The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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:Edgar Allan Poe#On the precise description of Poe and Others (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• JoePeschel (talk ·contribs)
• Midnightdreary (talk ·contribs)
• David Levy (talk ·contribs)
• Hallward's Ghost (talk ·contribs)
• Paine Ellsworth (talk ·contribs)
• Deb (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

I contend “author,” in the Edgar Allan Poe article should be replaced with the phrase “short story writer?” The pro and con opinions are unmovable.

Here is a DIFF link, as asked for, to the controversy over the small word change I proposed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Allan_Poe&diff=685268128&oldid=684639271

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've explained my position again and again in different ways to deaf ears in "Talk" section.

How do you think we can help?

Take a look at my explanation and note the use of the phrase "short story writer" in other Wikipedia biographies.

I think the content dispute speaks for itself. From my perspective, as someone who specializes in Poe as a published academician, the term in question is too reductive. I am further concerned that using such a specific term for his prose fiction makes it appear we are oblivious of his other prose fictions which do not fit this category. Finally, I reiterate that we cannot easily generalize for the perspective of all Poe readers. As I said before, there are scholars in other countries who have imported a greater interest in Poe's novel than in his tales and would be confused by the oversimplified categorization. I agree as mentioned elsewhere, nevertheless, that his short story writing is emphasized well enough in the lede, not to mention the remainder of the article. I might note that I have no ill-will towards the editor who first brought forward this discussion; I am thankful that we had the opportunity to collaborate. The project, after all, is bred on collaboration.

As a completely irrelevant non sequitur, I was the main author of the article who guided it through the featured review process. --Midnightdreary (talk)13:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This dispute might be better served by an RfC on the article's talk page opened by the contributor who brought this subject to DRV. Thus far the consensus has been to maintain the status quo, and since it is consensus that shapes these decisions, an RfC may show a broader community consensus.Paine 14:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

•  To DRN volunteers: - Verified -All editors listed have been notified by myself of the DRN case.I am neither accepting nor declining the case. Cheers,Drcrazy102 (talk)00:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
•  To DRN volunteers: - Verified -There has been substantial discussion between editors.I am neither accepting nor declining the case. Cheers,Drcrazy102 (talk)02:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
•  To DRN volunteers: - I am declining to have further interaction with this case due to a recent discussion about my actions in "hatting" comments. Discussion occurred on mytalkpage,here. I bid Robert good-luck. Cheers,Drcrazy102 (talk)23:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi. I saw the entry for this "dispute" and was interested because I do a lot of work on biography articles myself. The discussion in the article's Talk page has not had the level of participation that I expected to see after reading some of the statements above. Although I broadly agree with some of the filer's comments on the topic, I also feel that seeking a resolution here is probably inappropriate and I believe that a compromise is within everyone's reach.Deb (talk)14:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. It is true that an RFC might be an appropriate way to resolve this, but an RFC is one possible resolution of a thread at DRN. Reaching a compromise here would be the best result of this discussion. Would each editor who has not made a statement yet please make a concise statement? I see that one issue is how to word the description of Poe in the lede. Are there any other issues to be discussed?

I expect every participant to check this thread at least every 48 hours. I will check this thread at least every 24 hours. Please be civil and concise, and comment on content, not on contributors. Please conduct discussions here while discussion is in progress, rather than on the article talk page, so that we don't need to flip back and forth. Please do not make any substantive edits to the article while discussion is in progress.Robert McClenon (talk)18:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I contend that the lede to theEdgar Allan Poe biography is slightly flaw and would be improved with a minor change:

From:"Poe…was an American author, poet, editor, and literary critic…”

To:“Poe… was an American short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic….” The order of the descriptor is not terribly important to.

It seems other editors want to include a catch-all phrase like “author” or “writer” to cover every thing mentioned in this bio that Poe ever wrote. But it’s unnecessary to use such a general, all-inclusive descriptor in the first sentence, and such a descriptor doesn’t fit in with the specific “poet” or “literary critic.” To “author” followed by “poet” and “literary critic” is redundant. Better stick with the specific and write: “American sort story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic” “novelist could be added too. If that sentence seems too long, break it up thusly:

"Poe was an American short story, poet, editor, [novelist,] and literary critic. He is widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole. (I'm not particular about the order of these precise descriptors.)

Anything else Poe wrote could be introduced much later in the bio—something like Poe also wrote This, That, and Other.

Other Wikipedia bios appropriate omit the “author” catch-all and they lose nothing for that. Moreover, other encyclopedias see no need to use a catch-all phrase in the ledes of their Poe biographies. I gave links to those bios on the Poe Talk page, and offer them again here:

Overall, the Poe article is not bad; it could use some editing: tightening and general clean-up. I’m only interested improving the article.JoePeschel (talk)19:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I contend that the lead is just fine as it is. It appears that the two precise items in contention are (1) to exclude the term "author" from the lead sentence, and (2) to include the term "short-story writer" in the lead sentence. I see no compelling argument to exclude "author"; however, clarification may be needed by a slight alteration to:

"Edgar Allan Poe was an American author who wrote poems, short stories and literary criticisms."

That sentence does satisfy "2" above, if not "1".Painius 02:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As for the compelling reason to omit "author"--I've given plenty of them here and on Talk page.JoePeschel (talk)09:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The lede that Paine suggests, "Edgar Allan Poe was an American author who wrote poems, short stories and literary criticisms" isn't bad, but it is unnecessarily wordy because of the persistent catch-all word "author," whose use is unnecessary. I would agree to:

"Edgar Allan Poe was an American poet, short story writer, and literary critic." That solves the two items that Paine correctly states are in contention and the solution saves two words.JoePeschel (talk)09:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the "isn't bad" comment. One or two more words do not make a sentence "wordy" especially when they provide clarification to readers of this encyclopedia. For reasons of clarity, I would prefer to keep "author" in the lead sentence; it is a stronger, more active sentence that tells what the authordid rather than what the authorwas.Painius 15:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, Paine. I don't see how your proposed version is more "active," as a sentence is active or passive. My proposed version is clear, concise, and two words or about 13% shorter. Further, your proposed inclusion of "author" serves no purpose other than it includes everything that Poe ever wrote, and that sort of generality is unnecessary tonnage in the lede. As far as the "was" vs. "did" argument goes -- any reader would realize that a poet writes poems, a short story writer writes stories, and a literary critic writes literary criticism. The construction of “Edgar Allan Poe was an American author who wrote poems, short stories, and literary criticism” is flawed because of its wordiness. Its wordiness is no different than writing, “He is a man who…” instead of “He….” (See Strunk & White:http://www.gutenberg.org/files/37134/37134-h/37134-h.htm III. ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF COMPOSITION, 13. Omit needless words.JoePeschel (talk)16:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

My description does not include every specific type of literature this great man ever wrote. That is done later in the article. Your proposed version lacks clarity, and your misuse of terms like "tonnage" is humorous. Edgar Allan Poe was an author, and that is precisely the term hisWikipedia article uses to first describe him. To say it the way you want it to be said belittles this great man and his art. "Author" is an esteemed term in the business of writing – just ask any journalist who wants to write a great novel.

Painius 23:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

First, please direct all comments to me, the moderator, and not to each other. That is, please do not engage in threaded discussion. I realize that threaded discussion is the usual rule on talk pages, so now we can try something different.Robert McClenon (talk)17:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that, Robert. Will do. Do we wait for your statements before we post or do we add our additional statements to this Second Statement?JoePeschel (talk)17:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Just post your statements in either the section for first statements or the section for second statements. The location is less important than that we not get into threaded exchanges, because they tend to go back and forth. Typically a discussion comes here because there has been civil but unproductive back-and-forth on the talk page, and one of the reasons for moderation is to keep the discussion focused rather than going back-and-forth. (It is true that civil back-and-forth is better than uncivil back-and-forth.)Robert McClenon (talk)19:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Second, are there any issues other than the lede, or is the wording of the lede the only question? If the wording of the lede is the only issue, please state your own proposed wording of the lede.Robert McClenon (talk)17:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe the wording of the lede is the only issue.JoePeschel (talk)17:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

My proposed lede is clear and concise:“Edgar Allan Poe was an American poet, short story writer, and literary critic…." I see nothing in that introductory lede that is unclear. Do you, Robert? The use of the word “author” is merely a very broad catch-all to include any other work that Poe wrote, and even Midnightdreary said as much. As I mentioned earlier, the OED defines the word “author”:

1.The person who originates or gives existence to anything.

“Author,” in my experience, is not an “esteemed term in the business of writing”; I’ve never claimed so and I’ve never heard anyone else in the business seriously claim so…till now. And evenRosie O'Donnell is considered an “author.”

I used “tonnage” in the sense of weight or load.

As to whether I’m a Poe fan or detractor-—I take an unbiased position.JoePeschel (talk)02:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the difference is whether, in the lede, to characterize Poe as a short story writer or as an author. Is that the real difference? Are there any other issues? Can someone propose a compromise? If not, there are three ways to resolve this. First, the editors can agree on "short story writer". Second, the editors can agree on "author". Third, the editors can agree to submit aRequest for Comments. Reply as to which of each of the three options is acceptable. That is, each editor is being asked a three-part question.Robert McClenon (talk)04:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert, on October 7, when I corrected the biogrpahy of Poe by removing “author” and inserting “short story writer” I had no idea of the resistance that a simple, tiny change in the copy would meet. That same day, Midnightdreary reverted my edit saying, “author is more appropriate -- in addition to tales, he also wrote a novel, a play, etc.” I reverted that edit on October 11 and said, I undid “Midnightdreary Midnight’s revert "since Poe's ‘tales are short stories" There seemed no real concern about including a novel and a play in the lede. Anyway, some reverts back and forth and we wound up on the Poe Talk page.

There I explained the reason for my revision by giving the definition of “author” and “writer” and for my wanting to include short story writer in the lede. There was little disagreement about including short story writer, but never have I seen so much resistance to such minor but obviously necessary deletion as I met with removing the word author.

The word “author is redundant and simply unnecessary in the sentence:

Edgar Allan Poe (/poʊ/; born Edgar Poe; January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American author, poet, editor, and literary critic, widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole.

And can be tightened to read:

Edgar Allan Poe (/poʊ/; born Edgar Poe; January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American poet, short story writer, and literary critic, widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole.

I think everyone has now agreed on those three descriptors: poet, short story writer, and literary critic.

Throughout the Talk page and here, I have given several reasons for accepting my edit. I’ve explained those reasons as best I can. Here are the major points:

1. “Author” is too general to be included in a lede that use specific descriptors.

2. To use “author” with “poet, short story writer, and literary critic” is redundant since poet, short story writer, and literary critic are each authors of poem,s short stories, and criticism.

3. Author is unnecessary to use as a catch-all phrase the Mighnightdreary suggests. It’s not necessary to include a word in the lede that is so general that it includes everything that Poe ever wrote.

4. There is plenty of precedent in other Wikipedia biographical articles for using a lede like the one I suggest. There are other Wikipedia articles that include “author” (I believe wrongly in their ledes.)So, no. There is no consensus on Wikipedia about the use of “author in a bio’s lede. The overwhelming consensus that David suggests is merely 4:1

5. Other encyclopedias (that I’ve listed above on this page) do not use the catch-all “author.”

There have been several personal comments directed at me on the Talk page and here that I’ve tried not to respond to, since they are red herrings. (I appreciate that Dr tried to “hat” them and I thank him for trying to do that unasked by me.) But as far as I can tell, there is one main reason that the four who want to keep “author” in the lede sentence:

1. It is all inclusive.

And I’ll note that recently Paine had suggested the word “author” should be used because it is an honorific.

It should be evident (not “self-evident”) that author should be deleted from the lede.

Our business here should be writing better articles, not quibbling over a couple of words. And the deletion of “author” improves the bio.JoePeschel (talk)15:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The lead sentence is best left as it is at present.

Robert, the only explicit consensus is 4:1 and I note that’snot including in [another editor's] opinion. On the Talk page, [another editor] wrote:

"I admit that I came here from the DRN because it caught my eye. I expected that the 'overwhelming consensus' would be just that. Maybe I am getting the wrong end of the stick, but I would have to agree with [another editor] that, in context, "short story writer" would be a better term than 'author'."

Just because no one else has pointed out the weakness in the lede till now doesn’t mean that the lede does not need revision.

The so-called “overwhelming consensus” simply does not exist. I’ve pointed out several reasons to change the lede, offered supporting evidence, given examples of other Wikipedia bios and Poe bios from other encyclopedias. The opposition has pretended and repeated again and again that there is a consensus, and give the reason for keeping “author” that it cover everything Poe wrote. Oh, yeah, [another editor] thinks “author” is some sort of honorific: “‘Author’ is an esteemed term in the business of writing.” But, in my experience, that just isn’t so.

It would be good to hear from Midnightdreary since he was the first one revert my edit.JoePeschel (talk)20:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This section of this discussion is for the moderator. It is not for threaded discussion by editors. Reply in the section below.Robert McClenon (talk)21:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

So far, one editor has deleted his opening statement, and will be deleted from the list of participants. Another editor has said that this case should never have been opened. Since discussion here is voluntary, does anyone else want to be withdrawn from the list of participants.Robert McClenon (talk)21:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I asked a three-part question, with an opportunity for a fourth answer. The three questions were whether each editor would agree to "short story writer", whether each editor would agree to "author", and whether each editor was willing to accept the results of an RFC. The fourth option was to propose another compromise. The purpose of this noticeboard is to discuss content, and perhaps get agreement on content. It isn't to restate your comments, no matter how well-founded they are, about other editors. Please answer the three-part question. At this point, I am imposing a zero-tolerance policy with regard to comments on contributors, and will fail this discussion if there areany more comments on contributors or threaded comments. If I fail this discussion, administrative action, such as locking the article or blocking the editors, may be the next step. No one should really want administrative action, so try one more time.Robert McClenon (talk)21:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If anyone doesn't like the way that moderation is being conducted, then can go tothis noticeboard's talk page and ask for another moderator, but another moderator isn't likely to approach this conflict any differently. So try one more time to comment on content, so that I don't have to fail the discussion.Robert McClenon (talk)21:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The three questions were whether each editor would agree to "short story writer", whether each editor would agree to "author", and whether each editor was willing to accept the results of an RFC. The fourth option was to propose another compromise.

1. and2. In this vein, I have agreed and will continue to agree to the following compromise:

"Edgar Allan Poe was an American author who wrote poems, short stories and literary criticisms."

3. Yes, I would be willing as always to accept the consensus drawn by an RfC regardless of outcome.

4. I've no intention to propose another compromise.Painius 21:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert, I wanted to restate the main points of my case on this page mostly for the convenience of everyone involved, rather than going back and forth to the Talk page.

The current biography reads:

Edgar Allan Poe (/poʊ/; born Edgar Poe; January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American author, poet, editor, and literary critic, widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole.

So, I would agree to

1.the inclusion of “short story writer.”

I wouldnot agree:

2.the inclusion of author.

3. I am willing to accept the results of an RFC, so long as other editors refrain from commenting on persons and that they focus on content. I also would hope that I would have the opportunity to restate my case.

4 Here is the compromise lede that I propose:

Edgar Allan Poe (/poʊ/; born Edgar Poe; January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American poet, short story writer, and literary critic, widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole.— Precedingunsigned comment added byJoePeschel (talk •contribs)23:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment on content: It should be noted that "editor" is missing from JoePeschel's suggested opening sentence. I would like to know why, since this has not previously been discussed.Painius 02:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert, if Paine would like “editor” somewhere, anywhere, in the lede, I have no problem with that.JoePeschel (talk)03:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Then if JoePeschel would please reinclude "editor" in their "compromise lede", that would be greatly appreciated. This brings up JoePeschel's usage of the phrase "compromise lede". Please explain why this can be considered to be a "compromise". The lead sentence suggested is what JoePeschel has supported all along: to include the term "short story writer" and to erase the word "author". That is precisely what has raised objections on the article's talk page, so I would appreciate an explanation as to exactly how JoePeschel's suggested lead sentence is a "compromise".Painius 06:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the revised compromise lede:

Edgar Allan Poe (/poʊ/; born Edgar Poe; January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American poet, short story writer, editor, and literary critic, widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole.

Robert, Paine can place “editor” anywhere he wants in the lede. If I wrote that first graf, I would not have included “literary critic,” only “poet” and “short story writer,” but "literary critic" is fine by me. My compromise lede did not include editor, but I’m willing to put “editor” in it. At one point, Midnightdreary said some scholars in other countries thought highly of Poe’s novel, so I figured “novelist” could be included in the lede, but no one else thought so, and I did not feel strongly about it one way or the other. As I mentioned once before, the bio isn’t badly written, but some of the lede graf could use a little scouring and smoothing. Now, I could have suggested an edit of the first graf and settled for the removal of “author” and the inclusion of “short story writer,” but I didn’t come here to bargain like I would over a used car. I had no idea how much resistance I’d meet over a tiny change.JoePeschel (talk)15:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.Painius 17:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You’re welcome.JoePeschel (talk)19:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I won't be doing any more hatting or collapsing or redaction of comments on contributors. Either we will go forward with an RFC, or I will fail the discussion. Will any editor who has a proposed version of the lede that hasn't yet been listed (and isn't the current lede) please list it in the fifth statements by editors? Limit the fifth section of comments to proposed versions of the lede, and nothing else.Robert McClenon (talk)19:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

One editor wrote: "I am willing to accept the results of an RFC, so long as other editors refrain from commenting on persons and that they focus on content. I also would hope that I would have the opportunity to restate my case." Readthe policy on Requests for Comments. Of course you will be able to restate your case. However, an RFC is not moderated. The RFC will be structured with two parts, the Survey for !votes, which are on content, and a section for threaded discussion. The threaded discussion does sometimes involve comments on contributors. It would be better if it didn't, but it isn't moderated, only subject totalk page guidelines, andincivility andpersonal attacks are not permitted, and can be reported toWP:ANI.Robert McClenon (talk)19:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe (/poʊ/; bornEdgar Poe; January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American author, editor, andliterary critic. Poe is best known for his poetry and short stories, particularly his tales ofmystery and themacabre. Widely regarded as a central figure ofRomanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole, he was one of the country's earliest practitioners of the short story. Poe is generally considered the inventor of thedetective fiction genre and is further credited with contributing to the emerging genre of science fiction. He was the first well-known American writer to try to earn a living through writing alone, resulting in a financially difficult life and career.

David, what do you say to a version of your proposal where I substitute "writer" for "author?"

Edgar Allan Poe (/poʊ/; bornEdgar Poe; January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American writer, editor, andliterary critic. Poe is best known for his poetry and short stories, particularly his tales ofmystery and themacabre. Widely regarded as a central figure ofRomanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole, he was one of the country's earliest practitioners of the short story. Poe is generally considered the inventor of thedetective fiction genre and is further credited with contributing to the emerging genre of science fiction.

Is there agreement with the proposed lede byUser:David Levy?Robert McClenon (talk)21:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If David agrees to my modification above of his proposed lede, where I substitute "writer" for "author," I think we might have an agreement.

For everyone's convenience, here's my slight modification of David's proposed lede.

Edgar Allan Poe (/poʊ/; bornEdgar Poe; January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American writer, editor, andliterary critic. Poe is best known for his poetry and short stories, particularly his tales ofmystery and themacabre. Widely regarded as a central figure ofRomanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole, he was one of the country's earliest practitioners of the short story. Poe is generally considered the inventor of thedetective fiction genre and is further credited with contributing to the emerging genre of science fiction.

JoePeschel (talk)22:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If substituting "writer" for "author" in my suggested version will resolve the dispute, I'm more than happy to agree to this. —David Levy22:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Works for me, David. Now, if everyone else concerned agrees….JoePeschel (talk)22:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm still at a loss as to why "writer" is acceptable where "author" is not; however, I also agree.Painius 14:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Paine, an author is the proud & happy fella who’s just published a book and just wants to talk about it; a writer, to slightly misquote Hemingway, “should write what he has to say and not speak about it.” Anyway, if you want, we can swap writer-author anecdotes on my talk page.JoePeschel (talk)15:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

To me, an author is the proud and happy fella who's just published a book that many people buy and take home, which makes the author deeply agonize over whether or not s/he will be able to write another book just as good as the one many people bought and took home. "Writer" is ever a more general term than "author". Poe was a great writer and, more specifically, a great author.Painius 05:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we have agreement on the revised lede? Can this thread be closed?Robert McClenon (talk)17:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert, I think David, Paine, and I have agreed to my tiny revision of David Levy's proposed lede:

Edgar Allan Poe (/poʊ/; bornEdgar Poe; January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American writer, editor, andliterary critic. Poe is best known for his poetry and short stories, particularly his tales ofmystery and themacabre. Widely regarded as a central figure ofRomanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole, he was one of the country's earliest practitioners of the short story. Poe is generally considered the inventor of thedetective fiction genre and is further credited with contributing to the emerging genre of science fiction.

Robert, are Midnightdreary and Deb still participating? Do we wait for them?JoePeschel (talk)18:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm very happy that you've reached a compromise!Deb (talk)19:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Deb, I think we still have to wait for Midnightdreary, but this lede seems good enough to be a model, even a template, for other Wikipedia bios of writers. You’ve done quite a few bios; what do you think?JoePeschel (talk)20:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it's good.Deb (talk)07:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

After 48 hours, I am taking silence as acceptance, and am closing this case as resolved by reaching an agreement.Robert McClenon (talk)15:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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:Wallis Simpson (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Nas gord (talk ·contribs)
• DrKay (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute concerns Wallis Simpson's right to the title 'Royal Highness'. It has been clear for many years that she had the right to use such a title (seehttps://www.academia.edu/17178874/Wallis_Simpson_-_A_real_princess). I tried today to include a link to this work (partly so that someone else might correct the Wikipedia article about Wallis Simpson, which is quite simply wrong on the sunbject). My edit was reversed within 12 minutes by Dr.Kay, with no explanation. This users history of interference in this article leads me to conclude that he wishes, for unknown reasons, to conceal the fact that Wallis Simpson had the right to the title 'Royal Highness'. As it stands the Wikipedia article on Wallis Simpson is factually incorrect and very misleading in this respect. I therefore ask for help in resolving this issue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been discussed before without any success.

How do you think we can help?

Ascertain the facts (which is not that difficult), try to persuade DrKay that he is wrong and correct the article accordingly. I will be grateful if DrKay could restrict himself to arguing the matter on the merits.

The opening party is a sock puppet of an indefinitely blocked user:Milneg (talk ·contribs). Therefore, his edits can be reverted without explanation perWP:BANREVERT. He should be grateful that (1) I permitted him to continue editing elsewhere, (2) did not report him for sock puppetry or spamming his self-published works and (3) was kind enough to provide a justification for the revert in an edit summary.DrKay (talk)18:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

SeeUser talk:86.154.204.73,Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 82#Wallis Simpson,Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wallis Simpson (available to admins only), andRequest for Arbitration.DrKay (talk)18:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As yet, there is no current discussion of this on thetalk page, so I don't see where the effort of the OP to explain, discuss or resolve this issue is manifested prior to coming to this board with a complaint. Nor is it at all agreed, let alone "clear", that the article is inaccurate or inadequate in explaining the issues of the Duchess of Windsor'sstyle (manner of address) -- in fact,quite the contrary.FactStraight (talk)15:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been no discussion of Wallis Simpson'sstyle (manner of address) in recent months on the article talk page, so that this request is premature. There was extended discussion in previous years, but that discussion is stale and not current. I also note that the filing party has not provided notice to the other editor. I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time, but am recommending that it be declined as premature.Robert McClenon (talk)18:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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:Seven seals#Absence of a paragraph relating the 7 Seals to current events .26 there is nowhere to be found an interpretation that considers the 7 seals as a CONTINUOUS event (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Gjirokastra15 (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

I am truly , genuinely , and extensively interested in understanding if i suffer from some form of mental handicap . I have provided a plethora of sources for a 20 word paragraph , which has already taken into consideration /reflected all the objections . The matter has been discussed extensively , yet the verdict is : Absolutely not !!!! It constitutes awp:or . I am genuinely interested in hearing the opinion of other editors .If the verdict is still the same , i promise to never edit again here !! I mean if tragicomedy would have an exact definition this case would be it ( maybe it is my fault ) .

Please note : I am more than open to the idea of adding it under the futuristic views .

This was my edit

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have presented 6 different sources , all of them stating the same exact thing . Yet i am being asked to find 6 different sources that will have the same exact wording , the same number of letters and the same sequence of wording , otherwise it will be labeled aswp:or , orwp:synth . Please bear with the discussion as it will get much more clear towards the end .

How do you think we can help?

Just state your opinion . If i am wrong , so be it . I will abstain from editing again , as i clearly lack the intelligence for it ( even if life has told me otherwise ) . Thank you ! And excuse my frustration .

P.S I have not named any users , because i would prefer if you would comment in the talk page instead .

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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:2015#Same-sex marriage in the US (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Max0987654321 (talk ·contribs)
• DerbyCountyinNZ (talk ·contribs)
• Yerpo (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a disagreement as to whether or not the 2015 decision on same-sex marriage in the United States is notable enough for inclusion on the article for the year 2015. There are strong opinions on both sides.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have debated the issue extensively on the talk page. A request for comment was also opened, but it did not resolve the issue.

How do you think we can help?

One or more dispute resolvers could decide definitively whether or not the decision is notable enough for inclusion, based on the Wikipedia guidelines.

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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:Church of Norway#No consensus (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Erik den yngre (talk ·contribs)
• Per Weo (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

The notion "state church" is controversial in the case of the church of Norway, so I added a "disputed" tag to the specific statement, one other editor keeps removing the tag.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Explaining to the other editor that a disputed-tag can not be removed unilaterally. Rewording the introduction to circumvent the controversial point.

How do you think we can help?

Facilitating process.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, and proper notice has been given. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but it appears to be ready to be accepted.Robert McClenon (talk)01:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer note -User:Per Weo has not edited Wikipedia in a few days. I have asked them whether they are willing to agree to participate in this case, which is voluntary but encouraged.I am willing to act as the moderator if the two parties will agree to discuss. If there is no response in about two days, I will recommend that this case be closed, without prejudice, and possibly reopened later.Robert McClenon (talk)03:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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

• List of Indian cities by GDP per capita (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Samforprospe (talk ·contribs)
• Filpro (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi this is Sam. There has been a dispute related to this page and user Flipro is vandalizing the page frequently without any sources and he is not even ready totalk to make the article right. This user frequently change bangalores per capita to 1380$ from 3963$ (original according to source). This user got warning from other admins due to his habit of vandalizing pages. Please verify information that is shown in page per capita of Indian cities. Bangalore is a city which provides 50% of Karnataka states revenue. Here use Flipro is reverting Bangalores per capita as $1380 rather than $3963.You can verify it by yourself by looking at the Brookings report and the state government reports here. 1380$ is almost equal to 89545 RS that is the Karnatakastate per capita in 2012 financial year. in 2014 financial year the state per capita is 101594 RS. So even the total states per capita is more than 1380$. Bangalore city per capita is much higher than 1380$ that user Flipro is showing. There are many reports that show this. I am adding three of such, one from Bookings and other from the most credible university in India (Manipal university learning) and one from the state government itself. Please verify those and fix the mistakes. Bangalorecities per capita is correctly shown in Bookings report as 3963$ in 2012 figures. All of these shows the correct nominal per capita figures and should be done according to the reports rather than showing wrong information which may misguide the people who are taking it as a credible information.

Please verify the sourses and make necessary corrections.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Multimedia/Interactives/2013/tentraits/Bangalore.pdf

http://planning.kar.nic.in/docs/economic_survery_2014-15/English/9%20Chapter%20State%20Income%20&%20Prices.pdf

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/article535589.ece

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to talk to user Flipro but he is not responding. Shown this to administrator NeilN and he took this to here.

How do you think we can help?

Check the article and sources and come to an conclusion and give the right information.

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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:Al Jaffee#H Jaffee (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Choor monster (talk ·contribs)
• Modernist (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

I included material from a recent biography of famed MAD cartoonist Al Jaffee, mentioning brother Harry Jaffee's mental illness problems. Another editor insists that this be censored, repeatedly replacing "mental illnesses" with "various illnesses", on the grounds that he personally knows family members who disagree.

He refuses to discuss the issue, other than insisting he's right. If you check the article history, his edit comments were useless and misleading.

Since Harry died in 1985, there are no BLP questions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I first went to ANI, since I felt it was more of a behavioral issue (per your instructions) and an admin closed it as belonging here.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#Harry Jaffee's illness

How do you think we can help?

More eyes, mostly, including those willing to help.

Essentially what is stated in the Weisman book is the primary sources opinion; and I am stating that that opinion needs corroboration and that I have personally heard objections to that opinion. I have been told by people close to all involved that there is more to what happened then what is stated in the book. Weisman takes the primary source at his word, however I am stating my objection to that as a reliable source. I'm not bad mouthing anything by the way - these are extremely private matters, and my suggestion is to respect those objections...Modernist (talk)18:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The discussion on the article talk page does not appear to be extensive. I will note thatthe policy on biographies of living persons does apply, because Al Jaffee is a living person. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but am recommending that it be declined as premature.Robert McClenon (talk)16:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment BLP is explicit that it applies to living and recently deceasedpeople, and not to articles as such.Choor monster (talk)16:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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

• Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File talk:Conscription map of the world.svg#Norway (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Roopeluhtala (talk ·contribs)
• MarlinMr (talk ·contribs)
• Huntster (talk ·contribs)
• Hansbaer (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute whether conscription is enforced in Norway. Some users claim that since conscription is mentioned in the norwegian law, it is enforced. However according to sources women or men are not forced into service[1] "As with male conscripts, the change is not expected to force women to serve against their will, but to improve gender balance."

I think that conscription is enforced only if there is punishment for objectors. Currently they only recruit motivated soldiers, basically volunteers, although there is a mild punishment if you are recruited, but do not show up for service. Please read the discussion for further details:[2]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Trying to explain the thing here:[3] and here[4]

How do you think we can help?

I would like to hear other opinions of whether Norway enforces conscription or not. Then we can change the color of Norway on the conscription map to reflect the majority view.

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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:Coffee (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Zekenyan (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

Debate on where coffee was originated. I am suggesting that coffee was orginated in Etihopia Sources have been provided.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed it with involved user

How do you think we can help?

Comments on the matter on where coffee was originated, based on sources provided.

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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:Proportional representation#Edits and Reversions by BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• BalCoder (talk ·contribs)
• Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

Politically partisan disruptive editing ofProportional representation byOntario Teacher BFA BEd to showFirst-past-the-post voting in a better light and to diminish PR and particularlymixed member proportional representation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

WP:ANI which no admin responded to. AWP:POLITICS request for help. AdminUser:Abecedareprotected the article - see tooUser_talk:Abecedare/Archive_21#Experiencing_revert_war_on_Proportional_representation.

How do you think we can help?

Understand enough of the lengthy (but repetitive) Talk page discussion to recognize that User:Ontario is acting in bad faith, and then recommend to an admin that User:Ontario be blocked. There is too much for an admin to wade through alone to make this judgement.

HelloUser:Robert McClenon,I am willing to participate in a dispute resolution.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk)20:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have updated theproportional representation article through sourced edits, and minor edits. I have noted thatmixed member proportional (MPP) is a mixed electoral system,closed list proportional representation does not allow voters to individually select candidates, pure closed list PR does not include delineated districts, and MMP (with a couple rare exceptions) does not produce fully proportional results. Most updates I have made wereMinor Edits such as: spelling and grammar errors, the addition ofWiki-links (for closed, open, and local list PR), formatting that does not change the meaning of a page (such as adding a table based on existing data or creating subtitles for closed, open and local list PR), obvious factual errors (such as updating that Russia uses MMP now instead of PR), and fixing layout errors. All edits I have made were thoroughly sourced. Furthermore, I have also added over 30 sources to thetalk page alone. The only objections to these edits were made byUser:BalCoder.

•  Volunteer note: - Verified that all parties are notified and that there has beenextensive discussion. I will be unable to accept this case as a mediator due to prior involvement that may lead to possible bias as well as thinking that this needs fresh eyes.I am not declining this case. Cheers,Drcrazy102 (talk)13:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - This request was filed four days ago.The non-filing party,User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, has been notified but has not responded. Dispute resolution is voluntary. If the notified editor responds and is willing to take part in discussion, a volunteer will be asked to open the case. If there is no statement byUser:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, this case will have to be closed due to lack of voluntary participation.Robert McClenon (talk)16:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - This case is ripe to be opened. I will note that this noticeboard is solely for discussion of article content and not of complaints about conduct.Robert McClenon (talk)22:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I am opening this case for moderated discussion. I will state a few ground rules. I will check this case at least every 24 hours. I expect every editor to check this case at least every 48 hours. Be civil and concise. (Civility is not optional in Wikipedia, and concise explanations are often quicker and so better than long statements.) Comment on content, not contributors. This noticeboard is restricted to discussion of content issues, not to behavior of editors. Please do not make any substantive edits to the article while this discussion is underway, but discuss them here. Please keep your comments here while this case is open, rather than on the article talk page, so that they can be centralized. Do not reply to each other. That is, do not engage in threaded discussion. (There has already been threaded discussion on the talk page, and it was inconclusive.) Address your comments to the moderator in the section below. I don't have any particular knowledge about this article or about proportional representation except that it is used in countries with multi-member electoral districts rather than with single-member electoral districts. Will each editor begin by stating what they think that the issue is?Robert McClenon (talk)02:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Will each editor begin by stating what they think that the issue is?" I have already stated this in "Dispute overview" above. As to specific article content, the essential problems are:

1, MMP. Para.2 of the lead can hardly be simpler: (paraphrasing) "there are 2 PR systems, a third system is usually also counted as PR". The third system, "mixed member PR" (MMP), Ontario insists is not PR but "mixed", as if it can't be both, a mixed system that produces PR. Of course it is both, as its name implies: "mixed member proportional representation". Ontario has deleted the last of the three solid sources for this, ref.8, probably because it is the most accessible, just one click. He provides nine (!) sources for his carefully contrived but pointless replacement sentence "MMP ... is considered a mixed system, which is a distinct voting system", but none of them says MMP is not proportional. They say only that it is "mixed", which is not in dispute (see question 3 from mySep 21 talk post, his reply, and my response).

2, Party list PR. Ontario is insistent that open and closed list systems do not use electoral districts. For this he has no sources. That I point out onAug.25 that two party list PR systems with districts are already discussed in the article fazes him not a bit. Since Sep.13 he has added in some places the qualifier "pure", which he doesn't explain, citing a source that uses "pure" to indicate a system that uses a single nationwide electoral district. So this statement from his latest "Closed list PR" section: "Pure proportional representation systems such as closed and open list do not use delineated electoral districts" actually means in simple English "PR systems with a single nationwide district have a single nationwide district". It is not about open & closed list systems generally, as the unwary might suppose. PR systems that are not "pure"? Nothing. (See question 1 from mySep 21 talk post, his response, which supplies two further sources for "pure", and my follow up to that response).

3, changes to the structure of the article. Because Ontario insists MMP is not PR he moves it from "PR electoral systems" to a new section "Mixed electoral systems". Inconveniently, there is no WP article on "Mixed electoral systems" for the{{main}} tag so he refers to thesemi-PR article (see also thischange to the MMP article, "current" since Sep.16). That MMP is semi-PR he provides no source (see question 2 of my talk page post ofSep 21). To fill out the section a bit he has pasted some text from three semi-PR systems articles: two are not "mixed" and the third is an alternative name for MMP and already mentioned in the article. He adds no sources. He moves to the "Party list PR" section the existing "biproportional apportionment" and "sortition" sections, neither of which are voting systems, still less party list PR. Part of the lead text from section "Two-tier systems", including a sentence on biproportional apportionment, has been moved to the new "Mixed" section. This is chaos. --BalCoder (talk)10:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I will restate some basic instructions. Please be civil and concise. Please comment on content, not on contributors. The first statement byUser:BalCoder is civil, but it is not concise and it comments both on content and on contributors. If the editors cannot define the scope of the dispute concisely, it may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard, which is for informal light-weight mediation, and may requireformal mediation. Will each editor please state concisely what the issues about the content of the article are?Robert McClenon (talk)18:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I refer again to my "Dispute overview": "Politically partisan disruptive editing" is the most concise statement of the issues I can manage. I was told this is the right place to take this (here,here,here), but if you think otherwise I have nothing against you referring the problem elsewhere.Formal mediation appears to be concerned with content disputes. Forconduct disputes, which this arguably is, his edits are after all opportunistic,formal arbitration would seem to be more appropriate. I have already been to WP:ANI without a response. Perhaps it should be toedit warring: in his short WP career (<3 mths) Ontario has twice been warned for warring, on this and another article:here andhere (which he immediately deleted). It is high time he were permanently blocked, I don't mind how. --BalCoder (talk)12:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:BalCoder states that the issue is politically partisan disruptive editing. Three other editors have advised them that this is a content dispute, and asked them to take it here. BalCoder says, correctly, that RFM is for content disputes, not conduct disputes. This noticeboard is also for content disputes, not conduct disputes. The report atWP:ANI was archived without action because it appeared to be a content dispute. In summary, multiple editors think that this is a content dispute. IfUser:BalCoder continues to present this as a conduct dispute, when everyone else sees it as a content dispute, I will have to close this thread, and the issue can't be resolved. Please either present this concisely as a content dispute to be resolved here, or agree that it is a complex content dispute to take to RFM, or we will have to drop it.Robert McClenon (talk)16:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's concentrate on my point 1 above. The sentence in para.2 of the lead: "...(MMP), a hybrid method that uses party list PR as its proportional component, is also usually considered a distinct PR method." It is supported by three solid sources. Ontario disagrees, insisting MMP is not PR but "mixed". It is of course both "mixed"and proportional, as its name implies: "mixed member proportional representation". Ontario has deleted the last of the three solid sources, and added seven further sources none of which says MMP is not proportional. --BalCoder (talk)11:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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:Catholic Church#Org Template .28infobox.29 (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Zfish118 (talk ·contribs)
• Sundayclose (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

A few days ago, an editor proposed an infobox for theCatholic Church article. I recently moved it to the talkpage, saying there were issues with it, such as a controversial statement thatJesus Christ was the founder, without at a minimum, a citation. This edit was reverted, once by an uninvolved editor who did not see my talk page entry. Another editor has then repeated readded the disputed content, without improving the sources provided.

To his credit, he believes the content was adequately cited elsewhere in the article. However, a few months ago, editors on the Catholic Church page had a relatedlengthy discussion (fixed) about how to neutrally represent the origins of the Catholic Chruch. There was a consensus that all such content must be strictly cited. In enforcing the need for adequate citations, I have been accused of edit warring, page ownership, etc.

• Addenda 1: I do not agree that adding the words "according to Catholic Tradition" to the info resolves the neutrality issue over the founder tag. This part of the issue that we are attempting to resolve in this forum. --Zfish118 (talk)23:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Addenda 2: The discussion I reference in Archive 53 begins at "Section 31: History Section", and ends at approximately at "Section 42: GA Drive". The discussion resulted in an agreement that presenting the doctrinal POV only in the history section was not acceptable, and to introduce independent scholarly material when practical. The most salient point is perhaps a comparison between theoriginal history lead section that was challenged, and thecommunity edited draft that was eventually put in the article. The doctrine was trimmed, clearly marked and cited, and eventually expanded to include several othermainstream viewpoints. --Zfish118 (talk)03:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• Addenda 3: I originally moved the infobox to the talkpage because it contained several problematic entries or errors. Most were minor, such as an inaccurate caption for the image. I noted two issues in particular in on the talkpage several hours before I removed the infobox. Subsequently, I have addressed many of them on the live article, but my concern, from the beginning was a low quality draft on a highly visible article. I became frustrated when Sundayclose and Farsight001 restored the infobox without corrected these errors before they restored the infobox each time. I also felt frustrated when Sundayclose said that the neutrality issue was resolved, when I considered it still active. Farsight001 apparently missed my talkpage entry when he first restored it; I removed it again since that appeared to be a misunderstanding. I then only removed it under dispute three additional times the last time, admittedly, while I was very angry at how I felt my actions were being characterized. I then came here, because I felt over my head. I was only removing content with several factual errors, in addition to the disputed phrasing, that could have been repaired calmly over time in draft space rather than the live article if the info box were wanted. --Zfish118 (talk)04:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• Addenda 4: Clarification of content concern: I believe that the information in the infobox should be limited to historical claims. The only citation in the article citing Jesus Christ as the founder is a Catholic source in lead section describing the Catholic Church as the "one true church" founded by Jesus, which is a doctrinal claim subject to dispute by other Christian groups. In the history section, it is only stated that Jesus founded Christianity, and then doctrinal point from the lead section is repeated (using the same source as the lead.) I do not believe there is sufficient sourcing within the article to support the claim in the infobox that Jesus is the direct historical founder of the Catholic Church, and I do not believe that the qualifier "according to Catholic Tradition" is appropriate there. In the discussion regarding Saint Peter, we eventually agreed that phrasing such as "according to Catholic Tradition" was not appropriate in isolation from other mainstream opinions in the history section. [I am also uncertain whether the statement that the Catholic Church, in particular, originating in 1st Century Judea is explicitly cited anywhere in the article] On this issue, I would like other opinions. I have also expressed concerns about factual errors in the template and other minor issues, but I have corrected most of these, and do not feel they need further discussion here.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?We have tried discussing on the talkpage. There were several misunderstandings, and I have not been communicating my concerns well, exacerbating the situation.

How do you think we can help?

Offer a third party opinion, primary on the appropriateness of the [entry in the infobox "Founder: Jesus Christ (According to Catholic Tradition)", and whether [additional] citations are necessary.

I don't wish to add fuel to the flames of this content dispute and I very much welcome other opinions (as I have pointed out to Zfish several times), but a few details have been omitted. Zfish neglects to point out the "Jesus Christ as founder" was resolved by rephrasing "Jesus Christ, according to Catholic Tradition", which is sourced in the article. All other details in the template also are reliably sourced in the article or in the infobox. He also doesn't point out that two editors, in addition to the original contributor of the template, have restored the template ("repeated readded" is misleading; each of us has restored the template twice) after Zfish's four reverts within 24 hours. Zfish's edit warring is easily identified by looking at the article's edit history. Finally, the archived discussion (incorrectly linked above; it should be[5]) is hardly a consensus about anything. It is primarily two editors briefly disagreeing about the distinction between Catholic beliefs and historical fact; there is no conclusion that something must be "strictly cited". If anything, that discussion points out one of the problems in the current dispute: the template, like the article, is about Catholic belief. Obviously there is lots of dispute about whether the Catholic Church is right or wrong in its beliefs; but the beliefs are well sourced in the article and reflected in the template. By the way, I encouraged Zfish to seek the standard dispute resolution process for Wikipedia rather than continuing to edit war. I would also like to remind him that a third opinion is one step in this process. Whether that opinion supports his position or another one, it does not necessarily reflect any final decision about the template. There can be additional steps in dispute resolution, and I encourage Zfish to pursue those steps if he feels the need rather than continuing to edit war. Thanks to any editors who might share thoughts about this issue.Sundayclose (talk)17:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I have notifiedChicbyaccident (talk ·contribs) (who originally added the template) andFarsight001 (talk ·contribs) (who has restored the template twice) about this case. To my knowledge, they are the only additional editors involved so far.Sundayclose (talk)17:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer's note: I am neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this time, but merely noting that notice and discussion seem to be adequate. We're waiting to see if the responding editor chooses to participate by making an opening summary, above. Best regards,TransporterMan (TALK)17:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

•  Note to participants: - I have fixed the links provided byZfish118 from "external" syntax to "internal" syntax. If other editors involved in this dispute join, could they please add a summary of thecontent dispute. CheersDrcrazy102 (talk)05:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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:Fulgurite#Naively-resolved criticisms masquerading as authority (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Meteoritekid (talk ·contribs)
• Fulguritics (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

This issue began in a facebook group devoted to fulgurites. A member living in a region known for iron and copper production (and large slag deposits) was posting numerous images of what appeared to be slag. It lacked typical features of fulgurites, and only superficially resembled them (it was glassy and vesicular, but that was ~it). Many of his samples were iron-rich and appeared to be typical examples of smelter slag. When queried, he stated that he had sent images of his specimens to a musician and a cosmologist at Princeton, and that these two people had visually verified his samples. Neither of these fields have anything to do with geology, geochemistry, or fulgurites, and neither person is familiar with fulgurites. I queried the musician; he did not respond.

I then found that this person,Fulguritics, had also been posting his images to Wikipedia, stating that they were fulgurites.

I have been collecting meteorites (and, to a lesser degree, other rocks) for the past ~17 years. I am a third-year PhD student in geochemistry at UCLA. My undergrad. was in geology and psychology at Berkeley. I have analyzed many samples of slag, manganese slag, and man-made metals that people have sent in to us for analysis. In short; this fellow's specimens appear to be slag, not fulgurites. I am familiar with different types of fulgurites, impact glasses, etc., and I have not seen one characteristic fulgurite in this man's photos.

His responses usually include quasi-related academic papers intended to support his claims that do not support his claims. We get people like this in meteorites occasionally.

http://www.nbc11news.com/home/headlines/Montrose_collector_says_his_meteorites_arent_make_believe_139265603.html

http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/articles/fake-space-rock-peddler-guilty-on-three-counts/

I didn't care as much when it was on facebook, but finding misleading images on Wikipedia is not good. They should be removed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I don't know what to do. I've discussed this fellow's samples at length with him off-site. He won't listen to reason.

How do you think we can help?

I don't know. If there are any other folks on here who are familiar with fulgurites who could take a look and/or protect the page, it would probably help.

• Volunteer note - As an experienced editor has noted on the talk page, this appears to be a request to compare the quality oforiginal research being done by two editors. One editor has agreed to withdraw this dispute, so I am recommending closure.Robert McClenon (talk)18:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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:Yemeni Civil War (2015)#Russian and North Korean involvement in Yemen (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• FrankieL1985 (talk ·contribs)
• Lycoperdon (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

When I tried to add the articleYemeni Civil War (2015), Lycoperdon thinks it is biased, libelous and poorly written. I wrote in the talk page that those new articles are not biased, libelous and poorly written. I said that Lycoperdon has an imgur account. She also involved with an edit war with me relating to Russia. I suspected that the user I had dispute with is from Russia and involved in the military base on the edits. The last time she edits the article two months ago, she said that "uatoday is notorious for anti-russian sentiment and russophobic propaganda". However, this is not true. UAtoday has some positive views about Russia during the past.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to tell Lycoperdon on the Yemeni Civil War (2015) article that The Huffington Post and International Buisness Times are better and great sources but she didn't reply.

How do you think we can help?

That Russia and North Korea are involved in the war because according to one of the articles a senior Hezboallah official said that Russia is providing weapons to the Houthis." and "Russia began to increasing support to the Houthis." The other states that "North Korea's support is the manifestation of its support for anti-American forces". This is not really poorly written, biased and libelous as a result of these facts.

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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

• Donald Trump (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• null (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi Dispute Team - I am a systems admin who likes to read the news in the morning before my daily tasks - when I want to see the news for the presidential elections coming up I see the Wiki for all the candidates with a respectful photo. For some reason there are persons who are vandalizing Donald Trump's page so that on the internet one sees a photo obviously vandalized from the respectful photo that was there the day before.

I am not a Donald Trump supporter but yet feel there should be fairness in reporting and characterizing people in their own minds is one thing but vandalism shows one is more interested in themselves.

It might be good to place the good photo of Trump back and let people form their opinions on content. Since I see the page is locked this might be an inside job by one of your trusted staff.

Thanks !

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to edit and add a reasonable photo of the person Donald Trump

How do you think we can help?

Place a respectful photo of this person on his Wiki page - there are an abundance of them on the internet. Then run an audit to see who the vandal is.

• Volunteer note - This is a comment before this thread is closed. This doesn't appear to be an actual content dispute, and it doesn't identify any other editors. It isn't clear whether the issue is a question of what picture should be displayed, or of vandalism. If there is vandalism, it can be reported atthe vandalism noticeboard. If there is vandalism by unregistered editors, semi-protection can be requested atrequests for page protection. If there is an issue about what picture should be displayed, that should be discussed on the article talk page,Talk: Donald Trump, where there have been occasional comments, but no extended discussion. If there is extended discussion there, and it is inconclusive, a new thread can be opened here, although aRequest for Comments might be a better way to decide what photograph to use. This doesn't appear to be the sort of content dispute that can be discussed here.Robert McClenon (talk)18:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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:Australian head of state dispute#Inter alia (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Skyring (talk ·contribs)
• Miesianiacal (talk ·contribs)
• Qexigator (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

The question has arisen as to what portion of Governor-General's job consists of representing the Queen.

In addition to being The Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers. In fact, since the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, the only action performed by The Queen under the Constitution is the appointment of the Governor-General, on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister.

Public perceptions have shaped the office, and the public clearly views the Governor-General as representing the Australian people, no longer principally the Queen.(In "Law and Government in Australia" edited by Matthew Groves. p. 55)

There is no doubt that the Governor-General represents the Queen. But is there a counter-view to the two authoritative opinions expressed above? Is there any source that says that the Governor-General does nothing beyond representing the Queen?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page. Rather than provide a source for his view, Mies has suggested DRN as the next step. Fair enough.

How do you think we can help?

We can focus on wiki procedure and the need for reliable sources, as facilitated by an uninvolved and impartial mediator. Any problems and possible solutions should be visible to the third party, where those close to the issue may not appreciate them fully. All we really need is someone to shine a light on a path to resolution.

The dispute has not been accurately presented.

The issue is not the refutation of the two sources above, nor is it proving the governor-general does not have functions other than representing the Queen (nobody has once said he doesn't, only that it's already affirmed the governor-general represents the Queen). The matter is the necessity of proof that the idea of the governor-general having functions other than representing the Queen is more than a theory held by only a few people; is itfringe? Then, secondly, whatrelevance that has to the top paragraph of the 'Background' section atAustralian head of state dispute.

Within that is the question of whether or not the sources above are being interpreted and/or applied correctly. --ĦMIESIANIACAL03:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

First: is the "dispute" principally aboutthe necessity of proof that the idea of the governor-general having functions other than representing the Queen is more than a theory held by only a few people; is it fringe? (per Miesianiacal, 03:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC) above)or aboutthe notion that the entirety of the Governor-General's job consists of representing the Queen rests upon one individual's [Miesianiacal,'s] unique interpretation of a primary source (per Pete, 02:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Proposal for an RfC on representing the Queen.Secondly, is it notself-evident that under the Australian constitution and letters patent "Relating to the Office of Governor-General" (dated 21 August 2008) given by the Queen of Australia under her sign manual and the Great Seal of Australia, that a governor-general undertakes to serve the Queen of Australia (or successor) in a dual capacity, namely,both as representativeandas the person primarily responsible for the exercise of such "powers, functions and authorities" as are ascribed "by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia", not to the Queen of Australia (or successor), but to the office of governor-general,unless there is anything which shows that what is so ascribed to the governor-general is deemed to be ascribed to the monarch as well?Qexigator (talk)07:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

+ But, while the monarch is entitled to stop or reverse actions of the governor-general done solely in the capacity of her representative, and has no other lawful power to stop or reverse a governor-general's actions, save to dismiss him (normally, only on the advice of a minister responsible to parliament), nonetheless the appointment of a governor-general does not deprive the appointing monarch of the position of Australia's "head of state". [User:Qexigator|Qexigator]] (talk)09:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion on the article page recently between four editors (including the filing party and one other listed editor). The filing party needs to list the other two editors and to notify the other three editors. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but it appears that it will be ready to be opened after the editors have been listed and notified.Robert McClenon (talk)00:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

In looking through the discussion, I find editors GoodDay and Qexigator have commented. I am unsure as to whether they are any more than interested observers, but I shall add them to the list and notify all others. --Pete (talk)02:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. It is night time in Canada, so at least two of the others may not be able to respond for a bit. --Pete (talk)02:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The editors have now been listed and notified. (I notified the one editor who had not been notified.) The case is ready to be opened. I am neither declining nor accepting the case, but it is ready to be accepted.Robert McClenon (talk)15:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The three editors werenotified, using the template, but one chose to keep his talk page uncluttered, a practice I heartily endorse. --Pete (talk)18:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I am opening this case for moderated discussion. As an American, I don't have any particular knowledge of the details of the job of the Governor-General of Australia, except that they are appointed by the Queen and that the Prime Minister nominally reports to the Governor-General and actually governs the country. I expect that each party will participate in this discussion at least every 48 hours. I will check on the discussion at least every 24 hours. All parties should be civil and concise. (Civility in Wikipedia is not optional.) Comment on content, not on contributors. Is there an issue about whether the Governor-General has any responsibilities beyond representing the Queen? Will each party state concisely what they think the issues are?Robert McClenon (talk)15:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Question' - Is the real issue a tag, or the content of the article? Since the purpose of tags is to request improvement of the article, we should take whatever action is necessary to improve the article so that no tags are needed.Robert McClenon (talk)23:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

'... the Governor-General is the Queen's representative. No problem there.' per 10:14, 28 October[6] The article is abouthead of state dispute. Whatever s/he does in an official capacity, at any time anywhere, the governor-general's appointment and assumption of office is such that s/he is the Queen of Australia's representative for the duration of the appointment, and nothing in the Constitution deprives the Queen herself of the position of 'head of state.' The 'Background' section of the article's present version states:In practice, the role of head of state in Australia is divided between two people: the monarch and the governor-general. There is more than one set of words to express the same concept, but those words are sufficiently accurate, given the detailed explanation that the article (including inline links) contains, explaining that if for a certain purpose, such as communicating with UN or another outside body, the governor-general is treated as if in the position that a head of state of another country would be, s/he remains, in all capacities without exception, the representative of the Queen of Australia.Qexigator (talk)18:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

+ A "citation needed" tag has been added (03:16, 31 October[7]) to the sentence quoted above in italics. The words have been in the article from its start in January 2011 "with text lifted from Government of Australia"[8]. In the second paragraph wasThe Australian Constitution...does not use the term "head of state". In practice, the role of head of state of Australia is divided between two people, the Queen of Australia and the Governor-General of Australia. The initial comment at the Talk page was: "This is a topic which has long deserved its own article, given the tendency of the topic to impact on other articles."[9] Removing the words would improve the article, and effectively void this DR/N, if not already voided for lack of input by originating editor.Qexigator (talk)09:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not certain there is a dispute left, anymore; it appears to have been resolved at the article talk page. Regardless, until a few days ago, the problem was a lack of sources (and, among the few sources presented, a lack of solid sources) supporting the contention the Governor-General of Australia is somehow more than the Queen's representative. It was also not explained how the governor-general being more than the monarch's representative was relevant when outlining who the two figures involved in the head of state dispute are. My position is that it is not relevant and there aren't enough sources to uphold it, anyway. --ĦMIESIANIACAL21:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there still a dispute, either over wording or over tagging, or can this case be resolved?Robert McClenon (talk)16:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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:Aloysius Stepinac (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Erosonog (talk ·contribs)
• Peacemaker67 (talk ·contribs)

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion on the article talk page, and notice has been provided. This case is ready to be opened by a volunteer moderator ifUser:Peacemaker67 is willing to participate in moderated discussion. I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time.Robert McClenon (talk)22:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Note to participants: To DRN volunteers: -Accepted - I am accepting this case for discussion and, perPeacemaker's concerns above, I will attempt to break down the dispute into its relevant parts to allow for relevant discussion.

Some ground rules that I use when mediating:

1. Maintain focus on the content dispute and do not comment about each other, for clarification of this please see this post on my talk page where I explain that commenting on editors may not breachWP:NPA but is ultimately unhelpful in resolving disputes.
2. Remember to be civil in responding to comments, "if you wouldn't say it when arguing with your grandmother, don't say it here".
3. Pleaseadd the DR/N page to your Watchlistand/orcheck back on this pageat least every 48 hours so that discussion can occur at a reasonable pace, however,I'm not in a rush unless the involved editors are.
4. Please keep your comments concise (e.g. "100 words or less"-type description, not necessarily that short however).
5. Please keep your comments on-point (i.e. "hit the nail on the head", "don't beat around the bush").
6. Please avoid editingAloysius Stepinac in regards to related areas of dispute. Minor copyedits, reverting vandalism, minor edits, etc. is generally acceptable, but don't engage in edit-wars please.
7. Please do not create threaded discussion between each other (i.e. responded to each other's responses). I will attempt to 'digest' what each editor says in their responses and will respond according in each subsequent statement. If I need clarification, it will be threaded underneath but should not be perceived as an invitation to create a discussion; it is only to clarify any ambiguity or request further information/clarification.

I have left a note onTalk:Aloysius Stepinac that there is a current DRN case being discussed and that other involved editors may join the discussion.

Cheers,Drcrazy102 (talk)02:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I am checking that this is the current extent of the dispute which we can work through in a "checklist" fashion.

• Currently open disputes: as of 19/October, 2015 (UTC)

1. Dispute over honorific title and related sentence in lead: "His Eminence Blessed" and/or "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army"
2. Dispute over: addition of quotes to the lead (perceived asWP:UNDUE/WP:POV)
3. Dispute over: Croatian Sentinel quote
4. Dispute over: "significant changes" that relate to:(candiff links please be supplied for thesePeacemaker67 orErosong? Place underneath my statement in this section)

1. "Initial welcome of Croatia, before condemning", discussed on the talkpage atMaterial from Gilbert, Jansen, Kent, etc.
2. Removal ofparagraphs sourced from Stella Alexander
3. "Condemnation of Communist Government" sourced from Bunson in relation to the arrest and trial of Stepinac
4. "Depiction of Stepinac's trial in the West", in relation to the trial being "biased" and seen as a "show trial" instead of "legal trial" by Western audiences.

• Resolved disputes: as of 18/October, 2015 (UTC)

1. Use of Sean Mac Mathuna source, and Manhattan source (result: Not kept, from what I can see)
2. Use of "Criminal Infobox" (result: RfC decided AGAINST use of Criminal Infobox)

If I have missed any current areas of contention, or I have placed a dispute that is still contested as being "resolved", can you please let me know in the sectionbelow, as well as if there is any particular order or items that you wish to discuss and resolve first. Cheers,Drcrazy102 (talk)03:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC); amended 13:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the Croatian Sentinel Quote, I assumed it was resolved due to a lack of discussion for more than a week.

I'm comfortable in dealing with these issues in the order Erosonog prefers. You may have misconstrued a couple, but I'll leave it to Erosonog to confirm what. Cheers,Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)10:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind clarifying which ones I may have made a mistake on? I'll check the talkpage discussion again afterwards after some sleep, and with relatively new eyes. Cheers,Drcrazy102 (talk)11:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure Erosonog would agree that the use of Manhattan and the Croatian Sentinel issues are resolved, but I'll let him advise. Cheers,Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)11:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This andthis are diffs of the "significant changes" which are in dispute, although the issue of {{Infobox criminal}} has been resolved via RfC. It is apparent that the content of the lead/infobox is really where this dispute lies. My position is that we should applyWP:LEAD ie "the lead should define the topic and summarise the body of the article with appropriate weight". It is therefore hard to know what should go in the lead until the body of article has been renovated, sources verified etc, something I am doing now. Advancing a particular view about the content of the lead seems premature to me, as it would certainly be open to being changed when the renovation is complete if it then didn't summarise the article body with appropriate weight. Cheers,Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)13:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not particularly concerned about the order of issues. However, as Peacemaker67 noticed, I do not agree that that the Croatian Sentinel quote has been resolved. I am still of the opinion that it should be kept. On the other issue that was just raised for the first time: should changing the lead of the article be postponed until the body is changed, I do not agree that it should. My edits are mostly in the lead section simply because I never got the chance to continue with the rest of the article.Erosonog (talk)23:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Point, the First: Infobox Title

I am assuming that the list of disputes from above is now accurate of the current "dispute" ( or "dispute range").Erosonog, the lead of an article is based on the content of said article; so if there are disputes about thecontent of an article, then any mentioning of said content in the lead is also disputed. Hence, changes to the lead should be postponed until the article is settled so that it reflects the article's content rather than being a stand-alone paragraph not related to the content. However, I am not saying tonot edit the lead at this time, but to instead avoid making major or controversial edits to the lead that are affected by, or related to, the above "areas of dispute".

I think we are ready to now start discussion about each point. Since neither party has any particular preference, we'll just work through the list as it stands. (I will amend it when we have reached either an agreement or an impasse that will need an RfC to settle.)

So, without further ado, can I please ask you both to tell me why the article should reflect either the "His Eminence Blessed" or "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army"? Please refer to policies, guidelines and/or MOS where applicable but please avoid "throwing them around" as that is unhelpful. In other words:Ensure the policy/guideline/MOS is relevant to the point being made. I would also appreciate reliable sources being cited/referenced with quotations. SeeTemplate:Citation (or the relevant citation template for the type of source, e.g. "Cite book", "Cite web", etc.) for information on creating citations on Wiki^{amended 13:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)}

• Reasons for options of "Point, the First: Infobox Title"

I had two reasons for this change. First, the “Blessed“ title was given to Stepinac by the Pope. The Pope (albeit a different Pope than the one that beatified him) was Stepinac's superior during WWII. Stepinac sent reports to the Pope on the progress of forcible conversions of Serbs to Catholicism^[1] . As such, Pope Pius XII shares Stepinac's guilt. That another Pope would whitewash it by beatifying Stepinac does nothing to exonerate the crimes he was complicit in. To refer to Stepinac as His Blessed Eminence gives impression that Stepinac was indeed “blessed“, holy and an innocent martyr. My second reason for this change was that the “Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army“ was the most important role in his life. He got the title in 1942^[2]and kept it until the bitter end, in the crucial years of his life and the world history. His most important work was done under this title.Erosonog (talk)01:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

In the first instance, I am most concerned about the origin of the title “Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army“. A Google search for just "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar" garners a total of15 results. Of those, we can discount the one published in 1843 and the fiction book by Hunt. There are seven by Avro Manhattan (at least one of which,Vatican imperialism in the twentieth century uses the title "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Croatian Army"), leaving six others, all of which appear to lean heavily on Manhattan, and one of which (by Yelesiyevich) is a hagiography about Ratko Mladic and contains a clear falsehood seen even in snippet view, when it says Stepinac was a member of the Croatian government throughout the war (which he was not). What is incredible is that despite Manhattan mentioning the title in nearly every one of his books, no academic author dealing with Stepinac or the NDH has mentioned it. The second issue I have is with Manhattan himself as a reliable source. I have a series of reviews of Manhattan's books that contain serious questions about assertions he has made in the books without citing evidence to back them up, and he appears to be something of a conspiracy theorist. I'm happy to make the reviews available via email rather than quote them at length here. I am also happy to take the issue of whether Manhattan is areliable source toWP:RSN if that is felt appropriate. Further,Google Books results clearly show Stepinac is better known as either Cardinal or as Archbishop of Zagreb, and perhaps for his subsequent beatification, that is not only clear from the Google Books search, but also by the paucity of sources that use the "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army" title. Cheers,Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)09:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I recently posted a "Resource Request" (see here) for sources that use "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army" as a title for Stepinac. The editor that responded,John M Baker, found a newspaper clipping from the Pennsylvanian "Gazette and Daily" on Aug 5, 1947:here^[3], continuedhere^[4]. To quote the newspaper: "The Archbishop was proven guilty of having ordered the people to fight for the fascist puppet “Independent State of Croatia,” and to have subequently [sic] served in the sabor (parliment) [sic] of the quisling regime andalso accepted the post of supreme apostolic vicar of its army." While this is stated by the source, the editor also said "It looks like the accusation that Stepinac served as the army's supreme apostolic vicar was part of the communist regime's charge against him, so it's probably not a reliable source for the claim that he actually served that role," and I have attempted to find other sources using Google searches of various similar wordings but have found few sources that would pass the muster of theRS noticeboard and thereliable sources policy.The title does not seem to have been in common enough use to warrant inclusion in the lead or the infobox(/es) (or as I call them, "Summary boxes"), though there could be a passing mention that he was referred to as such within the main body of the article. I would suggest using in-line attribution to the "Gazette and Daily" and to Avros Manhattan if doing so. Is this an acceptable compromise for both parties, i.e. not in the lead, but attributed in the main body? Pinging to notify:Erosonog,Peacemaker67. Cheers,Drcrazy102 (talk)02:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC); amended to clarify 03:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Reasons for options of "Point, the First: Infobox Title"

I don't think it should be in the lead or infobox due to its uncertain nature. One of the issues with this is that there wasn't an "Ustashi Army" per se. There was theUstaše Militia, a party militia similar to the Fascist Blackshirts or the Nazi SS, and there was the NDH armed forces proper, theCroatian Home Guard. They were only combined in 1944, when they became theCroatian Armed Forces. Problem is, we don't know which one Manhattan is referring to, as his books refer to both the "Vicar of the Ustashi Army" and the "Vicar of the Croatian Army". I could live with a mention in the "Trial" section of the body as long as it was attributed inline to Manhattan and it mentioned both versions of who he was supposedly the "Vicar" of according to Manhattan. It would be good to know for sure if it was originally drawn from the trial documents, but I'm not aware of a source in English or Serbo-Croat. Cheers,Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)02:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, I am not suggesting inclusion in either the lead nor in the infobox(/es), I am suggesting minor inclusion within the main body of the article with possible in-line attribution to both sources.

I do not have access to Manhattan's sources, so I am unable to comment on which army Manhattan states Stepinac is Vicar of, though I might possibly suggest toErosonog that they possibly photocopy the relevant pages from Manhattan's book/s andemail the PDF's to both of us to view so as to allow context for the source's arguments/information points.^{(Not that I wouldever endorse copyright infringement, but ... you know ... freedom of information?)} Cheers,Drcrazy102 (talk)04:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I can see from the Google Books snippet view that onp. 367 of Manhattan'sVatican imperialism in the twentieth century is says "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Croatian army". Cheers,Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)07:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I refer to my detailed responses regarding the sources Erosonog wishes to usehere.Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)00:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Stepinac was the "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army" and that he was appointed by the Pope is not difficult to confirm. I have already provided these additional sources in previous discussions with Peacemaker67, but here they are again: "The Case of Archbishop Stepinac", Information Officer, Embassy of the Federal Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia, 1947, page 67; "God's Bankers: A History of Money and Power at the Vatican", Gerald Posner, page 87  ; "Encyclopedia of World Biography: 20th Century Supplement", David Eggenberger and J. Heraty, page 356. If you feel the need to see Avro's material, feel free to read page 25, 29, 78:http://revelado.org/thevaticanholocaust.pdf. In addition, Stella Alexander, author of The Triple Myth (called "a sympathetic biography of Stepinac" in the current version of the Stepinac WP article) states the same on page 157. I hope this puts an end on the discussion regarding the veracity of this data. Let's discuss now if the title should be included in the infobox. I think anybody professing a modicum of neutrality here would agree that the Catholic Church and its scholars prefer not to refer to Stepinac as the "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army", given the genocidal nature of said Army. The volume of work referring to Stepinac by any other title (Archbishop, Cardinal, Beatified) hence far exceeds the mentions of "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army". Even when mentioned, doubts are raised if this is even true (as evident in this very discussion). Hence the situation today: the prevailing POV (defined by the number of people cognizant of a fact) is that Stepinac is a beatified cardinal. The question we are grappling with here is: should Wikipedia strive to present the prevailing POV or the neutral POV? Further, the current title in the infobox - "His Eminence Blessed" was conferred upon Stepinac posthumously in 1998 by (yet another) Pope. Arguably, Stepinac did not perform duties of a "Blessed Eminence". He did, however, perform duties of the "Supreme Military Apostolic Vicar of the Ustashi Army" and did so in the crucial years of his life and world history. Which title therefore better illustrates the man? No, I don't agree that the title should not be in the infobox and reduced to a mere passing mention with an inline attribution.Erosonog (talk)23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

HeyErosonog, could I ask if you could please clarify the sources you are citing using the citation template perhaps or by separating them onto separate lines? It is a bit hard to search for them as they currently are. Please also try to include online "snippet view" URLs so that I and others can access them. I understand that not all sources do have online copies but, where possible, it is appreciated. Cheers,Drcrazy102 (talk)09:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

As requested:

"The Case of Archbishop Stepinac"^[5]

"God's Bankers: A History of Money and Power at the Vatican"^[6]

"Encyclopedia of World Biography: 20th Century Supplement"^[7]

If you feel the need to see Avro's material, feel free to read page 25, 29, 78:"The Vatican's Holocaust"^[8].

In addition, Stella Alexander, author of The Triple Myth (called "a sympathetic biography of Stepinac" in the current version of the Stepinac WP article) states the same on page 157^[9]

Erosonog (talk)00:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am currently under some off-wiki pressure and haven't had much time over the last few days to go through the sources. I will be free to devote full attention after the 27th/Oct. My apologies for the delay in response. Cheers,Drcrazy102 (talk)09:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Update - I do not know when I will be able to next respond properly to the Third Round of Editor Statements due to the IRL pressure from before coming back to bite with a vengeance. I may be free in a few days or a few weeks, I simply do not know at this stage. I would like to apologise for the lack of notice on my part. I will be able to spend some time on my phone every day or two to keep abreast of discussion but I will be unable to undertake the intensive research necessary to really help resolve the dispute. I can try if the involved parties wish me to, but I cannot make any concrete promises about not falling out of touch for a few days at a time. I apologise for this and would ask if any volunteers would be able to take over in case of this. Apologies,Drcrazy102 (talk)11:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please respond in this section.Drcrazy102 (talk)

I feel that we have fallen at the first hurdle in what needs to be a series of fairly detailed discussions, and that a series of properly worded RfCs is more likely to resolve the various issues in a more timely and conclusive way. Regards,Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)12:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am withdrawing from this DRN for the reasons given. Thanks toDrcrazy102 for having a crack, but I could have resolved most of this with a few RfCs and a post at RSN by now. Regards,Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)08:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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.

Admins I urge you to take a look at the talk page. This is absurd.Gtrbolivar (talk)01:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Location of dispute

• Talk:Olympiacos Women's Basketball#Problem with WP:RS and WP:NPOV (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• IM-yb (talk ·contribs)
• Gtrbolivar (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

This article (Olympiacos Women's Basketball) has sources only from the fan pages of Olympiacos ([10][11][12]). Αlso the creator of the article (User:Gtrbolivar) removed text based in reliable, published sources (here). I put{{POV}} in the article, I explained the reasons for which I put the{{POV}} and I called theUser:Gtrbolivar from my message in the talk page of the article (here), to restore the text which he deleted it.User:Gtrbolivar delete the{{POV}} from the article (here), without consensus (here).

I didn't remove any text, I made a footnote which includes everything, why use 4 sources to support the same fact? Anyroad, I restored two of them. The other sources I used have nothing to do withWP:NPOV, they were used to support DATES and FACTS and not opinions. This source[13] is based on Greek newspapers of the 50s, referring to the foundation and the early history of the department. If there is another source from elsewhere, I would gladly add it to the article. The most important is that kokkina.gr and gavros.gr ARE NOT FAN PAGES, they are sports/news websites with Olympiacos being their main interest. These sites are run BY JOURNALISTS NOT FANS. It's obvious that they support Olympiacos and they are not objective, but I could say exactly the same thing for websites that claim to be objective, but are in fact being financed by presidents of certain clubs. In any case, I repeat that these sources where used to support FACTS and DATES and not opinions. If someone finds POV elements on 4 lines of an introduction, I rest my case.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I talk to the Wikipedia Administrators noticeboardhere andhere.

How do you think we can help?

From the Administrators noticeboard they referred me here. The actions of Gtrbolivar reveal disrespect. I want a third neutral view to respect the interlocutor and not calling his words "joke".

There is no disrespect, nothing of the sort. The whole thing is a joke, it's something so insignificant and irrelevant that only a user who's tilting at windmills could raise such an issue. In fact, there is no issue.

There is no dispute, there is no issue. The man is tilting at windmills, loud and clear. It's something of no importance, something totally insignificant. This user has obviously nothing more productive to do and he chose to find an imaginary dispute to spend his time on.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page and atWP:ANI. The discussion atWP:ANI was closed as a content dispute to be taken here. Discussion here is voluntary but encouraged. Participants must be civil and concise, and comment on content, not contributors. Are the editors willing to engage in moderated discussion here? If the editors wish to engage in discussion before this case is opened by a volunteer moderator, the article talk page is a better forum.Robert McClenon (talk)17:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer question - Are the two editors willing to engage in moderated discussion? If either of them does not wish to engage in discussion (and one of them says that there is no dispute), this thread will be closed.Robert McClenon (talk)16:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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:White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Outedexits (talk ·contribs)
• ‎Rjensen (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

The article is extremely non neutral and even offensive to WASPs. Just read the lead section. There were a few complaints about the tone in the past as well. See my edit summaries of my article edits too. Also, the sources in the lead are either wrong (not actual refs) or they come from sources that are clearly hateful

Warning: I would remove this whole thing, but since the other user has left a message here, I won't delete his message. I think this could be archived because it isn't a serious dispute and in the end things are going to be just fine. I don't wish to take this discussion any further. I decided to close this,at least temporarily. Cheers,Outedexits (talk)14:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page, but it won't lead nowhere.

How do you think we can help?

By keeping the POV tag there and to find a way to fix the article tone problem. I have checked Rjensen's contributions (even a recent one in the WASP article) and he clearly has an extreme-radical left-wing posture

The article is neutral regarding the reliable sources. As the dictionaries and multiple scholarly RS report, the term is often used in disparaging fashion--very rarely if ever is it a term of praise in RS or in popular writing. I think the article is strictly factual and fully sourced --no WASP has ever complained about it :) There is one "hateful" source (an alternative dictionary) that is quoted to show the depth of hostility and is clearly labelled. Fact is that in American the popular and scholarly literature since the days of Thomas Jefferson is generally hostile to closed groups that supposedly use their power to dominate society. The rich and powerful who monopolize power are not popular--a point made repeatedly by the conservatives at last night's GOP presidential debate. (eg: Fiorina said: "75 percent of the American people think the federal government is corrupt. I agree with them. And this big powerful, corrupt bureaucracy works now only for the big, the powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected." Cruz and Kasich said the same--this is NOT a leftwing viewpoint.) Our job as editors is to cover the RS thoroughly, and not overlook any major viewpoint that has RS behind it. Are there RS that praise the WASPS that have been overlooked?? No one has specified any such RS. As for me personally, I for 45 years have been quite neutral regarding WASPS in my scholarly books and articles.Rjensen (talk)06:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - This case appears to have been incorrectly entered as closed. I am changing its status back to new. There has been discussion on the article talk page. I am neither accepting nor declining this case. Parties are advised to be civil and concise, and to comment only on content, not on contributors.Robert McClenon (talk)16:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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

• David L. Jones (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• ゼーロ (talk ·contribs)
• Tsavage (talk ·contribs)
• Ronz (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

There is much dispute over the content of this article, resulting in edit wars. One editor wants to include a great deal of disputed material that appears to others to be unsuitable. The matter has been discussed at length on the talk page with no resolution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the talk page, tagging the article, attempts to improve it via editing that was then reverted.

How do you think we can help?

It would help to have some outside input on the disputed content and the applicability of WP policy.

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:Fallengrademan#Terence Crawford (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Mac Dreamstate (talk ·contribs)
• Fallengrademan (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Fallengrademan is reverting several of my copyedits on boxing articles (1,2,3), without explanative edit summaries, and refusing to reach a consensus as invited atWikiProject Boxing. Considering that he's only ever given one solitary edit summary in his whole three-year history on WP, this sort of conduct surely cannot be viable if he keeps on reverting my edits—there's just no rhyme or reason for it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have attempted three times to prompt discussion at User:Fallengrademan's talk page, since the amount of articles in dispute is too numerous for individual article talk page discussion. So far no response; only silent reverts. What began with one article (Terence Crawford) has now trickled into others (Andre Ward andGuillermo Rigondeaux); on the latter two I am holding off re-re-reverting for risk of tripping 3RR, but I at least have given a rationale for my edits via both edit summaries and talk page discussion. He has not.

How do you think we can help?

Ask User:Fallengrademan to participate in discussion atWikiProject Boxing, or at least ask him why he believes boxing weight classes should be capitalised when mainstream media—including the WP articles themselves—shows that they are clearly not. Am willing to provide sources to support that format. Also, another of his reverts includes my copyedits to the professional record table. He seems to have an objection to a minor format tweak I've tried to introduce, but fails to explain why. Would like to know what this objection is.

• Volunteer note - There are at least two problems with this filing. First, this dispute doesn't have to do with a single article, but with a style issue having to do with multiple articles. Second, there has not been any discussion in the sense of give-and-take. The filing editor has tried to engage the other editor, but the other editor has not replied, so that there has not been any of the discussion that precedes moderated discussion here. ARequest for Comments can be used to resolve a style issue. Editing against consensus can be addressed atthe edit-warring noticeboard orWP:ANI.Robert McClenon (talk)22:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you suggest RfC as the first route?Mac Dreamstate (talk)22:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It is always preferable to use a content dispute resolution mechanism such as RFC rather than a conduct dispute mechanism.Robert McClenon (talk)23:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Do I place the RfC notice at WikiProject Boxing or one of the three articles (such asAndre Ward) on which User:Fallengrademan has edit warred?Mac Dreamstate (talk)23:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The WikiProject appears to be a more centralized location.Robert McClenon (talk)03:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Done—DR request withdrawn. My appreciation for the pointer.Mac Dreamstate (talk)03:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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 thedispute 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:British Empire#The British Empire a Superpower (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• N0n3up (talk ·contribs)
• Snowded (talk ·contribs)
• Cliftonian (talk ·contribs)
• Wiki-Ed (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

The article isBritish Empire and the question whether it was a "superpower". Snowded constantly reverted the edit but without giving a concrete reason to why. I provided various sources and references to support the statement, yet as things went on, some agreed whereas some disagreed, but the ones who didn't agree didn't provide any references or sources whatsoever. And I suggest there be a compromise (proposed by Snowded) in order to accommodate the consensus and the sources and references. Despite this, Snowded kept reverting the edits despite the compromise. Snowded didn't provide any concrete reason to his view nor sources or references and reverted pretty much all edits in the article and began to threaten and made false accusation towards me. Like I said, I think a compromise is best, mentioning that Britain was a superpower, at least in it's latter stages. He even deleted the fact that the British Empire was a "world power".[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29]. And for more transparency, feel free to look at the discussions:[30][31]

Snowded That's not true, Cliftonian agreed that the British Empire was a superpower. And you evenhad an editor complain of your actions in your talk page. I provided various sources and references yet you keep making random excuses to simply disregard the sources and everything else. Stop trying to say that no one agrees. You even proposed a compromise which you backed out by a sorry excuse of me "messing it up". Cliftonian agreed that The British Empire can be classified as a superpower and so do other sources in which you failed to provide. Btw, I came here asproposed by GoodDay because in case if I have to provide sources, details, etc, for further details rather than to be a simple yes or no. And because this had turned into a dispute since Snowded constantly denies sources and wan't honest about me not having a consensus. (N0n3up (talk)06:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC))

Cliftonian Yeah, I also agree to a compromise. I actually regret and sorry for having included your name here, didn't know it would ping everyone though, specially at this hour. I actually have my eyes burning as I'm writing this. Idk about you, but it's 4:50 here in the east coast. (N0n3up (talk)08:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC))

I also find curious why Snowded reverted the compromise versionhere, when he actually agreed to the compromise, let alone suggest ithere? (N0n3up (talk)09:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC))

This says it all.[32]. He deleted contents even with sources to back it up, while still doesn't provide a single reference for his changes or others. (N0n3up (talk)09:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC))

Snowded I don't deny that I need a mentor and indeed I will look. But this doesn't get to the point, something you've been trying to avoid. This whole thing is about the dispute inBritish Empire, something you failed to address, we need a solution to this problem. Instead of concentrating on me, why don't you take time to solve this dispute first? Your following statement: "We have a single editor advocating a particular position who has not yet engaged fully in the talk page" is false, I've engaged long enough in the talk page with you repeating the same unsupported instead of even trying to concentrate on the actual problem and again, I'm not alone in this view, Cliftonian I mentioned also agreed. (N0n3up (talk)15:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC))

If you look at the more recent discussions in regards to the same problem, notice the change that this dilemma had took in regards of a second topic that continued the discussion, no longer being about the "superpower" wording problem but about changing a small wording. And even though User Robert McClenon closed a part of my discussion for regarding User Snowded claiming: "Comment on content, not contributors", he probably failed to see that Snowded began to comment on me first by bringing up my Block log into this discussion when this was about the British Empire in the first place. (N0n3up (talk)05:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC))

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried seeking different POWs yet there was no concrete agreement. I left a notice on RFC[33] and ANI[34] due to Snowded's behavior but removed it by suggestion to talk it out.

How do you think we can help?

I would like and opinion. Honestly, some agree and some disagree, but the ones that disagree didn't provide any reference at all whereas the sources provided show that the statement is valid and should be left in the top of the article. And since some agree and some disagree, I propose the following compromise by putting this following phrase in the end of the first paragraph: "By the 20th Century the Empire became a modern superpower".

The filing editor has not even bothered with an RFC despite being told about it by three editors. This is a minor editing issue in which the filing editor seems obsessed with a minor change but can not get support from others. It is not appropriate for dispute resolution. Suggestion of a possible compromise for discussion is not authority to make a change, it is an invitation to propose changes on the talk page and get agreement. The filing editorhas form here as well with ablock reversed after having edit warring explained. Add to that three examples of canvassing on this issue together with multiple personal attacks and the community is being pretty tolerant of someone who really seems to have a problem understanding how to focus on content issues and getting agreement on the talk page. ----Snowded^TALK05:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to the idea that a compromise was rejected. I was prepared to countenance a possible change but we saw no concrete proposal on the talk page. Instead N0n3up simply made up his own change and then argued that was an agreed compromise - again editing the article before reaching agreement. That change was really not suitable and there are other editors who have not indicated that they are in agreement with any compromise. So again, N0n3up has to learn to use the talk page rather that edit warring or forum shopping. ----Snowded^TALK09:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Just an opinion, but I don't think this is even near the point where dispute resolution is appropriate. We have a single editor advocating a particular position who has not yet engaged fully in the talk page or though a RfC. What is needed is someone to mentor N0n3up ----Snowded^TALK14:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

N0n3upcontacted me two days ago (on 28 October) to ask my opinion on whether the term "superpower" could be applied to the British Empire. This is not an issue I have strong feelings on, but I still wanted to be helpful, so Igave my opinion on the article talk page that in my opinion the term could be used at least in reference to the Empire during the interwar period. In support of that I mentioned a history book on this topic calledThe British Empire as a Superpower, 1919–39. Snowdedreplied that "it's not a big issue" and "a date limited reference might be a good compromise", to which I replied that Iwould also support such a compromise. I have not taken part in the debate on the talk page since then so feel unable to comment. N0n3up has posted on my talk page a few more times. I haveencouraged him to get more views andagain told him I would favour a compromise based around using the term to refer to the early 20th century. He asked if he could make reference to my opinion on the article talk page and Itold him he could. N0n3up posted again on my talk page after I went offline last night alleging that Snowded had "gone beyond the boundaries of reason". I have not examined the events and so feel unable to comment on that. I continue to favour a compromise where the term "superpower" is used in the interwar/World War II context. —  Cliftonian (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: I would ask the involved editing parties to please be civil towards each other, remember to avoid personal attacks, and commentonly on the content dispute and related processes ofdispute resolution instead of on editors actions and reasonings unless directly related to the content being disputed. "Please do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. If necessary, please continue to discuss on the article talk page." Please heed this.

I am neither accepting nor declining the case. Cheers,Drcrazy102 (talk)10:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

 Verified - All parties have been notified. Cheers,Drcrazy102 (talk)10:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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