Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 96

Summary of dispute by Middayexpress

Alifazal unilaterally added a WP:PROFA image to the Hargeisa page on 7 February 2014 . I removed the image shortly afterwards, explaining on his talk page the following day that it was controversial . A third opinion discussion was started a few hours later on the article's talk page seeking to obtain concensus for the first time for this image. The discussion ended the following month, with only Alifazal and one other user supporting the image. Myself and two other uninvolved users supported instead a full shot of the same monument rather than Alifazal's preferred shot of one particular part of the monument, which depicts a drawn male figure with a chopped off arm . I subsequently edited the article accordingly, adding the full shot of the monument and indicating in my edit summary that it was per the discussion's denoument . However, Alifazal today attempted again to unilaterally re-add the image . Middayexpress (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hargeisa#1960.E2.80.931980s discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm a regular volunteer here. In dealing with cases brought here, we have a great deal of flexibility as to how to handle them. I'm going to handle this by giving a neutral assessment and opinion — a "third opinion," in effect, though it is really far past that — and then throw it back to the article talk page for further discussion and/or an Request for Comments.

• First, let me say that I am strongly of the opinion that WP:PROFA does not control this matter. The lede of that guideline says:

  However, words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers^[1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

  I see nothing in any version of this image which could reasonably be considered offensive by the majority of the website readers ... that are literate in [English]. Indeed, the argument made in favor of the application of PROFA implies only a tiny subset of Wikipedia readers: "Outside of parts of the Somaliland region, the Hargeisa monument is controversial, as it portrays in heroic terms rebels and the Somali authorities as villains." Though it may (or may not) be a sad commentary on the World's English-speaking population, there is little doubt that the majority of Wikipedia readers are not sufficiently aware of what the issues and participants are in this region to have an opinion as to which side to support and, thus, which to be offended by due to the support given to it by this image. However, though PROFA does not control, that does not mean that the detailed image or, indeed, any image should be used here, it merely means that PROFA is not a reason to do one thing or another.

• Second, I'd like to remark about the current procedural state of this dispute: At the end of the active discussion on February 11, 2014, the detailed version of the image — Monument in Hargeysa.jpg — was in the article. It remained in the article without active ongoing discussion or reversions until replaced with an image of the full monument by Middayexpress on June 20, 2014. There was a comment on the talk page by Mvblair on March 18 supporting the full image, but with no resulting discussion, and then a comment by AcidSnow on June 21, the day after the image was replaced, opposing the use of any version of the image. It is my opinion that consensus was formed for the inclusion of the detailed image when discussion and reversion stopped on February 11 and the detailed image was allowed to remain in the article for more than five months. The detailed image should, therefore, remain in the article unless a new consensus is formed to either replace it with the full image (or some other image) or remove it from the article altogether. Consensus-by-silent-concession is by far the most common means of consensus formation here at Wikipedia: folks discuss something, sometimes heatedly, and then give up and walk away leaving the status quo in the article as consensus. (In passing, let me note that I strongly disagree that replacement of the detailed image with the full image would have been the denouement of that discussion even if it had occurred at the end of the February discussion. At the end of February, the "count" was one for the detailed image, two for an image of the airplane only (not the entire monument), and one for a combined image of both the detail and the full monument. Even if you add in Mvblair's support of the full image more than a month later [which I do not believe you should; the discussion had plainly gone stale by then as indicated by the lack of immediate response to Mvblair's posting], that still comes as close to "no consensus" up until that point as I can imagine.) When everyone walks away from the discussion and leaves the image in the article, that's consensus-by-silent-consession for the status quo. What we now have, therefore, is a new dispute: not which-if-any image to use in the article, but whether to replace the current image with a different image. To do that requires a new consensus to be formed (and new discussion before assistance from moderated content dispute resolution can be had, which is another reason for this closure). That can be done through discussion on the talk page or the filing of a request for comments. Unless and until a new consensus for a different image or no image can be formed, however, the current detailed image should remain in the article.
• Third, if I were to weigh in on the question of replacement I would probably side with replacement with the image of the full monument. There's pretty clear indication that the monument is a major feature of this city and ought to be included for that reason. I do not believe that it's necessary, however, as an illustration of the conflict which is adequately described in the text. For that reason, I would not support the detailed image as the detailed image alone does not illustrate the monument sufficiently as a feature of the city. I could weakly support using a combined image, but frankly I think that gives a certain amount of undue weight to the conflict element and overemphasizes this monument in relation to all the other features of the city.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:48, 21 July 2014 (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.

Summary of dispute by Hoary

Summary of dispute by Frickeg

Talk:Adam Marshall discussion

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.

Summary of dispute by Ring Cinema

The Godfather discussion

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.

Summary of dispute by Damián80

Talk:Mi coraz%C3%B3n_es_tuyo discussion

Volunteer's Note: This appears to have been resolved here. Unless someone objects, this will be closed as resolved after 13:00 UST on 24 July 2014. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:39, 23 July 2014 (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.

Summary of dispute by 2point5ken

“emopop” should not be listed on this page and corrected to “synthpop” for various reasons. Classifying Cash Cash using the word "Emo" is misleading & incorrect. The word Emo relates to band like Senses Fail, Fall Out Boy, Hawthorne Heights. Cash Cash is nothing close to them. Their early releases were in the vein of electronica synth pop bands such as Hellogoodbye & 3oh3 which are both listed as synthpop on wikipedia. The sourced wikipedia pages pertaining to Cash Cash's early work, which is the material in question, are also listed as “synthpop.”

Regardless of it being ‘emo’ or ‘emo - pop’ When a researcher sees the word ‘emo’ anywhere on the page they are left with the impression of dark, emotional, depressing, or deep lyrical content either paired with yelling, soft light vocals, or even screaming. That is what the word “emo” evokes to music listeners because it defines bands that were hardcore screaming & singing about dark depressing issues / self inflicting actions in an overly dramatic way; this occurrence makes “emo” a very confusing & misleading word. Cash Cash began as a jubilant synthpop act that did some tours with a few “emo” artists along with many other bands of different styles including rap, metal, and even rnb; but that does not justify them to be listed as any of those genres. If that was the case we could call them Rap because they toured with Tyga.

Listning emo - pop is also a total contradiction considering the wiki definition of emo pop is “blending "youthful angst" with "slick production" and mainstream appeal, using "high-pitched melodies, rhythmic guitars, and lyrics concerning adolescence, relationships, and heartbreak." Cash Cash was known to have the opposite lyrical content making “pop” the only correct word in the phrase. Their early work was happy, bright & filled with synths, keyboards, & vocoder. Listing “emopop” is bias, confusing, negative, and a huge contradiction.

It’s also very negative & offensive to them and I’m going to elaborate why. Cash Cash was on the opposite side of the emopop movement. “Emo” stems from the word “emotional.” Bands like Dashboard Confessional, Brand New, & The Get Up Kids greatly embraced the term. On the contrary, Cash Cash’s lyrical content along with music strayed far away from emo given their “Bubble Gum” lyrics. Their first single was called “Party In Your Bedroom,” and is self explanatory of what they were about during that era. They were bubbly “sythpop” not “emopop.” Both genres are very different and should not be confused. Cash Cash doesn't deserve to have their reputation confused & degraded because someone is hooked on the idea that they were "emopop" because of an opinionated review. Wikipedia is simply not the place to list things based off of biased reviews or opinions. It's not fair to the group or researchers. Considering the argument at hand, I feel it would be smart to actually leave both off the page and base this section around their main official genres as stated by user: LaurenCastellano: (Dance, Pop, Electronica, Progressive House, Electro House, Nu - Disco) leaving no debate or confusion but was ok with correcting “emopop” to “synthpop” hoping that would be the compromise with user Chubbles. I’m ok with “synthpop” because at least it’s not a contradicting or confusing genre to describe their early stuff.

Summary of dispute by LaurenCastellano

"Emopop" is also not an official genre respected by retailers or music outlets and is a genre created by bias listeners…so whose to say whose wrong or right? At this point It would be best to keep the genres focused on how the band's material was / is being officially released as and not based off of bias reviews because wiki is not a review site or blog - it’s supposed to be encyclopedic. All their official releases through major outlets have been listed as either Dance, Pop, Electronica, Progressive House, Electro House, Nu - Disco. The sub genres that have been recently added are sub genres that the dance community classifies them as + how their music is listed in niche places like Beatport and such.

Allmusic’s side bar currently does not respect or list “emopop” under styles or genres because it was based off a biased review of the album that didn’t match up with the band. If someone wants to call the band “emopop” in a review that’s 100% ok but it’s wrong to use it in an factual place such as an article on Wiki especially since it’s a sensitive subject. Wikipedia is a place of factual information and not opinion, promo, or critique. Given both wiki pages of their early stuff, I have to agree that the correct definition of their early sound is “synthpop,” plus nobody seems to disagree about that.

Talk:Cash Cash discussion

Administrative note: Thanks to T-Man, all parties have been notified of this DRN filing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I left notice on the article talk page, rather than user pages, since all parties are making regular commentary there. But thank you for going the extra mile on notification. Chubbles (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Core of the dispute

Dear Chubbles, 2point5ken and LaurenCastellano: This case is now open for discussion. Thank you for remaining civil and limiting your discussion points to issues of content only. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the core of the dispute is whether or not "synthpop" and "emopop" should be listed in the infobox as genres. Is this correct?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to synthpop being added if it is appropriately referenced, and I believe that the current footnotes, which are Wikipedia pages, are not sufficiently reliable sources. Chubbles (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes since at present synthpop is not sourced and the links to other WP articles should be removed as they are misleading to the reader. What we are trying to do is first agree on the core of the dispute which to me seems to be the presence of synthpop and emopop in the infobox. Do we all agree that this the core of the dispute? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It is one of many concerns I have about the page, but yes, it is the principal concern I am attempting to resolve through this particular venue. Chubbles (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

24 hour closing notice---- DRN participation is optional so if the other two parties don't join the discussion in the next 24 hours I'm going to close this case. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 23 July 2014 (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.

Summary of dispute by Iryna Harpy

I wouldn't qualify this as a dispute but a bit of a conflation fiasco. A section dedicated to disputing the GDP in an entirely different capacity was taken up by IP user 151.40.12.61 on 8 July .

The greater 'dispute' was initiated out of the blue by User:Crossswords on 3 July with this edit , then reverted by me a couple of days later when I noticed it , noting that the IMF is used for GDP, PPP and related statistics for all nation-states in Wikipedia. Crossswords reverted a few days later using a less than WP:CIVIL edit summary here , and slow edit warring began with his/her reverting other editors who recognise IMF as a WP:RS who had been reverting him/her. Crossswords continued with this behaviour, making spurious demands of anyone contesting his/her "bold" content change . This culminated with Crossswords blanking the GDP section on the talk page , and I responded by reinstating the section and asking why, if the user believes that the World Bank should be used as a standard, s/he is only challenging the IMF for the Russia article rather than starting an RS/N for the sake of parity on all nation-state articles.

The section on the article talk page seems to have been turned into a catch-all for a two separate 'disputes', further compounded by input by a couple of anonymous users with dynamic IPs. If IP user 151.40.12.61 has now created an account as User:Gladio4772, I would suggest that the user has difficulties in reading statistics and doesn't understand assume good faith, being uncivil, or treating Wikipedia as a battleground: but this is merely the equivalent of disruptive behaviour and being pointy without even understanding what it means. The user hasn't actually edited the article as an IP or under a new user name.

The problematic editing lies with Crossswords who has done his/her utmost to avoid WP:BRD and has engaged in a plethora of tendentious editing activities whilst trying to fly under the radar. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of Dispute by Crossroads

Why only World Bank should be used as GDP source: First of all to the russia 8th or 9th debate the 2014 IMF data for 2014 is all estimates as you can see here, the green blocks are estimates not final. How ever i think IMF GDP data shouldnt be used for any wikipedia article about countries why? Because IMF uses outdated exchange rate for their PPP gdp data, the exchange rate are coming from the ICP which is a group owned by Word Bank in fact. So World Bank always has the latest exchange rate. The IMF itself uses these data from this organisation which they state themselves, as you can read in the following [QUOTE]The International Comparisons Program (ICP) is a global statistical initiative that produces internationally comparable Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimates. The PPP exchange rate estimates, maintained and published by the World Bank, the OECD, and other international organizations, are used by WEO to calculate its own PPP weight time series. Currently, WEO PPP exchange rates are based on the ICP’s 2005 round but these will be updated upon the release of the 2011 round of estimates. For more information, you can go to the World Bank’s ICP page at http://www.worldbank.org/data/icp.[/QUOTE] So baiscly IMF PPP data was from 2005 while World Banks is now from 2011 measuring the similar living standards of economies while IMF is still too lazy updating them, nothing they do so far. But lets be logic here Wikipedia shouldnt use IMF in the first place if their PPP data is depended on the World Bank anyway. Therefore it should be replaced by World Bank data as their PPP data is always up to date. Thats why you can see that IMF and WB have different PPP numbers, its because IMFs data is outdated in the first place as they use an outdated method to calculate their data using living standards back from 2005. You can even see that china is soon to overtake the US economy in PPP and variety of media agrees they dont try to challenge it by referring to IMF because they know the truth.

What Iryna Harpy is saying is also wrong, i did also use WB data for other countries articles. I did so with Cuba replacing CIA data which is IMF data anyways (except for cuba and otehr countries the IMF isnt covering), with WB data. Now is it like i am some robot and can change all article for every country? of course not. Also i dont like the IMF data because they openly make estimates, people constantly confuse what is estimates with and what is final as i have shown above in the link. World Bank will never make any GDP estimations, the recent GDP numbers are always only completed if the year is already over, this is how it should be made. Having estimates results in debates constantly in what should be used and what not, as you can see in the Russia article--Crossswords (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sergecross73

I have no stance in this dispute. I've only been involved because a different editor requested administrative help with dealing a difficult IP (who has now created an account as "Gladios". ) All I have to add is that Gladios, as an IP, has constantly assumed bad faith of others, makes disruptive comments, and doesn't understand the concept of vandalism, or many other basic English phrases. That being said, I suppose he could be right too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gladio4772

WB data aren't the standard used for ALL nations in Wikipedia english.IMF data 2014 are the only one standard used in nations articles.(See USA ,UK and so on...).WB data referred to 2013 are still under revision so not definitive.Same for IMF.So World Bank data 2013 are estimates (they must be revised again-ISTAT for istance for Italy like all statistic centres for other states has to revise the italian nominal gdp of 2013,so how is it possible ranking Italy and Russia in a definitive way?) like IMF April data 2014.Many times are deeply revised and revised again also after the first publication (generally in Spring of the following year) when the year is over because of the accounting changes or other causes and this changes a lot numbers.IMF data and World Bank data referred to the nominal GDP are very very similar because the counting is mostly the same.So no chances to criticize IMF about it. In Wikipedia english the standard is using english and not other languages,so it's for nominal GDPS.Wikipedia has its own standards to follow and these are IMF April data 2014.We have definitive (these are the "true" final data ,and not the ones published in Spring the following year) data only referred to 2012 for nominal gpds and in 2012 Italy was same 8th while Russia 9th.In Italy article there's even a mistake about it (there's written that Italy was 9th as nominal gdp in 2012:WRONG ,it was 8th; i corrected it only Wikipedia italian Italy article).A lot of mistakes about gdps derive from dated writings or ignorance or other.

I suggested in the Talk to correct 2 big mistakes referred to Russia nominal gdp ranking in Russia article presentation and in the part close to the nominal gdp value (2092).The standard for ALL nations data and rankings are based on IMF data 2014,why Russia not?Why this exclusive situation?I've posted the official IMF organization site in the Russia Talk (if you need i can post it here again) List of countries by past and future GDP (nominal).Checking Italy article you can see that Italy is 8th by nominal gdp with 2,171 trillions and Russia is ranked same with only 2,092 trillions.There's the evidence of the 2 mistakes in Russia article because the 2 countries with different nominal gdps can't be at the same time 8th.Italy is the real 8th and Russia is 9th.Some people wrote me about GDP PPP,but i never cited it and i don't care of it.Lost time talking about it.CROSSWORDS uses GDP ppp just to say that IMF is worse than World Bank and people must use World Bank data.IMF have its own institutes (that in many cases are better than the World Bank ones) that neither WB owns so avoid to attack even international organizations.Other people realized the mistakes like IP 129....,but he justified without any official number the mistakes He wrote "c'mon.." just to say "let it go even if it doesn't respect IMF official data".Irina Harpy supports me in this and has realized the problem.She answers to 129.... in few words that my position is right.Honestly i'm not able to realize Taivo position.Nobody really succeded in showing i'm wrong.Sometimes i didn't realize english of other people (but i realize english of many other people in different places ;my neighbour is from Doncaster (UK,EU) and i talk with him very well).I don't like to write negative things on other people,i reacted only if i was attacked or i saw partial actions or i felt offended or bad feith.I can just say that Russia article reported Russia ranking by nominal gdp 9th less than 3 months ago and somebody changed it unlocking and posting 8th.It's impossible to see in the Talk the discussion about this change that appear like a phantom acting.TO CROSSWORDS : also 2013 data IMF about all nations aren't definitive and same thing for World Bank (so 2013 data of World Bank that is over as you like aren't definitive and so they are just estimates too ).Do you want to say that IMF isn't a good source about nominal GDPS?Explain this to economic world and Wikipedia administrators and editors.In 2012 Russia seemed to have overtaken Italy according to IMF but after the last revision Italy in 2012 was still 8th.So 2013 data aren't still definitive but just estimates like the 2014 ones.Wikipedia standards are based only on 2014 IMF data for all nations.CROSSWORDS expressed just personal opinions against Wikipedia lines and above all based on wrong points.I don't like to show useless posts to make impression to other people like him.I know them and they are useless to solve these 2 mistakes.He has NOTHING on his hands.Wikipedia official lines (and mine too) are totally different about nominal gdps.I'm costantly in contact with ISTAT,OECD and IMF and i can make also cite you their names.I repeat about official numbers of IMF there's a very very small place for arguing or fantasy.It's impossible to deny my STATEMENTS based on official IMF data April 2014.If you need more informations ask me.I beg your pardon if i used a wrong form in presenting it.Have a good day and thanks.PS @ CROSSWORDS:try GDP ppp with the 2013 exchange rates (why 2011 exchange rates and not 2005 or 2013?) ,they changed a lot for Russia and other states,in fact ruble fell like many other weak currencies.Above all DISPUTE started because of WRONG data of nominal gdp ranking posted on Russia article unlocked in a not right way .NUMBERS ARE NUMBERS,NOT OPINIONS.Gladio4772 (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Taivo

User:Gladio4772 (under the guise of an anonymous IP) has been pushing the position that Russia's GDP ranking is incorrectly stated in the infobox at Russia. He originally pushed the notion that he would refuse to accept the IMF's ranking because he seems to fervently oppose anything having to do with the IMF. When we explained that we use the IMF ranking in all the Wikipedia infoboxes for consistency, he continued to push the anti-IMF rhetoric. His arguments have not moved beyond that and have included personal attacks. It's always hard to understand much of what he writes because his English skills aren't developed enough to clearly talk about the topic at hand. When he wrote "strong weakness", I called it an oxymoron, but he thought it was a personal attack. He seems to be very entrenched in his anti-IMF opinion. --Taivo (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Russia#MISTAKE IN RANKING NOMINAL GDP.It's 9th! discussion

If anyone is still following this DRN which - inevitably and wisely - no volunteers picked up on, I think I've worked out what the problem is (despite the WP:WALLOFTEXT and personal attacks, and with no thanks to them).

There are two issues:

• Whether the IMF is a reliable source for use in the fiscal sections of country infoboxes, or whether the World Bank figures should be used. As all of the articles for countries use IMF figures, for the sake of parity this is an issue which should be taken to a Reliable Sources noticeboard for discussion. It isn't an issue for local consensus per each article on a nation-state (as I suggested above).
• IMF stats being used on every individual article (such as Italy and Russia) do not include their numerical status in the global economy. These can only be compared and ranked if every country listed at the IMF is downloaded and sorted for the nominal GDP, GDP PPP, etc. and are available on the List of countries by GDP (PPP) article, the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, the List of countries by GDP (nominal) article, and the List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita article. Those articles are not being maintained, and the latest tables stop at 2013. Unless someone is willing to update those pages, we really don't have any method of establishing the ranking.

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In IMF April report every country has its data.So or we rank every country by these data or we delete all rankings in all states ( i don't think in Wikipedia the majority of administrators and editors would agree with it).The ranking in all lists that Iryna Harpy cites rankings are given not by IMF or WB but by editors.All states ranking were well set by administrators for every country but in Russia article were changed without any discussion in Talk (vandalism).So should we delete all rankings in all states articles for Russia article vandalism?All states can be ranked by their value of gdp and IMF owns THE NEWEST ESTIMATED ON 2014 (WB HAS ESTIMATED only on 2013- I ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY WB DATA 2013 ARE ESTIMATES TOO) compared to WB.In this case Italy with 2,171 trillions $ is 8th and Russia with 2,092 trillions is 9th.IMF is a statistic and scientific organization.Who can deny it ?Before somebody must to show that IMF isn't so (really an impossible thing).So people must stop with relativism (that helps dubious acting and vandalism) and disruptive things.You must report sources that IMF data (and so rankings based on them ) aren't reliable,official and scientific.Otherwise you are talking of nothing. These are matters ONLY for people that really know this sector otherwise for people like me that studied economy is becoming really boring and disturbingI explained and explained ...but we can't last to say the same things for an everlasting time.Russian vandalic act about nominal gdp ranking (cited twice in the article presentaion) is in a cul de sac.Have all a good day. Gladio4772 (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not that easy, unfortunately. If you look at Template:Infobox_country, rank is one of the parameters written into the template. It doesn't have to be used, but it does get used. Checking on the veracity is the difficult part, especially as intentional POV pushers and vandals make changes which can (and obviously have been) easily be overlooked due to high traffic editing. If there's no centralised record for the year, there's no way of confirming that it's been changed, or was verifiable in the first place.

This isn't really the forum to discuss it. If anyone could suggest where it would be best brought up for discussion, it would be appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No,at all.You must before show that IMF data 2014 are wrong and that countries can't be ranked on them.Russia has a ranking that doesn't own I derives by a wrong vandalic act may be done in good feith.Russia is 9th.Now Russia is an isolated article compared to the other nations articles.It must be corrected.No other chance.Gladio4772 (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Gladio4772, I have not been arguing for using anything outside of IMF figures being used. Please read comments carefully before you make assumptions about what is being argued for and against. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand english? IMF has the last (2014) estimates for all countries and WB not.All countries can be ranked on these ones like they are listed in the articles you cited and Wikipedia administrators and editors did it for every nation according to 2014 IMF data.Only Russia article was vandalized about ranking of nominal gdp.To do no correct Russia article about ranking of nominal gdp before somebody has to show that IMF isn't officially a scientific and statistic world organization.all other writings are otherwise trollying.Now you are trollying.Bye.Gladio4772 (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You are an aggressive, foolish person who writes WALLOFTEXT tirades in barely comprehensible English when you could have made yourself clear with one polite sentence! I have finally understood that your one and only interest has been the nominal GDP. I would have thought you might be concerned with all of the fiscal issues addressed in the infobox which are not static but, no,you're incapable of writing one simple sentence regarding the matter. Now that I've managed to wade through your abusive, blithering, tangential indignation, I've redacted your gobbledygook to the incredibly minor issue that it really is. Here was I thinking that this much noise could only be about challenging all of the stats and being concerned about them. Yes, I'll change the nominal GDP to 9th so that it doesn't clash with Italy's 8th position! Now, please, trolly your backside out of Wikipedia and don't ever dare to presume that anyone will be prepared to discuss anything with you again. I'm serious: not a peep out of you again or I'll take you straight to an ANI! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC) (EDIT) Trout slapping self for incivility --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Russia is in 5th normal GDP as Russia is fighting the global economic crisis much more successfully than most developed countries are. Based on GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), Russia jumped ahead of all the EU nations in 2014, including Germany, which is number six in the world.

Ahead of Russia in the top five were the United States, China, India and Japan. The World Bank data substantiated the IMF rankings published in late 2014, even though the IMF rankings put Russia in fifth place, slightly slightly ahead of Germany.

July's World Bank rankings of GDP adjusted for PPP further confirm the noteworthy level of the Russian economy, experts say. According to IMF data on nominal GDP, Russia rose to fifth place to normal GDP rankings.

So my view is 8th is not the truth, its 5th according to world data. --195.211.155.32 (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

DRN volunteer's note: Hi, I'm a regular DRN volunteer, but I'm neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this point in time. I do want to ask a question and give a warning:

• Question: Does the realization and agreement made in Iryna Harpy's last edit, above, solve this matter?
• Warning: We do not allow personal attacks or other incivility at DRN. If there is one more uncivil word or personal attack here or, for that matter, any discussion whatsoever about one another or one another's conduct, habits, practices, biases, points of view, conflicts of interest, etc., rather than about the content in question, and this matter has not already been solved, this request will be closed without further consideration regardless of whether or not it has been solved. I'm not pointing fingers at any one person here, but at the situation in general.

We're going to presume that the answer to my question is "yes". Unless someone says that the answer is "no" before 16:00 UTC on 23 July 2014 then this listing will be closed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I second T-man's evaluation of this thread concerning personal attacks and incivility. Just to clarify: T-man is asking if the concession by Iryna Harpy that "Yes, I'll change the nominal GDP to 9th so that it doesn't clash with Italy's 8th position" has resolved the matter. We assume that it has and unless we hear otherwise by 1600 UTC on July 23rd this case will be automatically closed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies to Gladio4772 for being uncivil. Trying to unravel a discussion with so many IP interactions (read as arguments), alongside blanking of the talk page section and a slow edit war looming on the article itself to supplant IMF data with World Bank data (now in check) should, nevertheless, have not triggered such a downright rude reaction from me. I've now identified the second instance of incorrect ranking in the body of the article. As regards Crossswords and the IP below, I've left a message on the talk page about the issue not being a case by case, local consensus one. As IMF data is used universally for all country/nation-state pages, the reliability of the source would need to be contested at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Hopefully, this has satisfied everyone involved in the dispute. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Iryna you did all possible.I just explained you the last thing in talk page about i was meaning with second mistake.I'll post my personal problem on my profile.I hope people wwill respect my situation.I hope we'll become not only cowriters but also FRIENDS.Thanks again).Gladio4772 (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Russia's GDP is over Germany's as the fifth largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity bases of the World Bank GDP ratings. Viewing the World Bank figures show that Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP) totaled $3.38 trillion last year.

Germany is now at number six in the rankings after recording $3.30 trillion in GDP during the same period. The United States topped the rankings with $15.68 trillion, followed by China ($12.47 trillion), India ($4.79 trillion) and Japan ($4.49 trillion).

Russia has moved to fifth place in the ranking of the world’s largest economies by GDP, edging out Germany. The World Bank’s GDP purchasing power parity rating is compiled in international dollars, which have the same purchasing power over GDP as the US dollar has in the United States. GDP at purchaser’s prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. The GDP rating based on PPP is different from the IMF’s nominal GDP rating, where Russia is ranked eighth with $2.7 trillion.

Russia's Wikipedia pages needs a correction to 8th IMF’s nominal GDP rating and 5th in GDP ppp standings, there is an error and this needs to be fixed. (unsigned post by 64.129.3.150 08:56, 23 July 2014)

Anon IP, you are continuing to ignore the basic issue--that Wikipedia uses IMF exclusively to determine ranking for consistency. Your continued refusal to acknowledge that simple fact is the fundamental problem here. No, Russia is not 5th per IMF data. We have told you before and I will tell you again--if you disagree with the Wikipedia use of IMF data, then Russia is the wrong forum to make your arguments. --Taivo (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Zad68

Summary of dispute by Doc James

talk:circumcision discussion

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.

Summary of dispute by MarnetteD

Minette Walters discussion

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.

Summary of dispute by Ian.thomson

According to most of the citations in the stable article and related articles, the views that IseeEwe is trying to give (at least) equal validity are fringe and minority opinions. He has tried to justify this by presenting any sources arguing for the historicity of Jesus as inherently religiously-biased, with the only "neutral" scholars agreeing with his views. After seeing that we've had this exact same discussion with another user (User:Fearofreprisal), he made the exact sort of edits multiple editors told Fearofreprisal that there just wasn't any consensus for. After making his bold edit, his edit was reverted by multiple editors, which he took to be merely "local consensus" (even claiming that "Consensus is not required") and attempted to twist WP:BRD into "BDR," placing the onus on us to create a consensus (again, despite the previous consensus established when Fearofreprisal tried to push for this same stuff) to remove his changes rather than him having to create consensus to restore his changes. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Smeat75

Summary of dispute by Mmeijeri

There has been a dispute about the impartiality of this article for a very long time. It is not true that the editors who are taking part in discussion on the Talk page are all in favour of retaining the article as it is. Several editors including yours truly have argued for changes. There has long been a neutrality tag on the article, and I believe I was the last one to add it. I think it's unreasonable for User:IseeEwe to go to dispute resolution hours at most after a bold edit of his was reverted. In addition several of us suspect ISeeEwe of being a sockpuppet of User:Fearofreprisal. I doubt dispute resolution is the proper mechanism here.

That said, I do believe the current article is biased. It represents the views of biblical scholarship almost as if they were the "opinion of science", in the same way that other articles might treat the views of biologists on evolution. In my opinion this gives undue deference to biblical scholarship. Scholars both inside and outside the field have said that the research in question suffers from bias and unsound historical methodology. The historian Akenson in particularly has been scathing about this. Even among biblical scholars several writers have said many Historical Jesus researchers practice theology while calling it history. In my view the views of biblical scholars should be presented as notable opinions, not as facts and not in Wikipedia voice. The article should also give an overview of various other points of view, describe what groups of scholars have and have not studied the matter and discuss some of the objections that have been raised back and forth.

As far as I can tell there are at least two ways to divide the scholars who have weighed in on the matter: by opinion on the historicity of Jesus and by scholarly background.

Starting with the latter, we can identify the views of biblical scholars, views proposed by those who study Jesus Christ in comparative mythology, views by a handful of historians, views from several serious scholars publishing outside their main field of professional expertise, views from faith backgrounds, and views from antireligious or atheist backgrounds.

Regrettably for the sake of our article, very few historians have published on the matter. We do have strong opinions by several prominent historians that the issue is not in serious doubt by the historical community. Note that even Akenson who has been so scathing about biblical scholars does agree with their conclusions. In general, most scholars support historicity. Nevertheless all categories (even those of the religious background!) include a few, sometimes extremely few, who deny historicity.

Scholars who support historicity come mainly from biblical scholarship, with a very small number of historians, though we have strong evidence most historians agree with their conclusions, even if they don't find the issue worthy of a lot of study or if they have doubts about the soundness of the methodology employed by biblical scholars.

Scholars who oppose historicity also include biblical scholars, and former biblical scholars / scholars who have left or lost their former teaching and research positions. A prominent place among writers who oppose historicity is taken by several serious scholars from other disciplines, such as G.A. Wells and Alvar Ellegård. A very prominent place is taken up by nonacademic popular writers, who have been dismissed as crackpots and amateurs by some biblical scholars who favour historicity.

It may be noted that in the early 20th century the issue was taken much more seriously among various groups of scholars.

In summary, I believe the current article does a good job of identifying the point of view in favour of historicity as the more scholarly prominent one, but a very bad job of giving an overview of all the points of view, a description of the various categories of scholars who hold them, the history of the views held and of the discussion between various viewpoints, including accusations back and forth about bias, methodological soundness and academic qualifications. In particular it gives undue credibility to biblical scholarship by failing to mention the severe criticism of it by both historians and some prominent biblical scholars themselves and fails to properly distinguish between biblical scholars and historians and fails to note that very very few historians have studied the matter.

Summary of dispute by Bill the Cat 7

Summary of dispute by Tgeorgescu

Of course, verifiable information based upon reliable sources should not get summarily deleted, however I have two objections: the wording is too categorical (it is like presenting the Truth instead of an alternative viewpoint) and it does not belong in the Historicity of Jesus but in Historical criticism, since it is a general point about the later, and does not exactly address whether Jesus really existed. So, it is not specific enough for the former. So my solution is: move it inside the proper article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

To be more clear, the issue raised is one level of abstraction above the question of the existence of Jesus, and it discusses whether Bible scholars and archaeologists are on the same page or not, and whether Bible scholarship could be used to establish historical facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Huon

I came late to the dispute when I checked one of the references for IseeEwe's proposed change and found it didn't say what it was cited for. Upon request for a more appropriate page number of the given reference, IseeEwe made ridiculous counter-claims and personal attacks which I doubt they can back up with a diff. "I will not debate academia, scholarship or sources with you" is not an appropriate reply to a request for clarification when one blatantly mis-represented a source. I'd say it's not an appropriate reply on Wikipedia, ever. Huon (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by HiLo48

Uninvited visitor here, who bumbled into this particular discussion, but who has upset hard core Christian editors in the past by making what some see as the outrageous suggestion that Christian scholars are in fact the worst possible source on the matter of the historicity of Jesus. The view of someone whose faith demands that they believe is hardly going to be objective. Such people have an obvious conflict of interest, and should be not just balanced by other views, but actually ignored. Yes, it's a radical view. Feel free to discuss it. (But not me. That's what usually happens.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Fearofreprisal

Here are the events leading up to the dispute:

• IseeEwe posts a series of sourced edits

• IseeEwe starts a talk page discussion

• Smeat75 reverts IseeEwe's edits, saying: rv non consensus changes.

• Smeat75 responds to IseeEwe's talk page discussion, but does not address the reversion, or his reason for it.

• IseeEwe continues discussion on talk page. Reverts again, saying: If you have a problem with the references, then go off and develop a consensus. Your voice and opinion are not a consensus.

• Ian.thomson reverts, saying: No, per WP:BRD, YOU have to develop consensus. It's BRD, not BRRD, or BRRRRD.

• IseeEwe reverts again, saying: Local consensus is opposed by Wikipedia:Editing policy. Wait for external review.

• IseeEwe requests external review, at WP:RFC. Continues discussion on talk page.

• Ian.thomson reverts again, saying: Editing policy includes WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, which multiple users have told you that you're violating. Establish consensus and quit edit warring.

• IseeEwe requests Dispute Resolution, posts notice of this on talk page. He finally starts getting a few meaningful responses.

It appears that IseeEwe followed all the relevant WP:POLICIES. Smeat75 and Ian.thomson improperly reverted his edits on the premise that he needed to obtain consensus prior to making changes. Ian.thomson improperly reverted a second time on the premise that IseeEwe's posts violated NPOV and UNDUE. (I suspect that they were working together, to avoid violating WP:3RR)

Smeat75 and Ian.thomson's reasons for reverting, besides being improper, appear to be red herrings. While I admire Smeat75 and Ian.thomson's contributions to WP, they, and several other of the users (some of which are listed in this dispute), are among a persistent group of editors who regularly use claims of CONSENSUS, NPOV, UNDUE, FRINGE, RS, and OR to suppress any edits to the article which challenge the Christian ideology that Jesus' existence is beyond question. (This is not an accusation - it's an observation.)

I do not expect this discussion, or even a formal mediation, to result in a resolution or any meaningful change. The users who are being called to task here are very experienced, skillful, and dedicated WP editors. I doubt anything short of an outright ban would have an impact on them. And they're way too experienced to get banned. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Formerip

The problems with the article stem from that fact that the existence or otherwise of Jesus is a question that, in living memory, has been of interest almost exclusively to Bible scholars. AFAICT, there has been absolutely no significant and reasonably recent examination of the matter outside of that context. So, the issue isn't about whether "mainstream" historians agree or disagree with Bible scholars. They simply do not seem to be interested in the question. That's hardly surprising, since the only real evidence available for scrutiny is the Bible.

It is highly misleading, then, to attribute the views of Bible scholars more generally to "historians". The fact that a (somewhat self-serving) source has done so is not a good reason for WP to repeat the error. The claim itself (that "most modern scholars of antiquity" believe Jesus existed) is extraordinary, and should require extraordinary sourcing. Since there are so many of them and they are all or almost all professionally silent on the question, how can any source claim to know what they think? We can, perhaps, confidently say that few historians actively deny the existence of Jesus, but that is not the same thing. Formerip (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus discussion

• Coordinator note: I notified all listed involved parties. Thanks! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 20:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
• Seems to me that Historicity of Jesus is about Jesus through the lens of history, not of Bible study, so our focus should be on what actual historians, not Bible scholars playing historian, have to say. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, Biblical scholars, virtually by definition, have a fundamental conflict of interest when editing on this topic. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, like oncologists have when writing about cancer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Oncologists are qualified to talk about cancer. Bible scholars are qualified to talk about the Bible. Formerip (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2014 (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.

Summary of dispute by NeilN

Focusing on content only as we are instructed to do here, this statement from Salim e-a ebrahim captures the issue in a nutshell: "So, since the Quran and the Hadith are far superior primary sources than the Ahmadiyya scriptural sources than they should be given a place in the article also as references." I've been telling him over and over again that we need secondary sources for interpretation. So, issues with this edit:

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and their Caliphate are considered heretical^{[citation needed]} by all Muslim groups^{[citation needed]} due to deep theological differences.^{[citation needed]} The Quran asserts:

Mohammad is not the father of any of your men but he is the Messenger of God and the Seal (the last and final) of the Prophets. (Quran 33:40) primary source

Prophet Mohammad's hadith asserts:

Indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah, each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. But I am the last of the Prophets. There is no Prophet after me. primary source

In 1889, the founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India, claimed to be the awaited Jesus and also a Prophet. The Ahmadiyya have been excommunicated from the Muslim Ummah. unsourced and irrelevant (the article is not about prophets)

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Peaceworld111

As NeilN has pointed out above, this edit (including the quotations) is irrelevant to the subject of the article and moreover it appears to be an attempt to give justification as to why Muslims are right and Ahmadi Muslims are wrong. Salim e-a ebrahim makes this clear "The problem is very simple in my thinking and it is that my version of the article gives both sides of the issue and references from both sides and explanations from both sides and so let the reader judge the content for themselves". Wikipedia is not a battleground and a means of promotion.--Peaceworld 19:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Caliph discussion

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.

Summary of dispute by Dbrodbeck

Summary of dispute by Nikkimaria

Summary of dispute by DVdm

Summary of dispute by HiLo48

Summary of dispute by Trovatore

A whole bunch of people getting way too excited about not very much, that's my summary. Come on, folks. How much does it really matter whether WPAutism puts a tracking banner on these articles? Maybe the global solution is to make the tracking templates less obtrusive, so that people don't over-interpret them. --Trovatore (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Parabolooidal

Summary of dispute by Malerooster

Summary of dispute by Martinevans123

Thanks for the invitation, although I don't regard myself as being in any "dispute" with the OP. I objected to addition of the project tag at Ludwig Wittgenstein since the article makes no mention of any such claim and because I do not consider the sources presented in support of the claim at Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism to be sufficient to prove any "diagnosis". If Project tags are used simply to advance further investigation and if they can be shown to have no effect on reader perception of the subject of the article, they may be grounds for using them. I will try and add a more detailed response here when I have considered more carefully the alternatives being presented.

Summary of dispute by Martin451

Summary of dispute by S. Rich

Summary of dispute by Fountains of Bryn Mawr

Summary of dispute by NinjaRobotPirate

Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism discussion

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.