|
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Naseem Hamed | Closed | Mac Dreamstate (t) | 16 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 14 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 14 hours |
White Zimbabweans | Closed | Katangais (t) | 6 days, 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 hours |
Bernese Mountain Dog | In Progress | Traumnovelle (t) | 6 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 5 hours |
Macarons | Closed | 62.211.155.242 (t) | 4 days, 20 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 14 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 14 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 01:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Current disputes edit
Naseem Hamed edit
Closed. After minor technical difficulties, an RFC is in progress. The RFC will run for 30 days and then be formally closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
White Zimbabweans edit
Closed for apparent lack of interest by both parties. We were asked to make an exception to the rule that article talk page discussion is required prior to discussion here. Despite some misgivings, I opened this case for possible moderated discussion, and there were no comments. This was a waste of time by the parties and by the moderator. Discuss at the article talk page. Reliable sources are required for all article content. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Bernese Mountain Dog edit
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
The dispute is over this [4] diff, whether sources meet WP:V, and considering NPOV/DUE how many sources should be listed for life expectancy claims.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Bernese_Mountain_Dog#Reliability, as well as in other talk page discussions.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Provide consensus on the changes, choose a version to work off, and decide what sources are suitable for inclusion as currently it is one editor against another (third opinion declined this).
Summary of dispute by 7&6=thirteen edit
The issue is in the LONGEVITY LIFE EXPECTANCY section, not the HEALTH section.
The real dispute is about how long Bernese Mountain Dogs live.
The sources are independent and reliable. He keeps cutting text and references. User:Traumnovelle doesn't like the results. The disputed sources are corroborative of the professional studies. He has been WP:Edit warring over it.
There is a continuing and ongoing discussion at the article talk page. I am awaiting a consensus there. I will not address the needless personal attack other than to cite WP:Civil and WP:SAUCE. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Traumnovelle edit
Due to multiple issues with 7&6=thirteen's edits such as using self-published sources, synthesis, etc. I decided that when I had the time I would sit down, review every health claim in the article, see if the source was reliable for the claim, and if not look for alternate sources. I spent an hour or two doing this. Even ignoring the issues with synthesis and verifiability and focusing on the sources that are RS, they undue: the studies I removed were two decade outdated kennel club surveys with noticeably smaller sample sizes, it is undue to give them the same weight as more modern studies with better sampling methods and larger sample sizes. Things change and studies do become out-dated and irrelevant.
Bernese Mountain Dog discussion edit
First statement by volunteer moderator (Bernese mountain dog) edit
I am willing to act as the moderator for moderated discussion about this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Do each of you agree to follow DRN Rule A?
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the encyclopedia. The first question is that each editor should say exactly what section of the article they want to change, or what section of the article they want to leave alone that another editor wants to change. If there are multiple sections whose content is disputed, please list all of them separately. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Is there a question about the reliability of sources? If there is a question about the reliability of sources, we will ask for advice from the reliable source noticeboard, and either discuss other issues while waiting for a reply, or put this dispute on hold while waiting for a reply. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Bernese mountain dog) edit
I agree to follow rule A. I believe the health section should be changed to what I have in my sandbox. Reliability of sources is one issue but other issues include undue weight to studies that are obsolete due to being older and having smaller sample sizes than more recent ones. Apologies if this isn't concise enough but I do feel I need to specify which sources relate to which problem.
Unreliable: Bernese Mountain Dog Club of America, "Individual Breed Results for Purebred Dog Health Survey" (Also OR), 2Puppies, Pullman.com, a-z=animals.com, Canine Weekly, American Kennel Club
Undue: The Bernese Mountain Dog Today (1998), Dog cancer: Dog owner's mission seeks to find help for pet and human cancer victims", "Virginia-Maryland Veterinary College launches oncology program for pets", "Mortality of purebred and mixed-breed dogs in Denmark", The Complete Guide to Bernese Mountain Dogs, Bernese Mountain Dog: An Owner's Guide to a Happy Healthy Pet, WebMD
Impossible to verify due to being dead: "All-breed eye clinic for dogs to be held at 4H Center in Bridgewater" (unlikely to mention breed based on: [5], "Life in dog years: A look at the longest-lived and shortest-lived breeds",
Synthesis/OR: "Genomic Diversity and Runs of Homozygosity in Bernese Mountain Dogs" (Note: WP:MDPI) "Epidemiology, Pathology, and Genetics of Histiocytic Sarcoma in the Bernese Mountain Dog Breed" (Note: Study fails to reach conclusion on heritability and cause of HS) "Statistical analysis regarding the effects of height and weight on life span of the domestic dog" "Lifespan of companion dogs seen in three independent primary care veterinary clinics in the United States" (Unfortunately it does not specify the breed in question so applying it to a specific breed requires original research). Traumnovelle (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by volunteer moderator (Bernese mountain dog) edit
One editor has made a statement. The other editor has not made a statement in response to my request for statements, but did provide an opening summary, which includes:
There is a continuing and ongoing discussion at the article talk page. I am awaiting a consensus there.
I am neutral, and I disagree with the statement that there is an ongoing discussion at the article talk page, and with any idea that it will result in consensus. There have only been two editors involved in the discussion, the two who are parties to this case. I infer that the editor who is waiting for consensus is declining to take part in moderated discussion, and moderated discussion is voluntary. I can see three possible steps that might lead to consensus. I recommend that they be done in this order, although the order is not critical:
- 1. Post one or more requests at the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the reliability of the sources listed above. Any information that is attributed only to unreliable sources should be deleted.
- 2. Request other editors from WikiProject Dogs to take part in the discussion at the article talk page.
- 3. Publish a Request for Comments. This may establish binding consensus, and should be preceded by inquiries about source reliability, and should be advertised neutrally at WikiProject Dogs.
Those should be the next steps. I am leaving this case open for any late statements or questions, but will close it soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Bernese mountain dog) edit
Macarons edit
Closed. This appears to be a dispute between two unregistered editors, one in France, one in Italy, that has come here while the article is semi-protected for one week. During the week of semi-protection, the two editors can register accounts and become autoconfirmed, which will enable them to edit the article (but if they simply resume edit-warring, they will be blocked). The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Moderated discussion between unregistered editors whose IP addresses shift between different ranges would be too confusing to be productive. Register accounts, and discuss on the article talk page while the article is semi-protected. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Macarons discussion editPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|