoint. Certiori is not granted by the Supreme Court until an issue is "ripe". It is just spin trying to assign this period of time to a collective rights only framework, in the absence of any direct Supreme Court rulings, and with numerous cites available that clearly show that the individual rights viewpoint was being maintained. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly object to a one-sided false history from 1939-2000. I have given you eleven federal cases with a militia point of view, one from each circuit. There are many more in that time period. You have not given me ONE. NOT ONE, that disagrees. Verdugo was not a Second Amendment case. I dare you, defy you, challenge you, entreat you to read my sources. Miguel. READ THE CASES. The only reason you REFUSE to read them is because you know I'm right!!! Admit it. You haven't read a single case I've supplied. Not a single source. You willfully believe in a falsity. And you let your willful false beliefs trump my reliable sources. Can your vague recollections trump my reliable sources? THE ANSWER IS NO!!!! Until you read my sources, you have no right comment on them. Period. You are exactly what is wrong with wikipedia. You MUST allow reliable sources in an encyclopedia to trump your personal prejudice or you have no place in wikipedia. Read my sources. Or leave.GreekParadise (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I have read Verdugo. Have you? You should read all eleven cases I cited but I know you haven't read any of them. Have you? So I DARE you to read one I just randomly picked out, Hale from the conservative 8th Circuit. Dare you. Here it is: http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/978f2d1016.html Until you know what the hell you are talking about, you have no right to comment here. It's like complaining about someone trying to present a "one-sided false history that American once had slavery exists when you know for a fact America never had slavery." There is an objective truth outside your mind, Miguel. It exists. Review the historical record.GreekParadise (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The personal attacks need to stop, GreekParadise. Likewise, all your attempts to drive editors away from Wikipedia; these need to stop as well, GreekParadise. Meanwhile, There are numerous cases that support an individual rights viewpoint of the Second Amendment that were litigated between 1939 and 2000, contrary to just your cherry-picked cases and sources. Verdugo is just one, as I mentioned before, and, in it, the Supreme Court ruled that "the people" mentioned in the Second Amendment are clearly meant as individuals, consistent with the other amendments where "the people" are also mentioned, with the same meaning. Another case supportive of an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment from this same 1939 to 2000 timeframe is Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 (1950). In this case, the Supreme Court held that enemy combatants were not entitled to Fifth Amendment Due Process rights, because if that were the case, they would also be entitled to “freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, security against ‘unreasonable’ searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.” Again, the Supreme Court clearly held the Second Amendment to be protecting individual rights in this 1950 case. As I have said previously, It is wrong to synthesize and push a one-sided POV history in this Article with your cherry-picked references that all go with the collective interpretation as you insist on doing , when there are numerous cases where an individual rights, not a collective rights, argument was held by the courts in reference to the Second Amendment. Your attempt to twist actual history, in Proclaiming a sole "collective rights" set of rulings between 1939 and 2000, is counter to what the verifiable sources indicate. There was a mix of opinions evident in this period. It is the reason that the Supreme Court didn't grant cert for as long as it did, awaiting until the matter was "ripe". As for the hostile editing environment you have created, this is making it difficult for editors to discuss appropriate sources for inclusion in this article. A fundamental Wikipedia policy is to Assume Good Faith, and I don't sense that you wish to adhere to this philosophy. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And Gajin: what one person wrote about Miller is not the issue. There are people who think the earth is flat. Read the case-law. I'm not even saying these cases were right. What I am saying is they existed! Have you read them? Do you deny their existence?GreekParadise (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The cases are ambiguous and generally do not directly address the topic, and which you are using WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH to interpret. I have read several of them, as commented in an above section. There are many cases which say that "such and such a regulation is not an interference with a well regulated militia". That does not have any significance on individual vs collective rights. As stated many times, by statute, by judge (including in Miller), by tradition, by notable commentary, EVERYONE is a member of the militia. Heller did not use the words overturn, overrule, vitiate, etc which would indicate a reversal of earlier rulings. Because those earlier rulings did not directly address the question. They in fact specifically say that they did NOT overturn anything. Earlier interpretations to the contrary are historically interesting, and noteworthy, but by definition incorrect. Lower court rulings are washed away by the higher court. They have zero significance except as historical artifacts. "None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." Gaijin42 (talk)

I object for all the reasons stated above – nothing new here; just another rehash. Saying the same thing in ten thousand words hasn’t garnered any new support. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Note to noticeboard volunteer: Even though I'm the first comment listed, I did not copy and paste this section of the talk page here. Frankly, I don't know who did, but I believe it's inappropriate here. This incomplete discussion of part of the talk page should be deleted here and left to the full talk page, which includes all comments by everyone.

Note to everyone else involved: The rules of the noticeboard say to keep discussion concise and under 2000 characters per opening statement and expressly says in big red letters "this is not the article talk page." The purpose of this notice, unlike the talk page is not to determine who is right in interpreting Second Amendment law. We are here solely for the limited purpose of determining whether authoritative reliable relevant sources can be deleted by editors just because they don't like what is said in them. I contend they cannot be deleted for that reason and I have asked the noticeboard volunteer for her/his views on the subject. My belief is that if you don't like a reliable source, you find a contrary reliable source and cite both sources rather than deleting sources you don't agree with, particularly when those sources are verbatim quotes from cases or news articles.GreekParadise (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretations of the WP:PRIMARY sources do not constitute a WP:RELIABLESOURCE particularly when that interpretation has been directly and unambiguously contradicted by the supreme court. Miller did not say way you say it does. It also does not say what various lower courts have said they thought it does. This is directly, unambiguously, without interpretation required stated in Heller. Both miller, and almost all of the lower lower court rulings are ambiguous, and do not say "collective right", or "militia right" or any other such construct, and your insistence that they do is inappropriate WP:ORIGINIALRESEARCH. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This was brought here by GreekParadise (talk in the hope that a volunteer would declare him the winner. Absent further comment from him this should be closed as resolved on talk page. J8079s (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer's Note: In light of the failure of a number of listed disputants to join in and the failure of any DRN volunteer to open the case despite that failure, I'm going to suggest that this case be closed as "stale" unless some other DRN volunteer indicates within the next 24 hours that they are interested in keeping the case open and taking it on (I'm neither). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:23, 22 March 2013 (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.

(Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:List of Steins;Gate episodes (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• The Stick Man (talk · contribs)
• KirtZJ (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I had previously made an edit to the page to change the way the one character was referred to (from the given name to surname) based on how he was called in the anime itself. This edit was reverted by another user, who told me that a standard of using given names needed to be followed. I took the discussion to the talk page, where we have been arguing since.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talk page discussion, though the two of us are not having much success communicating with each other. At KirtZJ's request, Ryulong made a few comments, but for the most part no resolution is in sight.

How do you think we can help?

An outside, unbiased view from someone very familiar with how Wikipedia articles are written (down to the really minor details) would be incredibly helpful in resolving this dispute, as I have found nothing in the MoS that pertains to this sort of issue.

We have compromised and this has been resolved. KirtZJ 05:09, 25 March 2013 (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

• Joseph McCarthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Army–McCarthy hearings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MoFreedom (talk · contribs)
• Acroterion (talk · contribs)
• Location (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I came across some rather startling informatiion that could possibly change some people’s perceptions of McCarthy & the army hearings, & I thought (that in the interests of truth, fairness & justice) they had the right to know. So, I tried to post that information on the Joe McCarthy & Army-McCarthy hearings pages.

Here's my proposed post:

But in fact, Welch was the person that disclosed Fisher’s connections to the Communist front group (the very thing he condemned McCarthy for doing). Welch preemptively broke the story in the New York Times several weeks prior to his now famous condemnation of McCarthy on floor of the Senate Hearings. Here are the NYT headlines:

"The Army charges were signed by its new special counsel, Joseph N. Welch. Mr. Welch today [April 15] confirmed news reports that he had relieved from duty his original second assistant, Frederick G. Fisher, Jr., of his own Boston law office because of admitted previous membership in the National Lawyers Guild, which has been listed by Herbert Brownell, Jr. the Attorney General, as a Communist front organization. Mr. Welch said he had brought in another lawyer, John Kimball, Jr., from his Boston office to take Mr. Fisher's place." [5]

After McCarthy mentioned Fisher's affiliation with a Communist front group at the hearings, Welch acted as if McCarthy had just outed Fisher in public for the first time, doing some terrible, reckless, injustice to Fisher. But in truth, McCarthy merely repeated what was already in the public domain.[6]

Moreover, Fred Fisher’s career did appear to be affected by Welch’s disclosures (or McCarthy’s comments on them at the hearings), as Fisher went on to become a partner in Boston’s prestigious Hale & Dorr law firm where he organized its commercial law department. He also served as president of the Massachusetts Bar Association and as chairman of many committees of the American and Boston bar associations. He was a former trustee of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy and chairman of the Franklin N. Flaschner Foundation in Waban, Mass., while McCarthy became a national outcast.[7]

Here're my cites:

5 http://books.google.com/books?id=vz42rDYmf3wC&pg=PA568&lpg=PA568&dq=fred+fisher+m+stanton+evans&source=bl&ots=soAhm8yneO&sig=SZEn87cvcRzhQpcWo5hIQYEINUU&hl=en&ei=hnLgTIv7L8GclgeYpuDSAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false 6 Blacklisted by History, page 568, by Stanton Evans (I only cited this book because it reprinted a NYT story from 1954 verbatim. 7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fisher_(lawyer)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I modified my original post in order to allay many of Acroterion's concerns. I think I believe I satisfied the other editors involved in the dispute with either my modifications or my explanations. But Acroterion won't budge, despite my efforts to alleviate his or her concerns, despite my modifications, & despite my lengthy explanations relating to his or her concerns.

How do you think we can help?

Allow me to post my proposed post my material.

Although I've taken the lead in trying to explain Wikipedia's policies on sourcing, original research, undue weight and attribution of original thought in a very extensive and repetitious discussion at Talk:Joseph McCarthy, MoFreedom has never addressed the concerns of myself and several other users that his proposed addition is tangential, designed to imply that McCarthy's chief accuser was a hypocrite, and synthesized from a single New York Times article that predates the hearings. I am also concerned that, undue weight and tangential emphasis aside, MoFreedom has shown no interest in attributing his thesis to M. Stanton Evans, whose book Blacklisted by History appears to have given MoFreedom the idea that Joseph Nye Welch's knowledge of Fred Fisher's former membership in the National Lawyers Guild is significant enough to merit a digression and analysis. There is also the issue that Evans, while a significant scholar, represents a decidedly minority view in McCarthy scholarship. I think it possible that one or two appropriately attributed sentences describing Evans' thoughts as a prominent minority viewpoint might be worked in at Army-McCarthy hearings, but it will require consensus, which does not yet exist. Other editors who have expressed similar reservations are Location (talk · contribs), Qxukhgiels (talk · contribs), DD2K (talk · contribs) and Fat&Happy (talk · contribs). Acroterion (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2013 (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:The Purpose Driven Life (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Johncheverly (talk · contribs)
• JDitto (talk · contribs)
• Jinlye (talk · contribs)
• Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Need a finding. Does the MAIN article on _The Purpose Driven Life_ need to discuss criticisms of false doctrine???

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A thorough discussion on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

Please issue a definitive opinion.

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

• Jozef van Wissem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Jozef van Wissem (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ymblanter (talk · contribs)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
• Jozefvanwissem (talk · contribs)
• Mangoe (talk · contribs)
• Galassi (talk · contribs)
• Qworty (talk · contribs)
• 123.224.114.61 (talk · contribs) etc.

Dispute overview

The subject of the article, Jozef van Wissem, claims that the info is outdated. Indeed, the sources are at best from 2009, but he does not have any reliable sources to prove this. In particular, the point is what collaborations does Jozef van Wissem presently have. An IP editor opposes and insists that the info should be in the article, in particular, the Josef van Wissem collaborates with a certain musician (Jozef van Wissem claims he does not, there is a source from 2009 saying he was). A discussion was held at the talk page, leading to the compromise version that the collaboration should be mentioned as the past one and not in the lede. The IP editor disagrees, reverts all the changes in the article (went well over 10 reverts) and uses circular reasoning.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

1. Talk page discussion
2. COI noticeboard [12]
3. Edit warring was announced at ANI, with no consequences

How do you think we can help?

It needs to be determined whether the version which the IP editor reverts indeed has consensus, or, if not, to help to formulate a better one. May be somebody would have fun engaging with the IP editor in their circular reasoning, but as far as I am concerned this does not have to be a necessary part of the dispute resolution.

Our unregistered friend from Tokyo (the IP changes, but it's all the same person) is having difficulty with the concept of WP:Consensus. He (or she) would very, very, very much like to have the name of one particular, short-lived, non-notable, and definitely defunct (since 2009) musical duo to be named in the second sentence of the introduction. He would also like to have all past collaborators listed as if they were current collaborators (including, I note in passing, two past collaborators from Tokyo).

Everyone else who has expressed an opinion—and between the article's talk page and the unregistered editor's complaint at COIN about the BLP subject daring to correct material errors, multiple editors have expressed an opinion on this—thinks that the name of the defunct duo is not important enough to mention in the lead. However, the unregistered editor is edit warring to keep it in, and most recently to keep much more relevant details, like the fact that the musician's most widely known piece is the musical score for a video game, out.

After long discussions at the talk page, I doubt that further discussion is going to be useful. I think we're going to have to deal with this at WP:ANEW. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see how I can contribute to this. I looked into it early on when there seemed to be some stubbornness about possibly outdated information, but this now seems to have turned into a dispute about the prominence of the information which I really have no sound opinion about. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Although the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page before resorting to DRN, Ymblanter never joined the discussion on the talk page.

For the record, the point is not who Jozef van Wissem has presently or currently collaborated with, but "the notable activities, positions, or roles the person held" and "why the person is significant" (WP:OPENPARA). Additionally, since I think Jozefvanwissem's edits like 1 and 2 has caused disruption to Wikipedia, we discuss whether Jozefvanwissem, the user who claimed to be the subject of the article, is here to build an encyclopedia. 123.224.114.61 (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, this is not just "content dispute", and I don't think we can discuss this issue without commenting on Jozefvanwissem's editing beahvior. 123.224.94.138 (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I volunteer here at DRN. This doesn't mean I hold any special powers but I will try mediate a discussion. It's worth having a read over the rules we have here for DRN specifically the one about focusing on content and not conduct. Once all involved users have posted their opening statements we can move on with the discussion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the IP editor added more users than there were really involved. Thanks for taking the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

They are certainly the users involved in this issue. 123.224.94.138 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ymblanter, could you confirm who you feel are the involved editors? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion those whom I originally listed: myself, WhatamIdoing, Jozefvanwissem, and the IP editor. The three of us made statements, and I would not expect that Jozefvanwissem would make a statement since he has difficulties fully understanding our policies (he is clearly a single-purpose COI editor), but I assume his position is crystal cleat from the discussion on the talk page of the article and on his own talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the indef sock of Jozefvanwissem and the highly suspected other who hasn't edited since january from the participants. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering the list of participants is perhaps questionable I'm going to go ahead and start discussion despite not all listed participants presenting an opening statement. I feel if we wait for them all we are unlikely to ever start. If anyone has an issue with this please feel free to raise it. Now, it seems to me that there is two sides to this dispute, one taken by the IP editor and the other by everyone else. The IP continues to cite that wikipedia is not a !vote, which is true, but likewise the IP editor should take a read over the words at WP:STONEWALL, WP:NOTUNANIMOUS and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Insisting that consensus hasn't been reached despite being the only proponent of point of view (and using narrowly interpreted views of policies) is considered gaming the system.

Since a lot of the talk of the talk page is conduct based and back-n-forth I would like a 100 word summary of both views in this dispute presented below. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

100 words:

Should the name of one short-lived, non-notable, defunct musical act be in the lead, or is it good enough to mention the name of the other person in that musical act?

In other words, should it say "Past collaborators included Alice, Bob, Chris, Daisy and Ed" or should it say "Past collaborators included Alice, Bob, Chris, who was part of the Chris-and-Subject Show, Daisy and Ed"?

Everyone else seems to favor putting the name of the act in the body of the article, but the IP keeps removing it from the body and inserting it into the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

100 words

JvW had many collaborations over his career, and he claims only two are current. The collaborations are not fully documented by RS, and many sources are outdated. The suggestion of our side is to put the two current collaborations in the lede, and list others as past, indicating the source year ("in 2009"); also to write that JvW is known for writing a tune to a vide game. The IP's suggestion is to list his favorite collaboration in the lede since there is a 2009 source claiming it. They also remove any mentioning of the video game.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your replies. I'm mainly waiting to hear from the IP editor now as they seem to hold an opposing opinion Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 23:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not involved with this dispute but I have seen it arise on some talk pages and discussion boards. I thought it would be easily resolved by blocking a range of IPs in Tokyo, or locking the biography article against IP editing. I do not consider the IP's case to be valid; there is no need to list a non-notable duo in the lead section, nor is there a need to list past collaborators who did not collaborate on a notable project. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Our IP Tokyo friend continues reverting bud did not find time to make a statement here, so I assume they are not interested in making any statement, only in reverting the article to their version.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it seems that the page has been protected for autoconfirmed editors only for now. If the IP isn't willing to discuss then there isn't much point in this DRN as he is the only person holding that position. Unless they post here with a convincing effort to discuss amicably within 24 hours I will be closing this discussion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have semiprotected the page in the (admittedly small) hope to get the IP to the talk-page or here...Lectonar (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2013 (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

• GW 501516 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• null (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

The other editor appears to bias the information that is not based on available evidence. I have cited peer-reviewed evidence from the academic literature to support a stance, but these seemed to have been deleted each time to bias the reader.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

pending

How do you think we can help?

Open discussion and providing validated evidence to support the biased view

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:Manual of Style/Road junction lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Martinvl (talk · contribs)
• Jeni (talk · contribs)
• Ritchie333 (talk · contribs)
• Rschen7754 (talk · contribs)
• Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs)
• Scott5114 (talk · contribs)
• Floydian (talk · contribs)
• Fredddie (talk · contribs)
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
• Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk · contribs)
• Trillig (talk · contribs)
• Baldy Bill (talk · contribs)
• Wilbysuffolk (talk · contribs)
• Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists catalogues the columns that should appear in a Road Junction List (for example Interstate 10 in California#Exit list and M25 motorway#Junctions). A dispute between editors split roughly along UK/US lines has been simmering for a number of years regarding the differences in style of these two road junction lists with the US editors arguing for more standardisation across all of Wikipedia and UK editors arguing that regional differences make such standardisation impracticable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The current round of discussion was triggerd by Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#RJLUK set of templates!the UKRJL template proposal. The discissions are here and here.

How do you think we can help?

Are the UK editors being unreasonable in declining to add "location" columns to their RJLs or are the US editors failing to take the UK situation into account? A parallel ongoing discussion on the use of miles or kilometres is outside the scope of this DRN.

I decline to participate in a process with an ill-formed question that falls outside of the stated remit of the process. I also decline to participate in a process that censors appropriate comments in what I'd say is a violation of WP:TPOC. Imzadi 1979 → 19:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the locus of the dispute is that a minority of editors are failing to recognize a consensus that has formed, a consensus contrary to their wishes. (Some of the named editors are not even disagreeing on the same thing here; this dispute resolution request is conflating a recent dispute about location columns with an older dispute about coordinates.) As such, I feel that this case is beyond the venue's remit and should be closed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I decline to participate as well. –Fredddie™ 12:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not have any faith in this process, as such I will not be participating. Thank you for the invitation. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I decline to participate as I don't think the question has been framed in such a way that the issue can be resolved through this DR. Trillig (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have not, until now, been involved in the most recent discussions; even though I am named in them.

As a UK resident, I favour the use - for all roads, globally - of a column for junction locations, though the use of a county name or other specified identifier should not be mandated. It should be possible to include coordinates, using {{Coord}}, in that column, if no specific coordinates column (which would be preferable) is provided; and acceptable (but not required) for that to be a cell's only content.

I remain opposed to any initiative to remove or hide (such as behind an icon, or non-unique text) coordinates; or to preclude their inclusion.

I note that the use of KML files form some roads does not supplant the need for or usefulness of coordinates, displayed in the article, for specific features. Editors who find coordinates aesthetically troubling are able and welcome to suppress their display through their User-CSS file.

I also note that the MoS is meant to be descriptive not prescriptive

I further note that this has been a very contentious issue, and remind everyone that projects do not and should not own articles and templates, nor their contents. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

[Meta observation: this page is too long, and watch-listing will result in lots of irrelevant notifications,. For the convenience of those asked to participate, there should be a sub-page for each case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)]

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I am not, and will not be, taking this listing. To the contrary, I am of the opinion that this request should be closed for the following reasons:

• As currently framed — asking whether we believe editors are being reasonable — this is a conduct, not a content, dispute.
• I'm not at all sure we ought to become involved in disputes involving policy or guideline formation. Those disputes should, in my opinion, ordinarily be resolved through RFC, since the interests of the community as a whole are involved.
• Rschen7754 is a major participant in this dispute. Unless he can either be persuaded to change his mind about participating here or be persuaded to commit to walk away from the dispute altogether, then any resolution here will probably be futile.

I'm not absolutely certain about any of those reasons (if I was, I would have simply closed this listing) and would like the other members of the DRN community to either weigh in here or, alternatively, simply second me by closing the listing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked the OP about the fact that it did seem to be about conduct and behavior. I have not yet recieved a reply, but it is still early. I can only say that if a major participant in such a lengthy list of involed editors is reluctant to continue over their current concerns, having them participate may not result in any headway either. I am reluctant to say that we will not take a case over an MOS dispute, but agree that an RFC could be attempted first for content. If this is just about conduct I do suggest closing and suggest Arbitration as the next logical course.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

After reading the response to this DRN, I am willing to accept the view that the DRN will not resolve the dispute. Martinvl (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I echo Martinvl's comment. Trillig (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

+1. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 29 March 2013 (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.