Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information) and the bot will archive it soon after. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit.

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Rodney Reed	New	CaptainPrimo (t)	20 days, 10 hours	MrTiger0307 (t)	18 days, 17 hours	CaptainPrimo (t)	18 days, 10 hours
List of Italian inventions and discoveries	New	TriangoloDiTartaglia (t)	14 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	13 hours	TriangoloDiTartaglia (t)	29 minutes
James Bradley (former slave)	New	Deisenbe (t)	3 days, 21 hours	None	n/a	CaroleHenson (t)	9 hours
The Hunt (2020 film)	New	Debresser (t)	2 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 8 hours	You've gone incognito (t)	23 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 09:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Current disputes

Rodney Reed

– This request has been placed on hold.

Filed by CaptainPrimo on 22:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Rodney Reed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CaptainPrimo (talk · contribs)
• Wallyfromdilbert (talk · contribs)
• John2510 (talk · contribs)
• Bueller 007 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A certain user seeks to remove all mention of a convicted rapist and murderer's past criminal history despite it being documented in a Supreme Court document and serving as the basis for his death penalty conviction. He claims this individual is not a public figure despite him being interviewed willingly by Dr. Phil on his tv show and hanging out with celebrities like Kim Kardashian. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to dispute resolution. I agree that Reed's criminal past should be covered because he is a public figure who has received substantial national media coverage, and--importantly--because he thrust himself into the spotlight as a last ditch effort to avoid execution by getting the public to petition his death sentence. One of the petitions to save him has 3 million signatures: [1] He is a "public figure" because he tried to make himself famous and succeeded. There is substantial coverage--in numerous reliable secondary sources--of the additional crimes that this individual has been charged with. In addition, these other charges are directly relevant to Reed's notability, because they are what led to his being charged for murder in the first place, and they are what caused him to be sentenced to death. This material on additional crimes should be admissible as long as the article clearly say "alleged". It is impossible to tell this story in an unbiased manner if the material on his additional charges (especially the alleged rape of the 12-year-old girl for which he was also a DNA match and which was used against him at sentencing resulting in him being sentenced to death) continues to be removed.

I also agree that--although I haven't looked at the page for a while now--there is one obstinate editor who refuses to listen to reason to any argument and just reverts any addition of this material at his/her whim. He/she appears to be wilfully misrepresenting WP:BLPCRIME. The argument is tantamount to saying that the page for Nikolas Cruz should not mention that he has been accused of the shooting because he has not been convicted yet. NO. We are allowed to mention it, as long as we say "alleged", and we have to mention it in order to properly tell the story of how this individual became notable.

However, the Supreme Court documents will generally be inadmissible as sources because they are primary sources. In addition, all of the Supreme Court documents I have seen represent the claims of the prosecution and/or the defense; they do not represent the findings of the Court. The Supreme Court documents should not be used as references in the article. In any case, they are not needed because there has been substantial coverage of this material in reliable secondary sources. To give just one example: [2] Bueller 007 (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue is well-outlined on the article talk page. Fundamentally, there is a clear consensus that the previous accusations against Reed should be included. Further, Reed is a public figure as a result of the case for which he was convicted alone, if not for the many other reasons cited. Lastly, even if he were not a public figure, that would mean only that "editors must seriously consider" whether such information should be mentioned or not. Reed's conviction is the subject of a lot of media and public debate. Omission of these other incidents would deprive readers of available information that they may, or may not, consider significant in weight his guilt or innocence in the case in which he was convicted. WP should err on the side of giving its readers available information, and let them find the truth for themselves. John2510 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It should also be noted that--in order to make it appear that there is less consensus against him than there actually is--Wally repeatedly struck comments from an anonymous IP that was later blocked for being an open proxy. As justification, Wally claimed (without reference) that this was standard practice for banned users. Wally claimed that this individual was banned for being a sockpuppet (false), failed to acknowledge the difference between a ban and a block, and failed to acknowledge a Wikipedia policy document that explicitly says that legitimate users are permitted to use open proxies until the proxy happens to be blocked: WP:PROXY. There are a number of users who believe the material about Reed's additional crimes should be added, and only one who continues to obstinately remove this information. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rodney_Reed

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide guidance on whether this information should be included or not.

Summary of dispute by Wallyfromdilbert

MrTiger0307, this issue should be raised again at BLPN rather than a selective choice of editors at DRN. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Rodney Reed discussion

1st volunteer statement

I have reviewed the case and deem that there has been sufficient discussion of this issue to proceed and I volunteer to mediate it. Before proceeding I would like to make sure all parties involved are willing to conduct a civilized discussion. @CaptainPrimo:, @Wallyfromdilbert:, @John2510:, and @Bueller 007:, are you willing to participate? --MrTiger0307 (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm willing to participate. And the issue that was raised at BLPN now that I've tracked it down, seems to be moot because there's other sources besides the court document that highlight the same details as noted by Bueller. Wally is not even using the argument that was reached at that discussion as his primary argument. He is instead claiming Reed is not a public figure and should be shielded. CaptainPrimo (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, me also, although everything I need to say has already been said a few times on the Rodney Reed Talk page. As has been mentioned on the Talk page, and has CaptainPrimo has described, the original BLPN has often been (mis-)cited to say that the material about Reed's additional crimes cannot be included. However, the BLPN discussion was only about using primary sources. Reed's crimes are discussed in a number of reliable secondary sources. Wally has removed statements from these secondary sources vigorously while citing the irrelevant BLPN discussion. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

2nd volunteer statement

I am placing this request on hold and suggesting that this be taken up again on BLPN. Based on the result of the case there, I will then decide whether or not to continue this case, or, should it be successfully resolved there, I will close this request and mark it either Resolved or Failed depending on the decision there. --MrTiger0307 (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rodney_Reed Discussion started here. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Italian inventions and discoveries

– New discussion.

Filed by TriangoloDiTartaglia on 12:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• List of Italian inventions and discoveries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk · contribs)
• Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

 There are three types of content disputed:

1)Sourced content that is not present in other pages. This seems highly restrictive, preventing new material to be added on Wikipedia by single Users. A lot of sourced material is being removed from the list, the reason being that there isn't a corresponding article on Wikipedia yet. Obviously, the articles creation needs more time and people contributing constructively, which unfortunately is not the case here. 2)Sourced content that allegedly doesn't meet the criteria of an invention or innovation. This is highly subjective. 3)Sources whose textual comprehension is disputed.

Currently, per the literal introduction of the page, all the entries removed starting from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Italian_inventions_and_discoveries&diff=939992605&oldid=939507237 are sourced and I ask for them to be restored. The alphabetical list of Italian inventions could be transformed in a timeline with the help of the community, but not by myself alone. Also, innovations that are not inventions, such as the Galileo's telescope, are either to be restored in a separate alphabetical list or in the same list, whose title "Alphabetical list of Italian Inventions" should then be changed with "Alphabetical list of Inventions or Innovations". Please note that the introduction to the list never claims Italian exclusivity of the items, but, instead, they are objects, processes or techniques invented, "innovated" or discovered, "partially" or entirely, by Italians.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Italian_inventions_and_discoveries#Factual_accuracy_and_adherence_to_WP:SAL_/_WP:LSC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Italian_inventions_and_discoveries#Galileo_Telescope

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

It would be helpful to work with someone willing to have a constructive approach to the page, so that dubious statements can be fixed and the items restored, with a timeline if it is deemed necessary. Further discussion on the talk page is hindered by the aforementioned rationale behind the removal of the material. Also, if a statement is not objective, that statement could be perfected instead of being removed along with the sources and the listed item.

Summary of dispute by Fountains of Bryn Mawr

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I continually explain to TriangoloDiTartaglia that the edits fall within WP:YESPOV and WP:SAL / WP:LSC re: Selection criteria is obvious, don't add items and make claims about them in Wikipedia's voice that are not supported by reliable sources, don't make claims that fork with the item's linked Wikipedia article[3][4].

The WP:LSC seems to be obvious and has not been disputed[5].

It should be noted TriangoloDiTartaglia's edits have been a continuation of a line of contiguous WP:SPA accounts: User:Altes2009, User:In Ratio Veritas, all "Italian centric", sometimes aggressively PUSHing, and even deleting talk they don't like diffdiff.

It should also be noted that removal of dubious claims from this list has been pursued by other editors so this is not just a dispute with me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

List of Italian inventions and discoveries discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note - User:TriangoloDiTartaglia, User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr - Is there a continuing interest in moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Regarding me, there is. If anything else, we can discern original inclusion in the list from factual inaccuracy, so that content that is factually accurate, but is contrasting with other pages, can be included in them too. Some items were corrected, those corrections are fine. I am concerned about the deleted ones.TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

James Bradley (former slave)

– New discussion.

Filed by Deisenbe on 11:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• James Bradley (former slave) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Deisenbe (talk · contribs)
• CaroleHenson (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue has to do with only one specific question: the value of recent (since 1950) newspaper articles on the man the article is about. My position is:

a) there is no source for information on this man's biography before he arrived in Cincinnati, other than his autobiographical statement and reports from contemporaries about what he said to them;

b) no recent article makes a reference to any new source of information; therefore,

c) these articles used by Carole Henson, while secondary, are not to be relied on when they make unsupported statements about this man's life, such as his having spent time in northern Kentucky (this from a source promoting travel in Kentucky), and

d) using the nineteenth-century primary sources, his own statement and direct reports by persons present about what he said, makes for a better, more accurate article.

I'll let CaroleHenson say for herself what her position is.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Bradley_(former_slave)#Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Bradley_(former_slave)#Newspapers_have_to_come_out

Note that on the article's talk page there is talk between myself and CaroleHenson about other issues; this request is for comment on the issue of sources only.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Make a recommendation about whether the primary sources used by me in the article before Carole Henson got involved with it in February (as seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Bradley_(former_slave)&oldid=939446245) should be preferred, as more accurate or reliable, than the magazine articles she has replaced them with.

Summary of dispute by CaroleHenson

The article was nominated for a GA and I summarized this Key points for a second opinion as part of the review (now failed):

I am trying to sort out your key points for a second opinion:

• You believe, especially for the period before he goes to Lane, that "the only source is his own statement".
• If a source provides any information that is not in Bradley's statement, you find that to be false information.
• Regardless of whether a source would be considered a reliable source (newspapers, books) in other instances, if you find that they published something you don't agree with, they are not a reliable source.
• You question even his own statement about being admitted to Lane, because you don't think it's likely that it happened... although I have mentioned above that there are tons of sources including Bradley that say he enrolled there. (I would agree, though, that he wouldn't have been ready to attend the literary or theological departments.)
• The means to me that you think that Bradley's statement is always the right and true source, unless something does not make sense to you. Then, it (and all the other sources that state the same thing) should be ignored.

What you have not said, but I interpret: You removed anything from the lede/intro that did not come directly from Bradley... well, and also information that came from Bradley about his life before Lane.

There was a clarification by Deisenbe about this list: I do not believe that the only source is his own statement. However, before he arrived at Lane, his statement and the comments of his contemporaries (presumably repeating what he told them) are the only sources I know of. Something like his spending time in northern Kentucky on the way to Cincinnati, I don't believe there is a reliable source for that. deisenbe (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC) (reply)

Please also see this discussion about removing all newspaper sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: is right in that I made a regrettable and embarrassing mistake regarding Bradley's admission to Lane. She was right and I was wrong on that point. deisenbe (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Per Deisenbe's comment, I struck out one of the items.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

James Bradley (former slave) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Comment I just realized that the version that Deisenbe provided under the "How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?" section was after I had started working on the article. The version of the article before I got involved is this version.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The Hunt (2020 film)

– New discussion.

Filed by Debresser on 02:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• The Hunt (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Debresser (talk · contribs)
• You've gone incognito (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The genre of this film was changed many times from thriller to horror and back again, since both are well-sourced for this film. The obvious solution would be to mention both, as leaving out either of these primary genres would leave the article lacking. It seems to me that common sense dictates, that where more than one statement is true, both must be mentioned on Wikipedia, and such has been my experience here for over a decade. Several objections have been raised: WP:SEAOFBLUE, which was resolved after these edits; WP:FILMLEAD, which seems to be based on a overly rigid interpretation of that guideline, as though under no circumstance can there be more than one genre in the lead of a film article; WP:SYNTH, which seems a misunderstanding and not applicable. To explain, the proposed edit does not combine "horror" and "thriller" into "horror thriller", rather says clearly that the film has "alternative been described as a horror or thriller film".

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:The_Hunt_(2020_film)#Genre:_horror

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

1. State a neutral opinion on the question in how far does good encyclopedia writing mean we should have both the "thriller" and "horror" genre in this case. 2. State a neutral opinion on whether the relevant guidelines are satisfied by the proposed addition of more than one genre. 3. Remove the personal factor by convincing me that You've gone incognito's opposition to the proposed edit is based on guidelines, rather than on WP:IDONTLIKETHIS, which is the conclusion I have come to based on repeated reverts despite what I consider to be good arguments. Debresser (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by You've gone incognito

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Contrary to OP's statement, the "horror thriller" genre claim is unsourced, lacks consensus, and violates WP:SYNTH: i.e., "If some sources say it's a horror movie and others call it a thriller, then it must be a horror thriller." Truth is sources are not really sure as to the exact genre, which is why I had to put up that note on Feb 14 to prevent more edit wars from occurring (diff). OP may have attempted to discuss the edit in the talk but there was no consensus at all, just a bunch of subjective opinions tossed in. (He must think that babbling in the talk is equivalent to building consensus when it's not.) You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The Hunt (2020 film) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note - If there is a question for which a Third Opinion would be useful, one can be requested at the Third Opinion noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion is not relevant, since there are more than two parties who took part in the discussion on the talkpage. Naaman Brown agrees with my edit, while Erik seems to be opposing it, at least mildly. Kailash29792 also expressed his disagreement on his talkpage. Neither are edit warring about it, though. If you please, they can be asked to comment here as well. Debresser (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Comment - Is there any question about whether a film can be listed as having two genres? I don't see a policy or guideline against that. I have not reviewed whether either or both genres are substantiated from the sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Some, not me, seem to disagree with what you say regarding listing two genres for a film in the lead section. That is something that mediation should address, perhaps. Debresser (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The inclusion of two genres is fine as long as the vast majority of reliable sources classify the movie under that. In the article's case, sources disagree with the "horror thriller" genre since many have called it differently: "action thriller", "political thriller", "satirical thriller", et cetera; hence the note in the opening sentence. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)