Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 45

Opening comments by Rjensen

Opening comments by Hot Stop

2008 Presidential Election talk page discussion

The discussion on the talk page (Talk:United States presidential election, 2008) began just yesterday. It's a bit too early for DRN.--SGCM (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Darn. Jayday617 (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by naturalistic

There is currently an attempt in the article's talk page Talk:Naturalistic_pantheism sectioon Mediation, to resolve this dispute and try to find a mode of proceeding that gets beyond endless edit wars, including at least one senior editor and other editors. Allisgod has not contributed to the attempt at mediation there and instead has come straight to DRN. Personall I want this edit war to end and to find non-conflictual ways of proceeding and have tried to achieve this many times but have always been rebuffed by Allisgod.
BACKGROUND: This referral to DRN is part of a campaign Allisgod has been waging across the three main articles on Pantheism, Classical Pantheism and Naturalistic Pantheism to push his own personally preferred version of Pantheism, heavily focused on determinism, Classical Pantheism and repetitive mentions of Spinoza. His behavior has been egregious, including endless personal insults against me and refusals of all requests for a more agreed approach between us.
Part of Allisgod's campaign is to remove and eradicate all mentions of Naturalistic Pantheism. This term has been around for at least 120 years. Allisgod removed it from the main Pantheism article. He attempted to get the whole Naturalistic Pantheism article deleted in AfD. Since that resulted in a speedy keep decision, he shifted his strategy to distorting the article so that Naturalistic Pantheism appears to be more or less exactly like his favorite, Classical Pantheism, including irrelevant mentions of determinism.
He has repeatedly deleted the entirety of a History section which is now very well sourced indeed.
His characterization above is utterly inaccurate in many respects.
His description above of the meaning of the term is inaccurate. There are 1810 books using the phrase "Naturalistic Pantheism" in a Google Books search. Only 363 (20%) of these include the word Spinoza so it is false to state that use of the term "mostly refers to Spinoza." Only 66 of them (3.5%) include the word "Tillich". His summary of Tillich's use is inaccurate - Tillich chose that particular term to distinguish it from idealistic pantheism, not because it was deterministic.
There are NO references to my book Elements of Pantheism. All sources cited are scholarly ones. There was an inapprioriately long section of the World Pantheist Movement - which was not inserted by me in the first place - which has now been shortened to a single line.
The version of 00:16 September 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naturalistic_pantheism&oldid=510197990 is comprehensive and accurate and well sourced. Editing should proceed in a cooperative way with the help of senior editors on the Talk page.

Naturalistic pantheism discussion

• Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. This dispute was already discussed extensively earlier in the month - we saw the remaining issues to be to gather reliable sources. Have you both worked on doing that - I think the next step here if assistance is required is to file a request for formal mediation - I can help with the paperwork if required. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 20:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I helped at the prior DRN, and subsequently I edited the pantheism article to improve its sourcing. This is a case of an article with only two editors, and they don't see eye-to-eye. User Allisgod, generally, has an approach that is broader and more objective. User Naturalistic is very knowledgeable about pantheism, but has a bit of conflict of interest because they are a leader of a modern pantheistic movement. User Naturalistic tends to add more material about the modern aspects of pantheism, and tends to show a bit of undue emphasis on the interpretations and views of his own modern viewpoint. User Allisgod emphasizes the more "old fashioned" aspects of pantheism. As with many religious concepts, there is no single definition of "naturalistic pantheism", but the sources do use the term quite a bit, to mean various things. The essence of the dispute is figuring out how much emphasis to give to the various interpretations of the term. Both parties are rational and willing to engage. The parties used to spend a lot of time on ad hominem attacks, but I think they are now starting to focus more on content and sourcing, which is a good thing. Formal mediation may be a good path forward; or a DRN volunteer could try to mediate. --Noleander (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and filed a mediation request. I think this thread can be closed in a few hours. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Was the mediation accepted yet? Electric Catfish 14:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It needs a summary of the content dispute.--SGCM (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for Steve to close this. Electric Catfish 17:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Noleander to write the summary, as he's familiar with the dispute. Once (or if) the mediation request is accepted, the DRN case can be closed.--SGCM (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am in favor of genuinely neutral mediation. I was rather unhappy with the last attempt at dispute resolution over Pantheism, since it did not produce or even attempt any resolution between the parties but rather resulted in a judgment/direct involvement by a senior editor, which in my opinion was not what dispute resolution is supposed to do. In fact it emboldened Allisgod to mould the entire article to his preferences. I have avoided involvement since that time but will resume editing there soon.
However, there are now three diverse competing attempts at mediation about the Naturalistic Pantheism article. The first one started in Talk: Naturalistic Pantheism on August 31 following involvement by editor User: Dennis_Brown who offered his help. Instead of taking part in this User: Allisgod on September 1 lodged a request in Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Naturalistic_pantheism for dispute resolution, asking not for dispute resolution but for an editor to help with sources. On September 2 User:Steven Zhang lodged a proposal for mediation at Requests_for_mediation/Naturalistic_pantheism.
Since these three would certainly repeat material three times over, and possibly result in confused on conflicting results, I think we should be mediating in a single place, not in three places. I am not familiar with Wikipedia policies about which place takes precedence.--Naturalistic (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

What do we do now? Where do we post? Here or Mediation or Talk: Naturalistic Pantheism?--Naturalistic (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Once the dispute is accepted by the Mediation Committee, the discussed will be deferred there.--SGCM (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Contaldo80

The article cites sources that talk about the claims that Martin made in his written works - among them that Pope John XXIII was a freemason and that the Biblical anti-Christ was born in 1965. I think the lead should simply point to the fact that Martin made such unsubstantiated claims, and was thus controversial. I have asked other editors to point towards evidence that clarifies where those claims have actually ever been substantiated. The editor has failed to engage meaningfully in discussion and accuses me of bias.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Malachi Martin Article discussion

The other party seems to be able to discuss it on the talk page, and your section should get more discussion before coming here. I'll close it in a couple of hours. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 13:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Swifty

Okay first and for most Star and the IP both need to stop bashing me and accusing me of things. Two when Star first came to me about the Succession boxes, yes I told him to go to the talk page about it and he dropped the subject and didn't say another word about it. I think it's messed up to bring it up two days later when most editors would assume it dropped and dead. Stars actions would be considered by any third party as inappropriate and disruptive were they in my shoes and the name calling Star did was unprovoked and he went outside Toa's comment of take it to the talk page and went elsewhere to get his way. Now had I done everything Star has done in the past two days I'd been blocked from Wikipedia. I do not think my comment of him taking his editing else where was out of line or wrong because Star has not shown me that he is doing anything constructive to the page, in fact it is the opposite. So what would anyone else have done?

As far as the issues at hand well to me the one about the chart issue is resolved as neither Toa, myself, nor Status, another editor on the page, agree with Star on that and pretty much that's a three-way consensus there. The succession boxes. I'm not getting into it I think it was wrong of Star to drop it then bring it up again two days later that is that. Also I ask that any comments towards me that I find rude and offensive be stricken from here cause I am sick of trying to do right in the Wikicommunity to be the only one in trouble cause had it been me and I was doing the things Stars been doing with the name calling and disruption on the talk page, I'd been blocked from editing, new user or not. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 16:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure why I'm being brought into this; I just wanted to say for the record that I believe Star has some valid points and I agree with them completely. Statυs (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Toa Nidhiki05

The primary concern on this topic is Star's vendetta against succession boxes - a failed RfC from two years ago isn't strong enough to enforce here. His allegation that I am a 'fanboy' is both incorrect and derogatory, as the term essentially implies I am editing to embellish the article. That is a bit of an odd idea as a succession box is simply a factual list of the song/album that preceded and succeeded the article's topic from the top spot. I'm more than willing to discuss this and was open to changing the first issue (unsourced peaks) if consensus supported it, but sockpuppets (if the IP is indeed one) and false demeaning allegations aren't the way to go. Toa Nidhiki05 23:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars

I made 7 edits in total to the article, 4 of which were double reverts of the issues in question, so really we're just talking about two edits I did that provoked a "stand down" order by Swifty: 1) the removal of the succession boxes and 2) reverting another's edits that made changes without updating sources. That edit was in violation of WP:V and I feel my revert was valid and is not worthy of further discussion. As the core policy states, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I was accused of being lazy for not fixing the citation myself. As for the succession boxes, per WP:CONS, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus"; therefore, I argue that there was no consensus to have them added into the article since I reverted the edit. At that point, I would expect the person who added it to accept my revert or take it to the talk page. My edit was reverted and I was told by Swifty that I'm the one who should take it to the page. I believe there are ownership issues here, since Swifty will keep something he likes to be added without consensus (and revert if challenged), yet if one makes an edit he doesn't like and it's an automatic revert. It was this concern that led me to take the verification issue to a neutral talk page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Mr. IP identified the specific edit in question. The RFC took place a year and a half ago here. Sourcing problems, links to songs unrelated to the article, significance of the "succession" of number 1s, undue weight and its appearance/clunkiness are some of the issues raised. An early edit of mine in my "vendetta" was for Bleeding Love here. This is what it looked like before and shows why people thought they were getting out of hand. The main concern I have by having them in this article, because they are intended to act as a succession, they should navigate from one number-one song to the next, so others may want to add them to those other songs and keep going. I just want to know what purpose do they serve being in this one article only. If a true consensus can be achieved to keep them in this article, I will politely concede. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Swifty is under the false impression that I dropped the issue of succession boxes and came back to it two days later. The fact is a second, more concerning issue arose when another editor changed chart information without providing an updated source to verify it. I focused on this core violation issue first, with both Swifty and Tao reverting the edits I did even though I was trying to keep the sources accurate. While invited to take it to the talk page, I brought it up for discussion at WT:CHARTS because I seemed to be dealing with two editors who thought ignoring WP:V was the right thing to do. Once I got that discussion started, I returned the lesser of the issues. I didn't try removing the succession boxes again but started the discussion on the talk page as invited to do.

Regarding the use of succession boxes in music articles and what's happened since the RFC in January 2011. The split opinion was primarily between editors of country music articles and editors of more mainstream pop hits. There was concern over the growing influx and never-ending addition of more and more succession boxes on articles of songs and albums by Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Britney Spears, etc. They would top many charts and people wanted to see every one included that to many this was just getting out of hand. So you will notice that since January 2011, no songs/albums reaching number one on non-country music charts have succession boxes, while songs/albums reaching number one on country music charts do. I believe editors with the opposing viewpoints on the use of succession boxes have reached an implicit consensus ("Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."). When a country music song does crossover to mainstream and, say, reaches number one on a more mainstream or all-genre chart AND a country chart, the country succession has remained but no others. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC) <trimmed by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)>

The comment above is over the 2000 character limit (with 2169 characters). Could you please trim it? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Adam mugliston

I saw a help request by Swifty on User:Worm That Turned's talk page and decided to have a look myself. I also warned User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars about his behaviour and then got back to Swifty, agreeing with his idea of reporting Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars to ANI, should the user in question repeat his behaviour.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  07:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by 66.168.247.159

• Well, since I'm listed here, I'll say a few words. How this conflict came about isn't all that exciting, contrary to popular opinion. Barring a conclusive RfC (which perhaps should be revisited) it's simple consensus on the talk page that should resolve a simple dispute over a succession box. I agree, roughly, with Staretc. on the narrative and therefore on the justification of their edits, but more importantly I think that those types of succession boxes (which could hypothetically be added to cover every single chart position in every single country) are ugly clutter. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Noleander, see this edit--at least, that's what I'm talking about: boxes for New Zealand, Canada, and Billboard, but not for, for instance, Uzbekistan, the UK, France, England, Australia, the Gulag... 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• @Worm, that's not very nice. My argument is that selecting three succession boxes with no other rationale (as far as I can discern) than "they exist" (and the others, maybe, don't) makes little sense (it seems random to me), especially if those succession boxes clutter up an article--they aren't attractive, and throw an already unattractive section in visual disarray. I think that's an argument: I'm not criticizing the tone of the writing, but the visual quality of the article, and that is a valid concern. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved Worm That Turned

Hey folks. DRN chaps and chapettes, if I'm commenting out of turn or in the wrong section, please do feel free to move or remove my comments. I'm not exactly involved, but I am Swifty's mentor, so I do have a hat on the edge of the ring. There appears to be a couple of content issues at the heart of this, firstly regarding the chart placing - if a single has charted at a different position than reported by the one source used in the {{singlechart}} template, do we hold incorrect information on the encyclopedia or information which is contradictory to the source. The annoying thing about the situation is that both positions are incorrect and both would be fixed given time.

The other content issue is referring to "succession boxes" and whether they should be included in musical articles. They are used in television episodes, which makes sense as an episode my perpetuate a story from a previous episode. They are used in political offices, to help follow who carried on the work. Is there any point to them on song articles? Well, there was an RfC over 18 months ago, where there was no consensus to add or remove them. As there is no global consensus, a local consensus should count, but it's 2 vs 2, with the arguments from both sides sitting in the bottom half of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg Worm^TT(talk) 09:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Further, I've commented on the talk page that I'm willing to take the conduct dispute in hand if the excellent volunteers here can look at the content dispute. Worm^TT(talk) 09:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together discussion

Hello everyone, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I've collapsed the discussion above, as the above sections aren't meant to be used for discussion. Rather, you should use your own section to calmly and neutrally outline your perspective on the dispute. Once you've done all done that, we can get on with starting dispute resolution proper. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about the process here. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Mr., but I've spoken my peace. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, let's wait for opening comments before starting the discussion. It's not Twitter. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Request - Could some of the parties please update their opening statements to elaborate on the "succession box" issue? That appears to be a content-based issue that is appropriate for DRN. Is the problem the succession info at the bottom of the article? or in the InfoBox? Or both? Are there any other content issues? --Noleander (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Parties are now welcome to start discussion. I would also request to clarify, whether the problem is only with the way the discussion about "succession box" was held (conduct issue) or also with the appropriateness of the box (content issue)? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The opening comments refer mainly to the conduct dispute, but there does appear to be a content dispute (or multiple content disputes, as Worm has suggested) entangled with it. Perhaps we should restart the DRN case with a fresh one, and request that all parties focus solely on the content dispute and halt any continued discussion over the conduct one? Conduct disputes should be directed to ANI, not DRN.--SGCM (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a DRN volunteer and I will be co-mediating this dispute. Also, uninvolved comments are always welcome, but I have adjusted the headers of the uninvolved comments. Electric Catfish 13:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(Comic relief:) I would just like to point out the irony of the title of the article. Maybe the parties to this dispute will someday Get Back Together. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Question to parties: why is this "succession box" needed? What purpose does it serve? Please, try to be brief. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The purpose is to navigation between number one singles on a specific chart. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars stated that it is useless in the article when the other articles they are linked to (the other number ones) do not contain succession boxes, so therefore, there is no navigation and the box is dead weight. Hope that answered your question. (I am sort of involved in this.) Statυs (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In other words, it is used as navigation template? Why is it not at the bottom of the page then? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Beats me. It was something that caught on as a "fad" (I guess) years ago and very little people still use them in articles. There's been attempts to try to get them gone altogether. Statυs (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW navigation templates are supposed to aid navigation. In this particular case this purpose is achieved with the links to lists (the second link in the middle cell of the table of this template). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Some agruments for putting the succession boxes within the "Charts" section point to WP:SBS, where it says they should be "placed at the bottom of their respective articles (or sections where applicable)", but based on this discussion the intent was for bottom of the section for each version of a song when multiple versions went to number one such as The Power of Love (Jennifer Rush song). The navigation to lists in which the song/album went to number one was resolved with a "see also" section as seen in articles such as Born This Way (song). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Kelly Marie 0812

I am new to disputes and guess the points I made on the talk page will be referenced?

• My main point is that this article reflects the cast and actors and not the characters. While the characters have not appeared on screen yet, the casting negotiations have taken place and are being reported by reliable third-party sources. The sources state that a casting negotiation has taken place. That event has occurred and therefore is not speculation. Individual actor pages state and source these type of events.
• While I admit this is a section where speculative sources might easily be mistakenly referenced, there is not cause to remove the full section(s), only speculative sources.
• If it was decided that these events were somewhat speculation, my points on the previous talk page quote the crystal ball rule and various responses that explain the sources are not libelous or cause undue bias. They do not violate the crystal ball rule nor are they advertisements. I can continue with more detail if needed.

Thank you! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Musicfreak7676

The fact that soap articles are continuing to be targeted by editors because of the work us editors do is beyond my comprehension. The pages have been in working order for several years and it isn't until now that an editor is wanting to seem to change them. Admins have never seemed to have had an issue before with how the pages have been run. And the fact that only US soap articles are being targeted seems to be a bit suspicious under my eye. I fail to see how the section violates WP:CRYSTALBALL in that they are not added onto the cast lists until the episode(s) in question have aired on-screen. And the comments made per my fellow editor Kelly Marie I echo whole heartedly. And this issue should be brought into the whole WP:SOAPS]] community, and not call out two specific editors. That seems a bit WP:PERSONAL to me. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 17:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

List of General Hospital cast members discussion

I've looked at the article, sources and positions. Honestly I think the complaints have been addressed pretty well by Kelly Marie and Musicfreak in the previous threads. Basically I think the problem boils down to an opinion about what should be included in Wikipedia, in short: Notability. If this were tracking something seemingly more notable than TV soap operas, we probably wouldn't be having the discussion. Hurricanes for example, data is being added and deleted all the time, on an hourly basis, much less once a year. I can't speak to the notability of soap operas in general, but overall the sources seem solid and comply with Verifiability. I see no reason to delete it. I do agree that renaming the section to 'cast changes' is more neutral and looks less like fan magazine stuff than "comings and goings". Green Cardamom (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "upcoming cast changes"? Or for something less CRYSTALBALLy, "scheduled cast changes"?--SGCM (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

leaving aside the completely baseless arguments of "its always been there" "no admins have removed it".

the "everyone from the SOAPS should be involved" is also pretty baseless - the discussion has been on the SOAPS page for over a week and you two are the only ones who showed any interest in maintaining the section.

i am not sure if i buy the "everybody else is doin' it" as a rationale, and re the hurricane updates, there are a couple of significant differences: 1) for a hurricane, the up to the minute updates can have a real world impact - if for some reason someone is using wikipedia rather than the weather channel 2) there is zero commercial promotional aspect to keeping up to the minute on a hurricane, while that is the primary effect of "reporting" on upcoming events on soaps.

if we are going on the basis that its not an upcoming event because the actors have signed the contracts to appear, then they are simply cast members and the dates indicated with the other cast member dates. calling out in a special section is simply duplicative. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I found the argument made by Kelly Marie 0812 on the WikiProject talk page rather convincing. I've copied it here as a reference:

Basically, her argument is that the information is verifiable, neutral, and supported by reliable sources, and thus CRYSTAL doesn't apply.--SGCM (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

And as for WP:ADVERT, the commercial aspect of future cast changes is negligible. The only readers who will stumble on the cast changes are those already interested in reading the list of soap characters page, so it's not exactly promotional. Fancrufty, maybe, but not promotional.--SGCM (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not particularly optimistic about WP:CRYSTAL: reports on cast changes that have not influenced the series yet are rumors and speculations, and should not be reported unless they are notable on their own. In the lesser degree the same idea is expressed in WP:NOT#NEWS. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL allows for verifiable future events. The casting changes that are listed as TBD may need to be removed, because the dates are not definite. I also feel that WP:NOT#NEWS is the stronger argument in this case, more so than WP:ADVERT.--SGCM (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is not the only filter WP:CRYSTAL imposes on future events. The one that this article fails is "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." That said, applicability of WP:CRYSTAL is questionable, as it mainly discusses articles on future events, not sections. WP:NOT#NEWS is more general on this. Our policies are actually too vague on this division, so one's perception of "subject" is the main question of whether anything from WP:NOT applies to sections and parts of the article.

That said, I would like to note that the cast changes for the not yet aired episodes are subjects of tabloid, or at best of focused press, but definitely not of encyclopedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Cast changes with a scheduled date no longer qualify as speculation/rumor. The TBD cast changes may need to be removed. WP:NOT#NEWS is the strongest argument for removing the section, but I'll wait to see how the other involved users respond. The best compromise might be what TheRedPenofDoom suggested, of directly including the verifiable future cast changes as a part of the larger cast list.--SGCM (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that speculation with date is not speculation. The contracts are signed and torn, and until the episode is aired, the relevance of new cast member to encyclopedic coverage of series is negligible at best. As I see it, that is an underlying idea of WP:CRYSTAL. See WP:FLAT for the same problem in the context of scientific research. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

When the date of an event has been established (like the appearance of a new cast member) and preparations for it have started, it's no longer speculation, at least in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Anymore than the United States presidential election, 2012 or 2016 Summer Olympics is speculation.--SGCM (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I really think having the "upcoming cast changes" section is the solution to housing actors that have signed/not signed contracts until their official appearance. If necessary, how do we go about opening an official discussion on WP:SOAPS and notifying individual members of the project, per Noleander's suggestion? I'm happy to help but unfamiliar with the process. Is there a templated message I could leave on members talk pages after someone starts the discussion? Does an admin need to start it? Unless it can be decided based off this discussion and not drawn out further. Thanks for everyone's help. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

How active is the Wikiproject? If the members frequent the talk page, then it may not be necessary to notify the members.--SGCM (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure as I've only been part of it myself for a couple of weeks. Coming to a resolution here would be easiest but if needed I think alerting some of the members who might not watch the talk page could garner some more opinions. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

@SGCM: the difference between "elections" articles and this one in the fact that "elections" are focused on information that already has effect IRL, which is not the case with future cast rotations. FWIW I think that soliciting WikiProject in this case is not exactly a right thing to do, as people who chose to devote their spare time to improving coverage of soap operas probably would be more in favor of inclusion of any information about soap operas then any other Wikipedians. Though I hate RfCs with their "scorched earth" effect, in this particular case it may be the right tool to probe for WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT#NEWS opinions. Thus I propose to close this case and to start an RfC on the talk page. I could take care of neutral representation of the issue, be my proposal endorsed.

@Kelly Marie 0812: IMO "Upcoming cast changes" subsection of "Cast" section is a right way to go if this information is considered worth inclusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Per the below comments, it wouldn't be right to single the GH cast page out for a discussion on its talk page, as there is a similar page and section for most soaps. User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom originally brought up the issue on WP:SOAPS regarding List_of_The_Young_and_the_Restless_cast_members; I am not sure why they changed it to the GH page when bringing it here. I think the decision needs to be made here or on a project talk page such as WP:SOAPS or WP:TELEVISION, where the issue as a whole can be decided. As to the elections and real life reference, I think that's more of an opinion as to what's important rather than fact vs. non-fact. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If put that way, probably a better place for RfC would be WT:NOT with WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and/or WP:NOT#NEWS clarified according to findings in RfC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - This DRN case impacts several articles within a project, not just one article. Therefore I recommend that WP soap opera project take responsibility for this issue. They are an old project with, apparently, 44 active members and 3,700 articles. This DRN case only has 3 parties. The soap opera Project knows the material best, knows the sources. Granted, there was a brief discussion on the project talk page ... but it started only 10 days ago and only involved a few project members. I recommend that an RfC be initiated on the project talk page, that the project members be explicitly notified, and try to get a consensus on this by the project members themselves. If, after a month, the full soap opera project cannot get consensus, then a DRN case would be a good recourse. --Noleander (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. Notifying individual members of WP:SOAPS is a good idea, as not many have seen or responded to the issue on the project talk page. Per removing the section as a compromise, I believe having the section actually helps the issue and avoid individual arguments by having a place for actors who have officially signed on/off but are not seen on-screen to be included in the credits yet. I believe most arguments for removing the section would be valid if these pages were centered on the characters (of which there are many other list pages that do so), however these pages are specifically for the cast/actors. It's my opinion that even if the show hasn't scheduled an official air date, as long as the reliable source reports the actor has signed a contract, etc, it's worthy of inclusion on this type of page. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, to add, don't ALL Wikipedia articles somehow violate WP:CRYSTALBALL? Saying a person is expecting a child on a biographical page, in reality, does mean that it's crystalballing the birth of the child — impending the child's actual birth. You know what I mean? Saying "X Actor" exits/returns/debuts/guest stars on "Y Date" is simply stating what is going to happen, but has not yet happened. And Noleander is right, it affects more than just one soap opera. It affects every, single show protected underneath the project. And therefore shouldn't be specified to General Hospital. (Sorry for late response – been a tad busy with work). Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 18:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

that there are violations of crystal balling, trivia and BLP in other articles, does not present a sound argument for allowing additional non-compliance. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC?

It seems that the situation requires wider community input. So far two places to conduct WP:RfC were proposed:

• WT:WikiProject Soap Operas
• WT:What Wikipedia is not

On one hand, WikiProject members are more knowledgeable on topic and may be more prepared to deal with issue. On the other hand, the question is about application of several rules of WP:NOT, so probably WP:NOT talk page could help to resolve the issue with greater degree of consistency with the rest of Wikipedia. One may also think that people investing their time to improve soap operas' coverage are more inclined (or even biased towards) including more information about soap operas then other editors would find necessary. So, where should the RfC be posted? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOT looks to be the better venue. As you've mentioned, there's ambiguity over whether WP:CRYSTAL applies to individual verifiable claims within articles, as opposed to the notability of an entire article. This is not only restricted to articles on soap operas.--SGCM (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. While we are at it, and already solicited some input, I would propose to word the RfC here before launching it. My take:

In the articles about ongoing topics one would normally find some statements about future events that may happen but have no real world consequences yet (eg. new cast members in soap operas which signed contracts but didn't make their appearance yet; features of software that were announced in future versions but were not implemented yet; corporate mergers that "leaked" to major news media but were not announced yet). Should this content be included in the articles in spirit of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#CRYSTAL?

Comments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, but it needs to emphasize that the statements are verifiable. Unverifiable statements are unambiguously in violation of CRYSTAL.--SGCM (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would also recommend WP:NOT as the venue, as the issue concerns more than just soap articles, and I agree with SGCM about emphasis on verifiable. Noom _talk ^stalk 14:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In the articles about ongoing topics one would normally find some verifiable statements about future events that may happen but have no real world consequences yet (eg. new cast members in soap operas which signed contracts but didn't make their appearance yet; features of software that were announced in future versions but were not implemented yet; corporate mergers that "leaked" to major news media but were not announced yet). Should this content (if it is attributed to reliable sources) be included in the articles in spirit of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#CRYSTAL?

This way? (Emphasis to be preserved.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Once the dispute is deferred to RfC, this case can be closed (also, remember to link to this DRN and the SOAP WikiProject discussion, as a background to the RfC).--SGCM (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Widescreen

I'm form de:wp so please excuse my bad english. CartoonDiablo (CD) insist on extend the article with one table he has written together by only one french govermental survey published in 2004. The field of psychotherapy research is huge. There are existing thousends and thousends of studies, Randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis, Systematic reviews, overlooks, guidelines, surveys and published assessments. And there are a lot of different approches of what effectiveness means. For example: The approach of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) or the evidence levels of the German Agency for Quality in Medicine.

So my point is, that you can't cite only one self-provided table taken from only one survey to describe the results of a complete research area.

CD also makes some wrong assertions. For example:

1. The survey is based on 111 meta studies. - But thats not correct. The survey used about 100 studies, also rtc's.
2. The survey was scientiffcily cited about 1000 times. - That's also not correct was cited (the newest census) about 8 times. altogether 8 cites That's not much. Other overviews have more than 200 up to 2000 citatiations. E.g. or

But the main point is, that CD ignores all other releases in this field which recieves much more attention in scientiffic circles.

We discuss that in previous discussions

Futhermore I feel ridicules by CDs kind of argumentation. His argumentation often devoid of any basis. That makes it difficult to have a real excange of arguments. His only real argument is, that the study hits some criterias from Wikipedia:MEDRS like thousands upon thousands of other studies also does. I'm finally not sure if this study hits the criterias because it's been never Peer-reviewed. I wouldn'd use it because there are so much better studies like this it's unnecessary to use one with a poor quality. That's nonserious and non-enzyclopedical.

--WSC ^® 18:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis discussion

Hi, I'm Ebe123. I will be a mediator for this dispute. I would like Widescreen to explain why he thinks the studies are flawed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 17:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well a few things to address Widescreen's argument:

• Levels of effectiveness are addressed in the study and unless Widescreen is a scientific source, he/she does not have the ability to judge whether the levels are adequate or not.
• The edit of which you are citing is my edit and it says exactly what I've been saying, the study is based on 111 ("over a hundred") meta ("secondary") studies. That makes it a large tertiary source.
• Number of citations is not a relevant to WP:MEDRS, and even the search that Widescreen cited (which excludes English results) has 144 citations, not 8.

As it stands there still doesn't seem to be a legitimate argument. The study is based 111 secondary studies collected by a reliable scientific source, the only arguments are either not relevant to WP:MEDRS (number of citations) or simply incorrect (it not being a tertiary source based on 100+ secondary studies). CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• @CD: Again you din't understand my point. Maybe because of my bad english? There are different approaches to evidence. For example the U.S. approach requires only one randomize-controlled-tiral. The German approach requieres more than only one rct or it requires an systematic review to acknowledge a treatment the level 1 evident. Which one uses the frech survey? Maybe the french INSERM-Institut got own requirements? But please don't put words into my moth!
• CD! The study isn't large just because it's using a lot of sources. I still don't know where you take the nuber of 111 Studies used by the survey got from? I din't found a number of studies into the survy? The survey got such an bad quality the studies they used aren't even listed and cited. What makes you belive they use 111 meta-analysis? I count the studies they've counted in tables. There are about 100. But these studies aren't all meta-analysis. They took rct too. Please mention the textpassage where the autors talking about 111 meta-analysis!
• CD! The wp:medrs criterias hits houdreds upon hundreds of studies in this reseach area. That means just because this study is a prooven source (I'm still not sure about that) it's not the only one! There are much better sources. It's POV to ignore the complete field of psychotherapy reserch and go back to only one single marginal and qualitatively bad source. Please tell me! Why shoul'd we ignore all other sources and go back to only one survey you praised? Thats nonserious.

The number of citations is relevant if you want to know, what the impact of a scientific publication is. I shows, that there are publications which got so much more impact in scientiffic circles than the french survey. So you can range the survey by comparing it with other releases. The result is: The survey is marginal compares to other releases. Sorry, accept that please. --WSC ^® 20:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the compromise offered by Noleander in the last DRN is reasonable. The problem here is neutrality, not strictly reliability. The study might be reliable, but highlighting it with a huge chart is unwarranted, as per WP:BALANCE and WP:UNDUE. Summarize the contents of the chart with prose or text.--SGCM (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that! The only way to restore the neutrality (or ballance) is to erase the table and replace it by text and using much more sources than only one survey. Thanks! Regards --WSC ^® 20:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be undue? There are 111 meta-studies (each of which is a review of numerous others). It might be undue if it was actually one secondary study but it's not, it's the single largest evaluation on the topic. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"Why would it be undue?" Because it's seems like this table from this single studie is the result of psychotherapy research. I show you, it isn't. You forgett to mention thousends of other studies. Will you fool the readers by present them high selectiv results?

Show me The textpassage were the authors talk about 111 meta-analysis, please. Please show me!

Another assertion! "it's the single largest evaluation on the topic." Thats nonsens. Right is: it's the single largest evaluation on the topic you know! Thats a differnt! --WSC ^® 21:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's based on the sum of all the studies that were cited for the three methods, there's no direct link listing all of them you count up the studies on each section (which you're welcome to do if you don't take my word for it).

To SGCM and everyone taking up the reasoning that because it's "one" tertiary source it would be undue, what would count as due? Would 10 separately cited secondary studies be due as opposed to 111 that were cited in "one" tertiary source? Is it impossible to create a chart no matter how many sources? I happen to think 100+ secondary studies is fair weight for a chart based on WP:MEDRS. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you count it by yourself! Is that what we call wp:or, isnt't it? I indeed count it now! I count 43 meta-analyses. I have noticed that the survey mention one meta analysis twice or triple! You know! 1. they listet all selected studies by treatment 2. the listet the studies by deseases. 3. Some of the meta-analysis is for two treatments and so one. But now you see how lousy the quality of the survey is. You can't even name the quantity of the studies the used. --WSC ^® 22:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And another thing! Do you know how much studies like rct's and meta-analysis exists so you can proove that this little survey showes a complete overview? No, you can't. --WSC ^® 22:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion is becoming unproductive, and you are both going around in circles. Have you read the compromise that was offered by Noleander? Prose is always preferable to charts - so I'd go with that instead of a chart. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That's right! I'll wait for a edit of User:Ebe123, the mediator. --WSC ^® 22:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the comment as well and I'd be willing to take the compromise if it's better than nothing. As far as I can tell no one has given an argument for why it's undue weight (Widescreen's assertion's that it's somehow less than 111 meta-analysis aside).

And to Widescreen, what you are giving is a kind of argument from ignorance that, because this study doesn't include all evaluations of psychoanalysis' effectiveness it should not be included. The point is, the argument is not about an unknown number of studies it's about this study. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Widescreen, you should listen not only to me but everyone here. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Using such a large chart creates undue weight. It's too big, and gives the misleading impression that the chart is the official stance of all psychotherapists (a claim that is likely contested by psychoanalysts and family therapists), when it's just the conclusion of a single tertiary source. Giving too much weight to a single source, over all other sources, affects the WP:BALANCE of the article. The article must fairly represent the scientific consensus of a field by using multiple reliable secondary sources. This does not imply that the survey is unreliable, only that context is required (which is why it should be written as prose, charts remove the context that is necessary for a neutral tone).--SGCM (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Deriving "stances" from it would be the POV; for instance, I wouldn't say the study is biased because it says psychoanalysis is effective at treating personality disorders when family/couple's therapy does not, it's on the reader to make that decision.

And the thing that I've been trying to address is it's fallacious to call it a "single source," when it's based 100+ secondary studies (and as a study by the French panel on science falls within the scientific consensus). For instance, if I created a chart based on 10 separate secondary studies they would have less than 10% of the information of the "single source" with 111 secondary studies. That's why the idea that it's Undue because it's "one study" is a non sequitur; due weight and balance is based on the actual content, not the number of sources that hold content. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

By creating a chart that highlights the findings of one source, the article implies a stance, which is not neutral. Neutrality is not based on the content of the sources, neutrality, including due weight and balance, is based on how that content is represented on Wikipedia. Saying that the source is neutral, ergo using one source is due weight, is not in line with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality. Sources require context. Has the survey been peer reviewed? Is it widely cited? Have any scholars stated that the source represents scientific consensus? (as per WP:RS, scientific consensus must be explicitly stated by the source) I don't oppose using the source, I do oppose the use of the chart, which lacks the context that is expressed with prose.--SGCM (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In short: Neutrality and citing sources requires context. Charts lack context. Express it in text instead of a chart. This would apply to any similar chart, not just this one.--SGCM (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo has agreed to Noleander's suggestion of removing the chart and replacing it with prose. If there are no further objections, I believe that this dispute has been resolved.--SGCM (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying there's a problem with its actual representation or that it's not representative because it's "one" review of over a hundred secondary sources? If it's the former then it's simply the neutral outcome of the study(ies); by that logic we ought to exclude this image of smoking and lung cancer since some scientists may disagree with it even though it's the neutral representation of the data.

If it's the latter than (like I've been saying this entire time) it's based on 111 secondary studies, if you want to call it a chart based on studies for form's sake then you can, it doesn't make much of a difference. And to answer your other questions, yes it's been peer-reviewed and yes it has significant citations as we've been discussing. The study is from INSERM, the French equivalent of the US National Institute of Health. If the NIH or American Psychological Association created the study there wouldn't even be a discussion right now.

And yes there is an objection, I agreed on the condition that it was the only alternative to removing the material and the reviewer has not rendered an opinion yet. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

At least two (three now, as I entered this case) "reviewers" agreed that it should be prosified. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As to reviewers the final reviewer in this case is Ebe123. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My position echoes that of Sciencewatcher on Talk:Cognitive behavioral therapy#POV-Warning. I'm saying that no sources have been presented (yet!) that have explicitly stated that this particular study represents current academic consensus. That's not the case with the NIH chart, which does have sources explicitly stating that it represents academic consensus. Do other reviews agree with the INSERM findings? If so, then present them. I personally think that psychoanalysis is a load of Freudian nonsense, and have no attachment to the field. My opposition to the chart (not the actual source, which should be included!), is that text allows for context that is absent with large and colorful charts, and the current chart is much larger than the captioned images that one typically finds on Wikipedia articles. Also, DRN is not restricted to one volunteer per case. Ebe123, SZ, Noleander, Czarkoff, and me are all uninvolved volunteers.--SGCM (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd hate to be nit-picky and contradictory but that's not the case, the NIH chart represents consensus solely by the fact that it's from the NIH. Likewise, INSERM is the French equivalent of the NIH and did the study reliably (based on 100+ secondary ones, through peer review etc.). So far as I can tell, there isn't a separate exaltation stating that either the NIH or INSERM charts are part of the consensus outside of being published by their respective bodies.

As to the question of verifiability by other sources, that would be limited to only a few of diseases but I'm sure I can find others that corroborate it.

And yeah I acknowledge there are formatting problems with the chart (size, colorfulness etc.) but that's not a violation of WP:MEDRS nor does it warrant its complete removal. There are various articles with medical charts that have a much lower quality of sourcing then this. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It is the case. The Health effects of tobacco article presents plenty of other studies that corroborate with the NIH one, as represented by the very long list of journals below the References heading. This is the context that I'm referring to, which is what WP:RS demands. But the primary concern is not reliability or MEDRS (none of the DRN volunteers have argued that the INSERM study isn't reliable), but the neutrality of having a very large chart. Chart size may not violate RS, but can violate NPOV. In this instance, because of WP:UNDUE concerns, size does matter (I apologize for the bad cliche, it was just too tempting).--SGCM (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell smoking and lung cancer has about a dozen secondary sources in the article, the contraceptives chart has about 3 secondary sources. This chart is based on over a hundred secondary sources. Obviously it would take a bigger research effort but just from a search, things like schizophrenia are backed up by other sources to be ineffective by psychoanalysis link which I believe is cited in the article.

And per the cliche, I'm not saying size doesn't matter I'm saying the size can be fixed and reformatted. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Correction: One tertiary source analyzing many secondary sources. An encyclopedia may be compiled from hundreds of secondary sources, but that doesn't make it equivalent to hundreds of secondary sources. The article still needs corroborating, independent sources. Anyhow, as for a compromise, if the chart was changed to a captioned image, and properly attributed to the INSERM study in the caption, there would be no neutrality problems.--SGCM (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking of that actually, so I guess to some extent a comprimise was reached. Although just out of curiosity wouldn't a tertiary source citing ~100 secondary sources and ~100 secondary sources be the same thing in terms of content (if not the former being better since it's been reviewed by professionals)? CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

About the terminology, it's a meta-analysis, and thus a secondary source. Tertiary sources are sources like encyclopedias and textbooks, and should be used less frequently than secondary sources. As a secondary source, the INSERM source is making an analysis of other sources (primary and secondary), but is not synonymous with the sources being analyzed. I'm glad that a compromise has been reached.--SGCM (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi SGCM, I'm sorry to contradict you. The study isn't a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis means the mathematical reprocessing of primary studies. The work is a systematic rewiew. But it doesn't reprocessing the rct's and meta-analyses mathematicly. So that means it is no "meta-meta-analysis". I always thought that anglophon people see a different in tertiary sources than germans do. But it seems to be the same. So here are my proposals for solution:

1. The table have to ereased
2. All who was interested in create a chapter about the efficacy of psychoanalysis and CBT.
3. Therefor everybody have to collect a copple of sources which being discussed first.
4. It would be helpfull if someone act as steady mediator.

--WSC ^® 07:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to the actual study. CartoonDiablo's edits to the Cognitive behavioral therapy article claimed that it was a meta-analysis, so that is what I assumed. I also have no medical expertise. Both systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered secondary sources, so the point remains valid. Anyhow, would replacing the table with a captioned picture that is attributed to the INSERM source work as a compromise?--SGCM (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Cite only one single study is POV. Doesn't matter it's a picture or a table. --WSC ^® 07:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A point of view is an opinion, no matter how many sources. You could have: "Pigs are green[1]" and "Pigs are bright red[2][3][4]" Both of them are points of view, even with many sources. I think prose is a good compromise, as no information would be lost but it won't be in a table. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, prose is still the best option here.--SGCM (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I close this thread, as it seems to be a reiteration of the same argument. The prose is the only solution here, and is a recommended way to serve the information on Wikipedia. The problems with weight of opinions are easier addressed with editing, which is severely limited with the form of content representation. I foresee a new content dispute about this particular source, which would emerged once its weight will change within the prosified version. Feel free to file new case if that happens. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Stefan2

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 3#File:SA Army General rank.jpg discussion

• Discussion hasn't started on FFD. Disputes over inclusion/deletion should be resolved through the deletion process, not DRN.--SGCM (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Steelbeard1

CBS Records International was Columbia Records' international arm founded in 1962 to release recordings on the CBS label as EMI's Columbia Graphophone Company unit owned the Columbia Records trademark outside North America. The "CBS Records" entity Norton is referring to was officially renamed Sony Music Entertainment on January 1, 1991. CBS Records was the name of both the record company and the record label. The record label was also officially renamed Columbia Records in 1991 after Sony acquired the rights to the trademark from EMI. Norton still does not understand that the history of the CBS Records company prior to 1991 properly belongs in the Sony Music article. I have created a compromise solution by creating a CBS Records disambig page. The purpose of disambig pages, of course, is to direct readers to the correct article and to alert editors whose wikilinks go to the wrong article to correct the link(s). I've been doing that since the 2006 CBS Records article was created. I've also had to do this regarding links to Columbia Records which should go to the unaffiliated former EMI label of the same name called Columbia Graphophone Company. The current CBS Records (2006) is not affiliated with any former CBS Records entity that is currently owned by Sony Music and therefore requires a separate article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

We have 1,300 incoming links for "CBS Records" and they are for the company as it existed up until 1991. These links now land on a page called CBS Records which is a disambiguation page and it lists other business entities such as CBS Records (2006) and CBS Records International which are not the correct target for any of the incoming links. I want the companies listed in the current CBS Records disambiguation page moved to "CBS Records (disambiguation)". I want a short article on "CBS Records" as it existed up until 1991. This way the 1,300 links will land on the proper business entity. We have separate article for all the companies absorbed by General Motors. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Rothorpe

CBS was a major record label for several decades, so it should have its own article under its own name. Rothorpe (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records discussion

I've restarted the DRN dispute with a fresh case. The first case went way off topic over a conduct dispute. The actual content dispute is this: Does CBS Records (1938-1990) (currently in the Sony Music article) deserve its own article? And is it the primary topic of the CBS Records page? For both parties, please cite policies to support your arguments and avoid bringing up the dispute on prior consensus. Volunteers of DRN are invited to contribute their much needed opinions.--SGCM (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I prefer it put this way: the 1,300 incoming links called "CBS Records" should land at an article on CBS Records as the company existed up until it was absorbed by Sony. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Norton's pitch is full of holes as the purpose of the DAB page is to direct editors to correct wikilinks which go to the wrong article. So the CBS Records article should remain a DAB page because the current incarnation of CBS Records is not related whatsoever to the CBS Records entities that existed prior to 1991 which now go by the Columbia Records and Sony Music names. Norton keeps talking about the citations regarding developments at "CBS Records" that took place BEFORE 1991. Once again, that material belongs in the Sony Music article because CBS Records was renamed Sony Music on January 1, 1991 and the current CBS Records entity founded in 2006 is not connected in any way with any CBS Records entity that existed before 1991. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There are 1,300 incoming links for "CBS Records" land on a page called CBS Records with a history of the company before it was absorbed by Sony. Then change the current CBS Records, which is a disambiguation page, to "CBS Records (disambiguation)". The target of the links should be the business entity as described by the New York Times and Billboard. We have separate article for all the companies absorbed by General Motors. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be a disambiguation as that is the reason for DAB pages to direct readers to the correct article and to allow editors to correct their misdirected links to the correct article. The current CBS Records is not connected whatsoever with the former entities called CBS Records which changed their names in 1991. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) both entities are more then notable... See Geoffrey Hull (15 June 2004). The Recording Industry: 2nd Edition. Psychology Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-415-96803-4. and Robert Burnett (2 February 1996). The Global Jukebox: The International Music Industry. Taylor & Francis. p. 51. ISBN 978-0-415-09275-3.. Best we inform our reader's on this complicated situation on the articles that deal with the proper time period. Thus 2 differnt articles for 2 differnt companies should be a no brainier. And... CBS Records (disambiguation) is the best way to go I think ..because of all the links that still needs to be fixed Moxy (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And they would still need to be fixed as the CBS Records entities that existed prior to 1991 now go by different names. So keeping CBS Records as a DAB page is the solution as the current incarnation of CBS Records (2006) is not connected with any way with the entities that called themselves CBS Records in the past. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The actual dispute is between CBS Records (1938-1990) and Sony Music Entertainment. There's no dispute that CBS Records (2006) deserves a separate article, and both Steelbeard1 and RAN have agreed to it. As for CBS Records (1938-1990) and Sony Music, it's actually the same company, just different iterations of it. CBS Records operated from 1938 to 1990, but was renamed Sony Music Entertainment in 1991. Sort of like Computing Tabulating Recording Company and IBM.--SGCM (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC).--SGCM (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Could we get all to read the sources provided - The new CBS Records is not related to the former CBS Records business or its artists or assets, which were acquired by Sony in 1988. In the world of business they are 2 different companies from 2 different time periods. Moxy (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This dispute is over whether CBS Records (1938-1990) deserves a separate article, not CBS Records (2006). There's already consensus that the latter does, and that it's completely separate from Sony.--SGCM (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry i thought that the refs above prove its merit? A company that was around for decades with millions of albums sold before its acquisition years later seem notable to me. They paid 2 billion for a reason.Moxy (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly! and none of the 1,300 links are for CBS Records (2006), if there are any that I missed, please change the text in the article to point to CBS Records (2006). Please go to Talk:CBS Records where two clear choices are offered to resolve the issue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And once again, the CBS Records entity which Norton is referring to is now known as Sony Music. The current incarnation of CBS Records has no connection with any former CBS Records entity. That's why the DAB page that goes to CBS Records exists. I've notified the admin who made the CBS Records page the DAB page about the poll. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute here are you saying you believe that CBS Records evolved into Sony music, rather then being a company sold to Sony?Moxy (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, CBS Records was sold to Sony in 1988, but CBS only gave Sony a temporary license to use the CBS name which led to the name change to Sony Music in 1991. This paved that way for CBS Corporation to form a new CBS Records in 2006. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It was a subsidiary of CBS that was sold to Sony, who renamed it in 1991 to Sony Music Entertainment.--SGCM (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok so we all agree it was not the same company - so thus is should have its own article detailing its history long before Sony was a company no? CBS and Sony are like American Motors and Chrysler. One was taking over by the other but is not the same company in the begin.Moxy (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The same management that ran CBS Records on December 31, 1990 was running the company when it became Sony Music on January 1, 1991. It switched back in 1988 from being a division of CBS to being a division of Sony and Sony ran CBS Records from 1988 to 1990. Does this make it very clear that CBS Records and Sony Music are one and the same? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok then so you agree that from 1938-1988 they were not affiliated right? In fact Sony a company from Japan was not a company yet when CBS was formed in the United States years earlier. Moxy (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Subsidiaries can still be the same company after the ownership changes and a name change took place. RCA Records was founded as Victor Records and is today part of Sony Music. Despite this, RCA Records still considers its founding year to be 1901 when the Victor Talking Machine was founded. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And we have a separate article for Victor Talking Machine Company, separate from RCA Records.--SGCM (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And the RCA Records article has a link to the Victor Talking Machine Company article regarding the company's history before RCA bought it and therefore entered the recorded music business which still makes RCA Records' founding year 1901. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think hes showing you the fact they have separate articles - and thus is wondering why CBS and Sony are not the same. So as you say lets link the articles like your examples - that keep demonstration the fact that all theses companies have there own articles.Moxy (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the CBS Records entity that existed until the end of 1990 is exactly the same as the Sony Music Entertainment entity that began on January 1, 1991 so CBS Records and Sony Music are exactly one and the same. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

We all just went over this ... different companies from different countries and different time. Yes they are now the same .... but for years one paid taxes in the USA and the other in Japan... The IRS saw these companies as different entities who paid different taxes. Evolving into a company and a merger are 2 very different things.Moxy (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And they overlapped for about two or three years because Sony Corporation of America owned CBS Records from 1988 to 1990 after which the subsidiary changed its name from CBS Records to Sony Music.

In late 1990, CBS Records made a significant name change in preparation for the complete name changes at the start of 1991. In late 1990, CBS Records changed the name of its classical music label CBS Masterworks Records to Sony Classical Records. When I last checked, the CBS Masterworks Records wikilink redirects to the Sony Classical Records article.Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Great example of what happens when people dont listen to what others are saying ...Talk:CBS Masterworks Records Only one person recommended that redirect - odd it got redirected to the wrong place considering its not what the person who asked for the merger wanted - or the other editor.... Dont see any consensus either way - should have never been moved since there was clearly a debate on the subject that was not resolved - sort of what has happened here right?. You seem to not want any CBS article even changing the merger request of others. Anyways I still dont see a lack a merit for CBS to have its own article - so many refs. Moxy (talk)

And those refs in question are about events which took place prior to 1991 when Sony Music was called CBS Records. Once again, CBS Records the company as it existed before 1991 IS Sony Music. Thay are one and the same. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - [From an uninvolved editor] (1) On the question of whether CBS Records (1938-1990) should have a dedicated article: I've read some of the sources, and it appears that the events in 1990 were simply a re-name of the company. The employees & products were not altered; there was continuity. For instance, a Reuters article from 1990 writes "The Sony Corporation's CBS Records Inc. will change its name to Sony Music Entertainment Inc., the record company said yesterday." Finally, the SME article (including the 1938-90 history) is small: only 1,700 words. For these reasons, I would suggest not having a dedicated article for 1938-1990. Someday, if the 1938-1990 section of the SME article gets large, it can be split-out as its own article, following WP:SPINOUT. (2) On the question of disambiguation: That is a difficult choice. On the one hand, due to the confusing nature of the various business entities with similar names, it makes sense to have CBS Records be a full disambiguation page, so readers can see the options; on the other hand, there are a lot of links to "CBS Records", and the vast majority of those are intending to link to the 1938-1990 business entity; therefore it should link directly to Sony Music Entertainment. This is a close call, but because of the large number of existing links, I'd lean towards making CBS Records a redirect to SME, with a good disambiguation hatnote at the top of the SME article. But the disambig page option is also sensible. --Noleander (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The sale was in 1988 from CBS to Sony. The name change was in 1991. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The complication here is that there is an active CBS Records (2006) in operation. Before this incarnation of CBS Records was formed, the redirect to Sony Music made sense. But because of the existing 2006 version of CBS Records with no connection whatsoever with any former CBS Records entity which go by other names now, keeping CBS Records a DAB page makes the most sense so editors can fix the misdirected links to go the the correct links. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

None of the links are for CBS Records (2006), and we have a Hatnote to take care of any confusion for people looking for CBS Records (2006). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of that complication, and I factored it into my opinion. As I said, the disambiguation issue could go either way. --Noleander (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As a start article, the 1938-1990 section of Sony Music Entertainment might in fact be long enough for a split (1,700 words is long, considering that most stubs are only 100-200 words long), but it's definitely a borderline case. I agree that if it 1938-1990 CBS Records remains a part of the Sony article, then the Sony article should be considered the primary topic.--SGCM (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The WP guideline on article size recommends splitting an article when it reaches 60,000 bytes, which is usually around 5,000 words. At 1,700 words, the SME article has plenty of room to grow before size alone suggests a split. --Noleander (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point.--SGCM (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole Pre-history section is not about Sony in anyway ...its about the company Sony bought and then changed its name. Pre history section should be a summary that leads to the main article. I still don't understand why we have to read many articles to get info on this one company - why is it not all in one place? As I look at my 45's I dont see any Sony logo odd?Moxy (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Two of the other "big four record companies" also have rather consistent histories. Warner Music Group covers the entire history as does EMI which still goes by the same name it went by when it was created in 1931. However, the history of Universal Music Group is very convoluted involving a split and a few mergers. A good chunk of UMG's history is in two articles, Decca Records and MCA Records. It also involves another record company that got absorbed into UMG, PolyGram. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

So again your showing us they all have articles? So many refs so much info that can be added...Fredric Dannen (14 September 2011). Hit Men: Power Brokers and Fast Money Inside the Music Business. Random House Digital, Inc. pp. 101–. ISBN 978-0-307-80208-8..17:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Not just the Sony ones that pop up, but if you don't mind the gaps because it only show a sampling of the book, it could be used for other record company and record label articles. But one caveat regarding the Sony Music article. The book was published in 1990 if you read the copyright notice in the beginning and, again, CBS Records was renamed Sony Music in 1991. It also borrows from books published earlier. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I am really not sure why you keep telling us it was renamed in 1991 - we all know this - and we all know it was bought in 1988. Your examples keep demonstrating how all the companies have articles of there own, but this company. I dont understand why we cant expanded CBS info in one article, rather then over many articles - like at the rest.Moxy (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Then start one. Rothorpe (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Norton tried to. It led to the big mess we are in right now. So I will say this again. The current entity called CBS Records IS NOT CONNECTED IN ANY WAY WITH ANY ENTITY CALLED CBS RECORDS PRIOR TO 1991!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's why the CBS Records article is a DAB page intended to guide readers to the correct article and to aid editors to fix misdirected wikilinks to land in the correct article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Rothorpe - This is why we are here - Steelbeard1 simply removes info and/or redirects the pages. So thus we are here confounded by why we cant expanded or make and article on the topic. Moxy (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Because today's CBS Records is not connected in any way with any entity that previously went by the name CBS Records. The solution is already in place which is to make CBS Records a DAB page. That's what the admins want. That why an admin made CBS Records a DAB page. Have you read the discussion in WP:AN when Norton complained and the admins told them where to stick that complaint? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not the Admin that copy and pasted stuff - they came along and tried to fix the mess. I think at this point its clear that your Sony is best solution is not working. Think I will just make a new article on the topic and you can bring it up for deletion if you like.Moxy (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is any attempt to make the CBS Records article anything besides a DAB page, it will be reverted in a New York minute. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

]At some point we are looking for positive input. Not threats.Moxy (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Now how about developing the CBS Records International article further as I think it is not developing because we are still bickering here. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "That's what the admins want" is an irelevant sentiment as far as content goes. When an admin edits an article, they are acting as just another user and have no special authority regarding content. Behavior is another matter, and if there is any more edit warring at this article there will be blocks issued. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting for enhancements to the CBS Records International article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a compromise: Move CBS Records International to the broader topic of CBS Records (1938-1990). It doesn't make sense to have an article on the international arm of a subsidiary but not the actual subsidiary. This should please all the involved parties, including Moxy and Rothorpe, who want a dedicated article on CBS Records (1938-1990). We'll keep CBS Records as a disambiguation, as Steelbeard wants. Or, at the very least, merge CBS Records International back to Sony Music, which wasn't large enough to split anyway.--SGCM (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"CBS Records (1938-1990)" as a title is a bad idea because CBS Records International was the FIRST entity to actually use the CBS Records name. The parent record company was STILL Columbia Records. The parent record company DID NOT become CBS Records until 1966 when parent company Columbia Broadcasting System Inc had the corporate reorganization. The Sony Music subsection is called (1938-1990) Columbia/CBS Records for a reason. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Then move CBS Records International to Columbia Records Corporation or Columbia Recording Corporation. Problem solved. Moxy and Rothorpe get their dedicated page, Steelbeard1 gets his disambiguation, everyone's happy.--SGCM (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

But those Columbia entities are still basically Columbia Records. Remember Atlantic Records? The legal entity is Atlantic Recording Corporation but the article name is STILL Atlantic Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Not a convincing argument. Other articles have no bearing on this article, only policies matter. The Columbia Recording Corporation also owned Okeh Records, so the corporation and label are not synonymous in this instance. But more importantly, are you willing to compromise? See Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Reaching consensus through discussion. If you're not willing to make any concessions, then building consensus is impossible. If you have any policy related objections to Moxy and Rothorpe's concerns, then please bring it up.--SGCM (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The naming of a legal entity is relevant here. I have mentioned problems with Moxy and Rothorpe's ideas both here and on Moxy's talk page. Columbia Records, as a legal entity, went by different names that utilized the Columbia Name. When Columbia Records bought Okeh Records, the company was called the Columbia Phonograph Company. That name redirects to the Columbia Records article. Columbia Records is almost 125 years old and WILL celebrate its 125th Anniversary next year. See . Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You've brought up the anniversary repeatedly, but that has little bearing on whether or not the legal entity deserves a dedicated article on Wikipedia. If the legal history is as complicated as Columbia Records/CBS Records, and there are plenty of WP:RS on the corporate history of the subsidiary, then why not a dedicated article? Do you have any Wikipedia policy-related objections to a dedicated article? Noleander made a good point about WP:LENGTH, but with the text taken from the CBS Records International article, the final article on the subsidiary should be long enough to meet Wikipedia:Summary style guidelines.--SGCM (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records International was a newly formed Columbia subsidiary so Columbia could control their own distribution outside North America which had been done by other unrelated record companies such as Philips Records and EMI. So that company has its own history. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

But it was still legally a part of the subsidiary, correct?--SGCM (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was a subsidiary of the American Columbia Records which could not use the Columbia name outside North America because EMI's Columbia Graphophone Company owned the name there. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Simply find it odd we find things like - Goldmark also pioneered the long playing (LP) record, introduced in 1948, which revolutionized the recording industry and made CBS Records the leading record company in America. So we have a conflict - a source says they are one of the biggest companies of the time and you say its not company at all during this time.Moxy (talk)

I'm afraid Moxy misread that passage which condenses events that took place from the 1940s to the 1980s to just two paragraphs. Goldmark worked for CBS Laboratories, the R&D division of CBS. It was at CBS Labs that Goldmark developed the LP. Remember that important details were left out due to the condensing such as the CBS Records parent record company's formal formation in 1966 when before, the CBS division was called Columbia Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Misread? its a quote. I do find it odd all your billboard references dont mention CBS - its a great point. Yet there are so many other references that do - I went and got Gary Marmorstein (27 February 2007). The label: the story of Columbia Records. Thunder's Mouth Press. ISBN 978-1-56025-707-3. from the library and looks like CBS Records was used internationally after the America side of the company was renamed the Columbia Recording Corporation on 22 May 1938. Looks like CBS Recodrs was used until the founding of Epic in 1953. I just stared the book so it will take time to read the whole thing, thus far I have just browsed over it.Moxy (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I looked up the above link and the three "CBS Records" searches they gave were from after 1966. Remember that the American Columbia Records did not control their own distribution globally until 1961 when CBS Records International was formed. The first international organization American Columbia started was Columbia Records of Canada in 1954. The Columbia Phonograph Company of Canada did not survive the Great Depression so American Columbia made a distribution deal with Sparton Records to distribute Columbia Records in Canada until Columbia set up its own operations in that country. Info at . Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard F. Bellaver (6 May 2011). Characters of the Information and Communication Industry. AuthorHouse. pp. 202–. ISBN 978-1-4567-3258-5. Retrieved 31 August 2012..Moxy (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the exact quote? And the last full paragraph on page 202 summarizes too much. All I know is the LP was introduced in 1948 and CBS Records was the leading record company in America (of course it was from 1966 when it officially started under that name until Universal Music absorbed PolyGram in 1999) and CBS Records was sold to Sony in 1988. The parent record company prior to 1966 was Columbia Records. Remember that the CBS Records name was not introduced until 1962 internationally and the CBS Records parent company did not exist until 1966 when the corporate reorganization that made the CBS Records entity the parent record company took place. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Summary

A quick overview of the opinions above:

• Steelbeard1 and Noleander object to a dedicated article for CBS/Columbia Records (1938-1990). Noleander's argument is that the Sony Music Entertainment article is not long enough to split.
• Moxy, Rothorpe, and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) want a dedicated article for CBS/Columbia Records (1938-1990). Moxy's argument is that the pre-Sony history of CBS/Columbia Records is notable enough for a separate article. RAN's argument is that the number of incoming links is evidence of its notability.
• My proposal is to move CBS Records International to Columbia Recording Corporation. CBS Records International is a subset of the Columbia Recording Corporation, and moving it to the broader topic gives Moxy, Rothorpe, and RAN the dedicated article that they want, while keeping CBS Records as a disambiguation like Steelbeard1 wants.

So, any solutions? Input from other third party volunteers is welcome.--SGCM (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a good idea to use the "Columbia Recording Corporation" name because that was the original entity of the American Columbia Records after it was renamed from ARC and operated in the United States ONLY. CBS Records International was the international organization of the American Columbia Records which was founded in 1961 and launched outside North America in 1962. From 1938 to 1966, the parent record company owned by Columbia Broadcasting System Inc utilized the Columbia name, whether is was Columbia Recording Corp, Columbia Record Corp or Columbia Records Inc. So CBS Records International should remain as is. Columbia Records should be the record label article of the label which dates back to 1888. The parent record company is Sony Music Entertainment founded in 1929 as ARC. Yes, the Sony Music article is too short to merit a split. The reason 1929 is the starting date for Sony Music is that it is the direct descendant of ARC which was founded in 1929 and bought the Columbia Phonograph Company in 1934. CBS bought ARC in 1938 and renamed it (to simplify things) Columbia Records. The parent record company became CBS Records after a 1966 corporate reorganization. Sony bought the record company in 1988 and renamed it Sony Music on January 1, 1991. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

But CBS Records International was a subset of the American Columbia Records Corporation, as it was owned and operated by the subsidiary. It was a part of the subsidiary, not separate from it. And the corporation and label are different entities. The sheer amount of discussion we've had on the nuances of it is evidence of it. CBS Records International wasn't long enough to split from the Sony Music article either.--SGCM (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

So is it suggested that CBS Records International be merged into Sony Music Entertainment? Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That is the implication.--SGCM (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added the 'merge to' tag in the CBS Records International article about the proposal to merge that article into Sony Music Entertainment. Discuss away! Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that there should be articles about record labels that we subsequently renamed, sold out or otherwise morphed into other labels. In this case I see Sony Music Entertainment as a solid central point of everything that ended being incorporated there. In my opinion defunct entries should be subsections with redirects (and DAB page in cases of ambiguity, like in this one). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Some company articles have dedicated articles on past iterations (such as IBM and Paramount Pictures). Other's don't. There's no established convention on it, outside of WP:LENGTH, which is why the discussion has persisted.--SGCM (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As Noleander demonstrated above, there is no issue with WP:LENGTH, and even if it was, the History section as whole would be a better candidate. Fragmenting information is only useful to confuse reader; don't think that this is exactly the purpose of encyclopedia article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My mention of WP:LENGTH is a reference to Noleander's argument, which I think is a valid argument. The problem is: should past iterations of a company, notable enough per WP:N criteria, qualify for dedicated articles, even if it lacks the length requirement for a split? The argument made by Moxy was that it is, citing the depth of coverage, a sentiment I neither agree or disagree with. Perhaps this is an issue that should be raised with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? We have two guidelines/policies clashing, WP:LENGTH (the article is not long enough to split) and WP:N (but it is widely covered and notable).--SGCM (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no clash: WP:N says that something "may be included as content of separate article", which doesn't mean that it has to be separate. At the same time, WP:LENGTH doesn't require splitting articles "by all means", and we have longer articles that are not even considered for splitting. The guidance here is WP:SS, which explains the relations of main topic and subtopics, and WP:AVOIDSPLIT says that even if subtopic meets notability requirements, split is still last resort.

In this particular case the subjects of the proposed (as well as already split out) subarticles is the operation the company under previous names, which isn't known to be different from the subject of main article. IMO in this particular case, even regardless of guidelines, the split brings only major pain and problems (it takes some time to understand the relation between these groups of articles for a person who isn't familiar with topic), while the problem of rectifying the explanation of CBS records name use is easily addressed with a DAB. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As WP:AVOIDSPLITS states, "editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic." However, "through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article." The question is, does it meet the notability criterion?--SGCM (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for reiteration, but "can be split off" doesn't mean "should be split off", and the latter is not the recommendation. In this particular case the proposed topics are so narrow and so much subdued to main topic, that this is unambiguous "avoid unless unavoidable". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Not about a split in my opinion - its about to different entities. Like with AMC and Chrysler .. we dont link our readers to Chrysler when talking about AMC time period. We dont link our readers to the Germany when tlaking about WW2 we link to Nazi Germany - because they are not the same thing. Moxy (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

AMC is not the same company as Chrysler, and Nazi Germany is not the same country as modern day Germany. But CBS Records International is exactly SME. That makes difference. Furthermore, even if there is any difference to be noted, right now it is not visible. To make a case for split, you have to contribute content first. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok I see the problem - some believe this is about a split - Not looking to split anything - looking to make an article of the companies before the Sony take over. Dont care that Sony article is filled with info long before Sony was even a company. What we are tring to do is make an article about the pre take era - that covers decades. As of now we have different articles that should not be merged. Moxy (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So you're proposing the creation of a new article, without any material from the Sony page? If you want to do it, then be bold.--SGCM (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

We Have tried - we already have one of the articles ... We have tried to make the another one but it was blanked and redirected - this is why we are here - we are here because one editor keeps blanking and redirecting page that others have tried to make and expand.Moxy (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, it seems that you have missed my point: creating new article about part of the company's history is a split, regardless of the exact steps you take. When you create an article about CBS Records International, regardless of how you do that, you split the coverage of a single topic – a record label that was previously known as CBS Records International and subsequently became Sony Music Entertainment – between two articles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont think you understand -- we have tried to expand the exciting article (that was blanked) then suggested and created a new article that is now in the processes of a merger request. So thus far all our attempts have been reverted and is why we are here in the first place. To be clear we cant do anything because it gets reverted and/or redirected. Plus as of now the info is spread over 3 articles not just at the Sony article, thus we are tring to consolidate the info in one place.Moxy (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Current consensus and closing

Based on the discussion here and on Talk:CBS Records, so far, we've had Steelbeard1 opposing the primary topic (that pre-Sony CBS Records is the primary topic) and opposing the dedicated article, Noleander opposing the dedicated article and neutral on the primary topic, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Rothorpe, Schmidt, and Moxy supporting the primary topic and supporting the dedicated article, Bkonrad, 78.26, and Simon.rashleigh opposing the primary topic, SGCM opposing the primary topic and neutral on the dedicated article, and Czarkoff and DGG opposing the dedicated article. Once the case hits the 8 day mark, and without a compromise developing, the case will have be closed as no consensus. Discussion after the DRN closes will be deferred to Talk:CBS Records. If future dispute resolution is required, WP:MEDCOM is recommended.--SGCM (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree no consensus here at all - Can we get all to look at the new merger request at Talk:CBS Records International#Merger.Moxy (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Engleham

Aaron Schock discussion

• Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. First of all Engleham, you are currently at 4RR for this article. You don't edit war over BLPs, EVER. You have no way of getting back to 3RR so I suggest you make a very loud and contrite apology to prevent yourself from being blocked for edit edit warring on the article. Second your colorful metaphors and pejorative phrases are getting really tiresome. Third, Czarkoff said that the items had to be sourced to good references before we can include it. With BLPs we always error on the side of caution. Gossip sites and Google Searches are not valid references. As we need to be very careful (to prevent WP from being the target of a defamation lawsuit) the associating of a sexual orientation with a BLP is only done when the subject themselves has said it. My recomendation at this time is for both of you to seek advice at BLP Noticeboard as it's obvious to me that it's still rumor level. Pending objection within 24 hours, I'm going to close this thread with the recommendation that either the rumors stay out or you get a certified approval at BLPN that the content is appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • For the record: a version based on New York Times and Washington Post was rolled (though it was later reverted with edit summary "completely inappropriate"). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

note that Engleham is currently blocked, looks like for another day. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Binksternet

This is a simple case of the proper application of the WP:Neutral point of view policy. The biographies about Gardel, encyclopedias mentioning Gardel, articles in scholarly magazines about Gardel—the great majority of these say that Gardel was born in France and that he laid a false trail of a Uruguayan birth starting in 1920 when he was almost 30. The matter of proportion is properly applied in the article by greatly emphasizing the French birth but mentioning the controversy put forward by a few, that Uruguay was really his birthplace, not France.

The problem with Zorzaluruguay (the user name means "Song Thrush (Gardel nickname) Uruguay") is that he is relying on blog sources and original research to put forward his point. He wants the Uruguayan birth to be given equal status so that the reader can decide the issue. This would make for an imbalance in relation to weight; an artificially equal playing field for facts that are not at all equal in reliable sources.

If Zorzaluruguay were to bring facts in from reliable books he would have something worth putting in the article. This has not happened yet. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

@Zorzaluruguay: Published sources from the 1920s and 1930s should be considered primary sources in this case. No newspaper of the day had the whole story about Gardel, so why would we use such a newspaper to prove a point? Instead, modern researchers should be used as WP:Secondary sources because they have sifted through all the quotes and known facts to analyze Gardel's life in the big picture, and to present a thesis on what the truth is. Books, magazines and journal articles are the best sources. Self-published sources such as blogs are much lower quality—they cannot stand up to contradiction from scholars.
Why would you want to put the images of the passport and the ID card in the article? Nobody questions those documents, and they do not prove one birthplace or the other. Binksternet (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by oscarthecat

Carlos Gardel discussion

Request - Zorzaluruguay: could you update your opening statement to identify some specific sources you are using to support your position? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

My first corrections on Gardel's section involved referencing and citing sources. They where the same sources referenced by the original author of the section. They where removed citing wikipedia's sources guidelines. I re-inserted my edits but this time I referenced the specific sections within the original sources that dealt with the theory that he was born in Uruguay. Again they where removed but this time together with the sources of the original article, but leaving the original article intact. So this time I thought best to show the documentation that supports both theories and the arguments that followers of each make for and against the other. They where removed again, with a different reason, but this time the article was severely re-written by Mr binksternet (I do not know what this call sign stands for) to the point of nihiling the need for this section.

My point was never to argue the merits of one point over the other but to simply state both theories, but it looks that that was never binksternet's point.

I can begin uploading and naming sources for the first theory. That is no problem because while Mr. Gardel was alive all articles, interviews, reports and the like based on him stated one fact. My intentions to do this was told to Mr Binksternet and was welcomed to do so but told that wikipedia could remove them arbitrarily (I ask that you view the logs created in Carlos Gardel's talk section as well as mine, Mr. Binksternet's and Mr. Oscarthecat's). All of these sources are backed by several government documents, which are the ones I tried to show but was not permitted to. These documents are from various countries.

The documents are: a census of the Bordeaux region of 1887 that shows a Charles Gardes of 11 born in South America, Gardel's argentine's passport and national ID showing his POB, and the fourth document (not loaded) was the alleged will. The first three a part of the documentation that supports the Uruguay theory, the fourth is the only one that backs the French theory. Both are severely treated by opposing camps, and I wanted to show what they were. That is the basis for all the books you'll find on this subject. If you want to, but I do not think this is the place, I can site the reason for and against as presented by them, or allow the documents to speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorzaluruguay (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources: The following sources are not centered on the documents already provided. Those can serve as additional sources or, as I intended, complement the article directly. The sources cited below are recorded statements made directly by Gardel and an interview made to Berta Gardes where all her statements punch holes to the French theory. I could rewrite the whole piece based on these items alone, which was not my intention. There's also a whole library of indirect sources, interviews to friends and fellow musicians of the time, taken as early as 1902, which I didn't include because it would take me away from the origianl scope of my re-edit, it would include wikipedia as a forum to discuss his nationality, and thirdly because I don't have the will nor time to go over ALL the existing articles, reports, interviews and papers made about him that eco he was born in Uruguay.

a) “Vida y milagros de Carlos Gardel” by Nelson Bayardo (1931, La Republica); Gardel states to have been born in Tacuarembo, Uruguay; b) “El Pobre Gardel" by Cesar Gonzalez Ruano (1935, ABC Madrid); Spaniard interview that depicts Gardel as uruguayan; c) "Carlos Gardel" (1933, Popular film #336); french newsman interviews Gardel while in paramount studios regarding the POB controversy, was he ARGENTINEAN or Uruguayan, where Gardel afirms he was born in Uruguay, that his first concerts where held in Montevideo and that he moved to Buenos Aires when 16y d) "GARDEL EN EL BARRIO SUR DE MONTEVIDEO" (1935, El Diario Montevideo); Shows where Gardel lived in Montevideo as a young kid; e) "La tragedia de Medellin" (24/06/1935, Noticias Graficas Argentina); argentinian nespaper reports the crash, depicts repeatedly Gardel as Uruguayan born; f) "La Verdadera Vida De Carlos Gardel" (06/06/1096, La Cancion Moderna); Berta Gardes is interviewed a year after the crash. She states she couldn't communicate with Carlitos because they spoke different languajes;

--Zorzaluruguay (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but purported images of passports etc are of unverifiable authenticity (and WP:PRIMARY as well). Can you please provide secondary sources such as academic books etc which verify your claim. Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The validity of the passport and national ID has already been decided and has never been contested by either camp, and it should not be the case here. The section in Gardel's bio that I wanted to contribute to regards the controversy on his POB. My contribution is firstly the inclusion of the documents that support each claim, regardless of the validity that they might or might not have, according to either camp or third parties, and secondly mention the arguments for the merits, or lack of, that each camp gives them, without interpreting or analyzing them.--Zorzaluruguay (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IRWolfie. You'll need statements by reliable secondary sources to back up your claims. Primary sources, like the documents you've mentioned, should be avoided, as per Wikipedia's WP:RS guideline, if they invite the reader to make interpretive claims, especially if the primary sources allegedly contradict academic consensus on the subject. Otherwise, using the primary sources qualifies as original research.--SGCM (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an argument about the merits, or lack thereof, of documentation. Yes I do understand the proper use of sources in papers, but in this case all there is is a lot of smoke based on a few, arguably contested, documents. The only consensus on the matter is that both camps agree to disagree. All work, analyses, interpretations published by one camp is immediately countered by the other. These points of view we can post, with their respective sources, when both theories are discussed on their merits. Which is what I wanted to do. Unfortunately my sources were removed because the other side had sources that counters them, so I provided sources that counter those, and they were removed on the basis that the point was already solved because of proportionality.

Doing so only gets us knee-deep in an argument that everybody else gets into when this subject is raised, and it's silliness is what I thought interesting to show. This a BIG "he said she said" fight, and everyone wants to stand clear of it. Isn't there a disclaimer that you can place at the beginning of the section that warns the reader? One that warns that in actuality this argument is like the Lilliputian feud on what side you should begin eating a boiled egg from? That or we can leave it as the spanish version, or reference it maybe? This will be better than to claim that Gardel applied for uruguayan citizenship. --Zorzaluruguay (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, do you have reliable secondary sources?--SGCM (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had above. To the ones that were originally in the file we can add the ones referenced above and the documents, which although they can be classified as primary they could also be included. But I'm sorry, I don't understand. Do you want me to look for their isbn's?--Zorzaluruguay (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Academic sources, preferably recent ones. Newspaper sources and interviews from the 1930s are, in this context, primary sources. Sources from the 1920s and 1930s are not reliable, because it was during the 1920s that Gardel allegedly began falsifying his place of birth. The sources are too close to the event to be considered secondary. Do you have any modern scholars making the claim that he was born in Uruguay, not France?--SGCM (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well that's the thing isn't it? All materials that support one theory is denied because it counters the other. All materials that support the Uruguay theory are based on documents and/or references from that period or earlier, which is the time he was alive. Primary sources is defined as evidence, and that's all there is, evidence that he was born in Uruguay, evidence that the Charles Gardes alleged to be him was born in Amerique du Sud. There is no evidence that Gardes was in fact Gardel. The only evidence that he was was an unwitnessed handwritten note allegedly written by him. There is no birth certificate that states he was born in Uruguay because, like in Argentina, at the time it was prohibited to register children born out of wedlock (as silly as it seems now), they could only do so when they reached adulthood. Why did he then took out an Uruguayan ID card when he just could have said he was born out of wedlock in the interior of Argentina and obtain the same or better results? Because everybody knew where he was from. Everybody knew he arrived in Buenos Aires at 16, not 2. What substantiates this claim are the sources I mentioned which you won't consider. If we are now reviewing the merits of these documents based on what the french theorist say, then I have to say that it has never been proven that Gardel lied, nor the possible reason. It has been inferred yes that it was to avoid draft, but that argument is moot because he received gunshot wounds, in the chest and in the leg, from Che Guevara's father making him ineligible for active service (not denied by french theorists), and there are records that he traveled to Tacuarembo to recuperate (there are hospital and other primary sources as well as secondary sources that back this up, but its of the time so now I don't know if it meets wikipedia's guidelines for publication).

As I stated before, this section involves a controversy and all I wanted to do is align it with the spanish version of Gardel. If you regard secondary sources of the time has evidentiary and unqualified to support the argument then remove the section, its fine with me, but to state that there is no argument because the only sources you allow supports one version of the fact is silly. In all fairness removing the section altogether would be better then to have wikipedia as a source that gardel applied for uruguayan citizenship.

I recommend that if you still want to disavow these sources, if the lack merit sole because it counters what the other side says (sic), then simply reference the spanish version, if you don't want to do that well I guess its fine. I'm not going to waste any more time arguing.

Regards --Zorzaluruguay (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources are not rejected because they support an alternative theory. The problem here is that they are cited with primary sources of questionable reliability. If you had modern reliable secondary sources (like a history book or journal article written by a scholar), then there would be no argument over their inclusion.--SGCM (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the reason given to disavow those documents is exactly that. To quote "Sources from the 1920s and 1930s are not reliable, because it was during the 1920s that Gardel allegedly began falsifying his place of birth." This is exactly what the french theory states (without proof and only referencing each other).--Zorzaluruguay (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there modern scholars that support the Uruguayan theory? If so, reference them.--SGCM (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This case will be closed as resolved within 24 hours. There is a consensus that modern reliable second party sources must be used to make claims that might be contested.--SGCM (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would broaden SGCM's suggestion and ask parties to list sources inside this table:

Once replaced placeholders, please only add sources to the bottom of respective table cell, so that they could be further referred to by numbers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I was writting a paper that allows to weave all the sources. Besides the evidenciary sources showned before, I'm adding and additional 5 (there are more but I didn't want the paper to be source heavy). The first, although from 1945, deals with the accident itself but is of particular interest because it shows the charred remains of Gardel's passport. The next three are scholastic works performed by historian Silva Cabrera. In his first work reference Mr Silva deals with the general documentation of Gardel's POB, his second work deals with documentation from the 1902 uruguayan national ID that Gardel solicited, this request is composed of two pieces, one which obtains a sworn statement of the padre of the church where he was baptized (which includes parents' given and surnames) and the second where he requests his ID (again naming his parents). His third work deals with the accident and deals throughout the book on his POB. The fifth source references argentinian law that states if a government application is requested with false information its void and null, so if Mr Gardel lied as they want to so badly then he's not argentinian, possibly venezuelan (not quiding). --Zorzaluruguay (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Zorzaluruguay: Your responses here are very lengthy ... please see Too long, didn't read. It is best if you just find the best 4 or 5 sources, and just identify each source (publication date, author, publisher) and provide a brief quote. Just put them into the table format suggested by user czarkoff; or simply in a bullet-list. That is all we need! When evaluating the sources, sources published by major publishers or written by academics will be given more weight. For instance, the source The Life, Music, and Times of Carlos Gardel is written by a scholar and published by an academic press, so it will have more weight than non-academic sources. --Noleander (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC) I had--Zorzaluruguay (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The titles in the table above suggest that "Uruguay" theory doesn't deserve its current weight. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Question to Zorzaluruguay, do any of the sources that you've provided explicitly state that the French theory is wrong or inaccurate? Translated excerpts of the text would be most helpful for the volunteers here to evaluate it.--SGCM (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the lenght of my responses but from the beginning I responded by supplieng sources and references, only to have them denied because they were either too old, contradicted french theory, so I feel that what we're doing is checking the merits of one theory as measured by the number of sources the other has, and I feel that somehow I have to explain the sources provided and not just drop them out of context. So, of the three sources showned above, the mid three are scholastic. MR. Silva Cabrera is a scholar and historian of note with works published by private binding houses (there is no university press in Uruguay). Only the mid three deal directly with the merits of the french theory (it wasn't given credence for lack of direct evidence and its contradictory statements), by showing documented proof of Gardel's nationality (complemented with interviews of the time and later), by showing that there were much too many Charles Gardes in Toulouse, one born in the mid 70's in south america, one in 1890 and another (one of these?) who died in WWI, and by showing the unwitness handwritten note attributed to Gardel that is the keystone of the french theory. Its not that they need to prove the french theory wrong, is that the french theory never showed evidence that the uruguay theory is. --Zorzaluruguay (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide a translated excerpt for us to verify?--SGCM (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Bbb23

Although I'm still not happy with the conduct discussions, I commend SGCM and Amadscientist for trying to keep the discussion focused. Because of that, I'll make a few comments. I've seen the film, but a long time ago. I don't remember what Portman said at the end. The Plot section of film articles is an odd beast because generally it's not only unsourced, but acceptable to be unsourced, at least in practice; I haven't found a guideline on it. I don't care that much how this issue is resolved as long as there's a viable consensus for it. I have no personal preference, except possibly to eliminate the quote entirely. My only reason for that preference is practical - to eliminate the argument and what I consider to be a waste of editor resources. Still, even if we decide to do that, someone will probably come along in the future and add it back in. Some things never seem to go away.

I don't like the idea of putting in both perceptions because I think it's too much Wikipedia-type clutter for something this trivial. Also, to the extent people are referring to Awien's latest sources, they are blogs. Essentially, it's like taking some kind of a vote, but instead of a vote of Wikipedia editors, it's a vote of some unauthoritative subset of the public. I'm against that. I'd rather vote among Wikipedians. Normally, of course, a consensus isn't reached by vote numbers, but, again, this is an odd context - it's just a question of what an editor thinks they heard. I, of course, would not vote because I don't know. Besides, I don't particularly want to vote.

I kind of like the idea of looking at a DVD or some other disk with subtitles and see what the subtitles say, although I've seen many times that subtitles are wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Debresser

The version "It" is based on the script (doesn't really matter whether it is a pirated version or not), and on what I heard myself. I checked it a few times. So did others. The change to "I" was made, and reverted, and the discussion was reopened. The editor did not provide a source for "I" in the discussion (till today). If he would have, I would have accepted a text with both versions and their sources. Such is accepted practice on Wikipedia, to have both versions and their sources (with the exception of non-notable fringe opinions).

The problem could have been avoided, if Awien would have been less bold (both with the original edit and his proposed compromise version) and discussed his edits, and would have provided sources. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by SubSeven

Awien has failed to produce anything substantial to back up his edits. We have a copy of a script that confirms the line as "It was perfect". You can quibble about whether it was a leaked version of the script, maybe it wasn't the absolute final-final version, but what has Awien countered this with? Not much. Quotes on IMDb are user-submitted. For all we know, Awien was the one who submitted it to IMDb. I don't think he did, but the point is, this is not a reliable source. Bouncing around on Google digging up various WP:SPS links doesn't help your case either (though the one that Awien linked to doesn't quote either version of the line verbatim anyway). Yes, I'm sure there are people in the world, like Awien, who misinterpreted the whispered dialogue. So what? There is no reason to acknowledge it in the article.

In addition, anyone who owns the Black Swan DVD, or can get their hands on a copy, can watch the ending with subtitles turned on and confirm that the dialogue is indeed "It was perfect". I suppose that posting a brief video clip of this scene with the subtitles would be considered reproduction of copyrighted material, so I haven't done so, though I'd be happy to go to the trouble in order to put the issue to rest.

No version of the "compromise" edit would be acceptable to me. --SubSeven (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, SubSeven, I have never submitted anything to IMDb. Awien (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Black Swan (film) discussion

Here's a compromise. The article will say that it is uncertain, and provide all the (properly sourced) possibilities. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. If all three editors (the ones engaged in the discussion) agree we can call this dispute resolved.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

All four editors are now involved in the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't that get us back to: her last words are variously interpreted as "I felt it. Perfect. It was perfect", or "I felt it. Perfect. I was perfect".?

Or I'm OK with rephrasing it as: her last words are uncertain, either "I felt it. Perfect. It was perfect", or "I felt it. Perfect. I was perfect".

Awien (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The latter version seems best. But a source should be added for each of them. Otherwise, the compromise is not worth much, since unsourced information which is obviously contended is so easily removed. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A question: Doesn't the DVD/Blu-ray come with English subtitles? Perhaps that source should be consulted.--SGCM (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The article can say "Disputed, might be..." without any particicular order. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This is Awien. I'm back after losing internet for a few hours when a wisp of the remains of Isaac brushed us here.

Debresser, I suggest we not worry too much about being perceived as contended - "uncertain" is neutral, and most people are aware that there can be ambiguity and/or uncertainty in life. In any case, to claim certainty when there is no certainty is intellectually dishonest. And if the edit does get removed, that gets us to what was our second-best option that you said you wouldn't oppose: taking it out ourselves because of the lack of certainty.

Ebe, I would prefer to avoid "disputed" as too strong. "Uncertain" is enough to say one can't be sure, and we don't want to call attention to disputes, do we?

SGCM, good idea. Anyone have the disc?

If everybody is OK with "uncertain", can I make that edit? Or would somebody else like to?

In any case, I'm now going offline for tonight. Hoping we have a solution, I wish you all goodnight. Awien (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Went too fast and missed Sub Seven above. Where DO we stand now? Goodnight anyway. Awien (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No consensus at this time. 2 for the compromise and two against. Best to give it some time. If "No consensus" is the outcome, no change should be made.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about last night, everybody. I failed to notice that the conversation was ongoing at the top of the page as well as the bottom.

There can be no certainty, but realistically, there's a very good chance (~80%) that the present statement is incorrect.

So re-reading, it seems to me we (can) probably have an actual consensus that rather than stating as fact something that is open to so much doubt, the most honest solution would be to refrain from pronouncing at all, that is, simply refrain from quoting the last line. It sounds as though at least Debresser, Bbb23 and I could agree to that. The "never going away" problem could be a bit alleviated by placing a hidden message in the edit box saying "Please don't add a quote before reading the discussion".

If that's acceptable, we're done. If it isn't, just so you know, I'll go to RfC. Awien (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with "uncertain". I'd prefer not to remove the last line altogether. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Me too, Debresser. But given that we're deadlocked on that unless Bbb23 or SubSeven changes his/her mind, I'm proposing removal as a possible way of achieving consensus or at least a majority. Awien (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What I specifically objected to was the compromise edit which gave both versions of the quote. A removal of the quote would be a better solution, IF a dispute could be demonstrated. But I see you guys talking about a dispute and an uncertainty and I don't understand what it is. If the version currently given in the article is confirmed in a script, and also confirmed in the subtitles, what is the dispute? --SubSeven (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

After watching this discussion for some time I would note that indeed the importance of the exact wording is not important for the article. I would suggest to get rid of the quote entirely or rewrite the description of the film's ending to cover the idea behind the quote. Keeping both versions violates WP:NPOV, as it gives an impression that the exact word is important and was discussed in sources as such, which doesn't seem to be true. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That could work. Perhaps the phrase "As the white ceiling lights envelop her, she whispers, 'I felt it. Perfect. It was perfect.'" should be reworded to "As the white ceiling lights envelop her, the film ends with her whispering that the performance was 'perfect.'"--SGCM (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

SubSeven, the script is not authoritative nor can be - I think that's proven. (You might want to re-read what has been said). A reasonably random sampling of ordinary filmgoers indicates that a good 80% of them perceive the last words to be "I was perfect", raising a very good possibility that the last words are in fact "I was perfect". Given that level of uncertainty, we can't honestly say authoritatively that the last words are "It was perfect". In the interest of integrity, the options open to us are give both, or neither. I prefer both, but I'm OK with neither. Awien (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

SGCM, I'm afraid that doesn't work because it's simply giving the "it" version as indirect speech rather than direct. Reference to last words would have to go entirely, which is why giving both seems preferable to me, but if we can't get consensus for that, so be it. Awien (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"As the white ceiling lights envelop her, the film ends with her whispering that her performance was 'perfect.'" Changed "the" to "her", which would make sense both if Portman said "it" or "I."--SGCM (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem here. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That's still "it" indirectly, SGCM. A more radical possibility, cutting reference to last words completely without being too obvious about it: Thomas and the cast gather to congratulate her—only to find that she is severely bleeding. The film ends with Nina’s cosciousness appearing to fade into white light. Awien (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That works. I have no objections.--SGCM (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I am telling you that the script AND the subtitles on the DVD confirm this version of the dialogue. Do you not believe me? Do you want me to mail you the disc so you can see for yourself? --SubSeven (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

SubSeven, for the sake of your own development of critical thinking skills, I would be much happier to see you recognising that the draft script you are so hung up on doesn’t and can’t prove anything.

As to whether I believe you about the subtitles, provisionally I take your word for that till I’m next at the library. Even so, subtitles too can be wildly wrong, as Bbb acknowledges above.

However, assuming that you are indeed telling the truth, subtitles are enough for me to withdraw my objection to keeping the present version at this time.

Thank you volunteers for your help. Bravo Debresser for your open mind. Bbb23, you are so right about the anomalous nature of plot summaries.

Eppure . . . she does say “I was perfect”.

But as far as I’m concerned, we can call the case closed. Awien (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone listened to the DVD commentary? Perhaps there is something there. Also, to be fair Awaien, you have not proven your case...at all. I listed to the quote and she seems to say "it" but as she fades off she does not pronounce the "T", but clearly to my ear she is not pronouncing the I as rhyming with "Eye" but as rhyming with "bit". I would ask that all parties begin showing their primary and secondary sources. If none can be produced I would almost be willing to say there has been no dispute actually shown here. Part of this is to prove your case and not just require a compromise when others are objecting. Also, if you are saying that you intend to take this to RFC if this doesn't go your way, why even come here to begin with? Wouldn't an RFC have been a better choice before taking up the time of volunteers here?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Awien broght this here and they're now willing to accept what SubSeven says. Can't we just close the case as resolved?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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