Open main menu

Contents

Talk:List of_bitcoin_forks#Contentious_revert_by_Primefac

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Fresheneesz on 23:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC).

Talk:Alfred Jodl#Signature

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Skjoldbro on 01:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC).

Talk:Tirupati Airport

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by LovSLif on 11:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC).

Talk:Origin of_the_Romanians#Restructuring_the_article

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Iovaniorgovan on 10:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC).

Talk:Tha Hla Shwe

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Phyo WP on 11:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC).

Talk:Sara Ali_Khan#Subject_now_passes_GNG_based_on_the_significant_coverage_she_has_received

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Rush922 on 11:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC).

Talk:Stephen F. Cohen#How is this OR??

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Humanengr on 16:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC).

Al-Khalid tank

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 129.97.125.1 on 23:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC).

Talk:List of_bitcoin_forks#Contentious_revert_by_Primefac

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Fresheneesz on 05:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC).

Curucuru and Friends

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Blackgaia02 on 13:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC).

1984 Sikh massacre termed as genocide in lead

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 150.249.132.9 on 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC).

Talk:Sarah Rose_Summers

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Toglenn on 10:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC).

User talk:Charlesdrakew

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Bonner16 on 22:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC).

greta van fleet discography

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by RockGuitarWizard on 10:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC).

Talk:Rahul Gandhi#Hindu_idenity_and_terrorism_related_comments_in_article

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Jyothir Aditya on 17:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC).

Alien, Predator, Alien vs. Predator franchise dispute

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.

Magic Kingdom Parade

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by IanDBeacon on 22:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC).

Talk:Jack Evans_(Washington,_D.C._politician)#Digi_Media_redux

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Sdkb on 06:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC).

Project for the New American Century

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 2A02:8388:1845:7400:4821:EFD4:45C9:BB96 on 09:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC).

Talk:Exoplanet

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Planethunter91 on 21:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC).

Talk:Los Angeles#Los Angeles name in infobox

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by ImprovedWikiImprovment on 22:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC).

Category:People of_Celtic_descent

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Fergananim on 12:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC).

Talk:Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry#NPOV issue

  – Discussion in progress.
Filed by 1.144.105.29 on 20:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC).

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

I believe that there are NPOV issues with Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry. In particular, I think that the article heavily favours Lewis Hamilton. I nominated the article for deletion, but the decision was "keep" and since then, editors involved in the discussion have taken that to mean that there are no issues with the article at all. During the AfD discussion, they insisted that there was no need to address NPOV issues and that a talk page discussion was necessary; now that the AfD is closed and a talk page discussion is open, they insist that there is no need to address the NPOV issues.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The article has been the subject of an AfD, talk page discussion and discussion at the F1 WikiProject.

How do you think we can help?

By reading and evaluating the article in terms of its balance to highlight where NPOV issues exist and how they can be fixed.

Summary of dispute by Prisonermonkeys

I believe that the issues has serious NPOV issues. The article heavily favours Hamilton—any time there is mention of a dispute or controversy between Hamilton and Rosberg, the article provides a defence of Hamilton, but nothing regarding Rosberg. Compare this passage on the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix: However, Niki Lauda, non-executive chairman of Mercedes, spoke in support of Hamilton after the race, saying "From my point of view Lewis was right" with this passage on the 2014 Monaco Grand Prix: Some pundits made suggestions of foul play, [this is unsourced] to which Hamilton, when asked if he thought Rosberg had crashed on purpose, replied "Potentially. I should have known that was going to happen". However, the stewards cleared Rosberg of any wrongdoing and team boss Toto Wolff refuted the conspiracy theory as "bull". Despite this, Hamilton made clear that he felt Rosberg had ruined his lap on purpose and, after starting and finishing the race second, announced that he and Rosberg were no longer friends. Hamilton's complaint about Rosberg's alleged actions in Monaco is given oxygen, but there is no discussion of Rosberg's view on Hamilton's actions in Hungary. There is a defence of Hamilton in Hungary, but no defence of Rosberg in Monaco. And it's like this throughout the article. There is an entire paragraph in the lead on the upbringing of Hamilton and Rosberg that has no immediate relationship to the subject, but portrays Rosberg as a child of privilege whereas Hamilton is the plucky underdog from humble beginnings. With no relation to the subject, I feel that this paragraph is biased and designed to get the reader to favour Hamilton. The entire article is little more than an extension of Hamilton's article, since very little else links to it. I also feel it is completely inappropriate for editors to be removing the NPOV banner from the top of the page when there is an active NPOV discussion on the talk page and to ignore requests for additional sources. 1.144.105.29 (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Formulaonewiki

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

Firstly, IP editor above is laughably incoherent with their arguments. I'll start by addressing the wrongful accusation that 'editors involved in the discussion have taken that to mean that there are no issues with the article at all'. The AfD discussion has not been taken to mean there are no NPOV; it is the lack of evidence you have given in the relevant NPOV discussion that has been taken to mean that. This is yet another example of how the editor above seems more set on spamming their upset about the article anywhere they can instead of doing anything meaningful or productive to resolve or amend any issues which they believe exist.

Secondly, the part you highlighted - 'Some pundits made suggestions of foul play' - is quite clearly sourced here, but the editor assumedly wished to neglect that in order to try and strengthen their argument.

Thirdly, addressing the inclusion of the paragraph which the IP editor has a particularly apparent dislike for: It literally states how 'journalists have contrasted the drivers' upbringings', thus explaining it's relevance, and it is something regularly referenced and discussed in coverage of the rivalry in a number of the articles cited in the AfD discussion that proved the notability of the article. Clearly it is relevant to the rivalry.

Finally, nobody in the NPOV discussion (which they have pointlessly copied and pasted parts of here) felt that the IP editor had provided any evidence of NPOV in the article. It has been quiet for three weeks with nobody in agreement IP editor or with any concerns relating to NPOV. All the IP editor highlighted here is that they believe there should be more detail in parts of the article. That is not a NPOV issue, and is something they could easily edit themselves if they believe the extra detail is required. The editor is running wild with their imagination about what certain sentences are 'designed to get the reader' to feel. Instead of fixing any supposed issues they have found, they have merely set upon edit-warring and voicing their dislike anywhere they can. The fact they have been unable to engage in meaningful discussion on the relevant pages and now voiced their upset here is further evidence of this.

TL;DR: Dispute overview is misleading; IP editor has not made any convincing argument for NPOV, their issues appear to be over details and disagreement with their own personal views; they have spent more time posting their upset everywhere instead of just making some simple edits to the article where they see fit. Formulaonewiki (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DeFacto

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

As I see it, the dispute is about whether content should be deleted from the article without first obtaining a consensus to delete it. The content in question is the reliably sourced and correctly attributed views of notable commentators. The editor who wants the content deleted is saying it contravenes WP:NPOV, but is comparing it with their own personal views rather than with the reliably sourced alternative opinions of other notable commentators. If alternative views are out there, then they should be brought to table and, taking account of their weight, balanced with those views already in the article. So I think the onus is on the complainant to provide reliable sources showing those alternative views that they assert exist, then the appropriate discussion can take place. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Tvx1

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

I joined the talkpage discussion later and wasn't aware that at that point a DRN case had been filed. I'm surprised as I didn't feel it was warranted yet. We did seem to make some progress on the talk page. All in all, I feel the NPOV concerns are justified. The issue appears to be two ways. Firstly there is a concern that there is an non-neutral selection of sources that have been used, secondly there is a concern that some paragraph are not appropriate in the article and even in the lead. I hope this DRN provides some moderated discussion that finally results in massive improvement of the article. Unfortunately the talk page discussion has so far seen both sides taking this far too personal. Formulaonewiki for instance seems to see the discussions attacks on an article they created. The article's history also shows some clear edit-warring by both parties which should be avoided at all costs. One of the biggest current issues with the article, though, is that it does not mention even one letter about the first six seasons both drivers were simultaneously active in the sport and thus presents incorrect numbers as their complete results.Tvx1 01:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry#NPOV issue discussion

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

Per the first sentence in the "Location of dispute" link above, this dispute was originally located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry, and editors involved there have not been informed of this discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: "All the IP editor highlighted here is that they believe there should be more detail in parts of the article." And as I repeatedly pointed out, that lack of detail is creating an NPOV issue. When Hamilton defied team orders in Hungary, there should be details of the criticism levelled against him and details of the defence of him. The article only provides the defence. This creates an NPOV issue because when Rosberg does something controversial—as in Monaco—the article only provides criticism of him and no defence. Everything might be referenced with reliable and verifiable sources, but it is clearly cherry-picking what details it provides to present Rosberg as a villain and Hamilton as sympathetic. You say I have been "laughably incoherent with their arguments", but I have not. I have consistently, thoghtfully and critically deconstructed entire passages of the article to try to demonstrate the issue and when you dismissed it, I tried again and again with subsequent paragraphs. The fact that your first comment in this discussion was to attack me rather than address the argument I made speaks volumes. You say that I have "spent more time posting their upset everywhere instead of just making some simple edits to the article where they see fit", but that is not true. When I went looking for more sources to support the article's claims and could not find them, I added a citation template which you immediately deleted, claiming it was sufficiently cited despite the language of the article suggesting it was far more prevalent than two sources. This entire article is little more than fancruft designed to promote Hamilton as the Greatest Of All Time. If it were up to me, I'd salt the article as I think it has no redeemimg value. It is impossible to write an objective article given the partisan nature of the British media used as sources. 1.129.111.27 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Note to participants: Please ensure to keep discussion to a minimum, as the thread has not yet been opened by a volunteer. New threads until opened can be discussed on the talk page of this article, however, please in the future do not discuss here until the article has been opened. Thank you! Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC) 02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Volunteer note: Hello. I am volunteering as a DRN volunteer moderator. I am currently reviewing the case filing and related discussion. For clarification, am I right in assuming that User:Prisonermonkeys is the one who filed this case? I ask because the filer appears as an IP address. Coastside (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Note to participants: It would be best to log in when entering comments here, since the DRN is a moderated discussion among specific users. Coastside (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: Prisonermonkeys cannot log in because they have forgotten their password. Despite kind suggestions, they have repeatedly declined to register a new account.Tvx1 01:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Volunteer note: I read the article with consideration around NPOV. I can understand how a Rosberg fan might bristle at the wording of the second paragraph, and I think there might be ways to address that with some editing. Rivalries typically involve competitors of similar abilities (see Rivalries#sports). If the abilities are lopsided it usually wouldn't be considered a rivalry. A good example of a page about a rivalry is the Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, in which the rivals come across as relative equals. What struck me in first reading the second paragraph of the H-R rivalry was that H came across as the dominant racer. Results are factual, of course, but to me it seems reasonable to argue that there is at least the appearance of possible bias. My suggestion would be to reword the second paragraph with language consistent with a more neutral point of view. For example, "Hamilton also had the upper hand" and "five more than Roseberg" have the appearance of judging Hamilton the better racer. If the article were to say "H had 32 victories and 55 podium finishes, and R had 22 victories and 50 podium finishes", that would be worded factually and neutrally. By comparison, saying "H also had the upper hand over this period in race results, with 32 victories to R's 22 as well as securing 55 podium finishes, five more than Rosberg" appears to be focusing on the dominance of one competitor over the other. "Five more than" emphasizes the difference whereas "55 vs. 50" sounds (to the casual reader like me) as results for competitors who had fairly similar abilities. Another example is the phrase "Hamilton finished ahead of his teammate on 42 occasions". This may be factually correct, but lacks a neutral tone, particularly because it isn't clear to the casual reader whether that is a lot, i.e., 42 out of how many times? If it were 42 out of 100 then R would have finished ahead even more times. If it is 42 out of 84 then they would be equal. The point is that it is more neutral to state the results and let the reader make their own assessment rather than introduce language that compares the two directly. If an independent source compares the results, that would be different. In this case, the editors are setting up a comparison, and it creates an appearance of potential bias. This is not to say one side of this debate is "right" and the other "wrong". I am saying that more neutral language might be helpful in the second paragraph to avoid unintended NPOV issues, epecially as perceived by fans of R. Coastside (talk)
I took the liberty of suggesting NPOV wording for the second paragraph in the Talk page. Coastside (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: for the record, I am not a Rosberg fan. I am neither British nor German, but Australian, and as an international viewer I often feel frustrated by the British coverage of the sport. I think that the NPOV issues are systemic to the article; in the paragraph on the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix, a significant amount of time is spent defending Hamilton's actions when he did something controversial—but in the paragraph on the 2014 Monaco Grand Prix, there is no defence of Rosberg when he did something controversial. I feel that there is a sustained attempt to not only portray Hamilton as the dominant driver (which he was), but as the "hero of the story" (which is purely subjective). 1.129.106.191 (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Volunteer note: If independent sources discuss British coverage of the sport as it pertains to the H-R rivalry, including for example bias against R in British media coverage, that would be a reasonable topic to add to this article. Regardless, this article should have a NPOV, and if it doesn't, then there is an opportunity to improve it. There was apparently already a discussion about deleting the article, and the decision was to keep it. So at this point, the focus should be on improving it. I mentioned my personal thoughts on how the second paragraph might be improved by using more neutral language stating factual results rather than using comparative language. If there are other parts of the article that have the appearance of bias, how can they be improved? Are there specific recommendations for changing the article that are being debated? If so, let's see if we can come to agreement on NPOV language and providing appropriate balance here. If not, then the normal approach is to go ahead and edit the article, making improvements and discussing disagreement on those specific changes in the Talk page. Coastside (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Volunteer note: Are the participants still interested in continuing the discussion here? If this isn't proving helpful, another alternative is to request comment on the NPOV noticeboard. If there no active interest here, I will consider closing the DRN discussion. Coastside (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  Comment:, I for one would still like to see this progress. There is still discussion on the article's talk page and resolution is clearly still needed. The article's creator is still flatly denying any NPOV issues, despite even your comments here, and still appears to see the NPOV claims as attacks on "their" article. I would still like to engage in moderated discussion focussing on the content.Tvx1 17:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  Comment: I would also like to see progress, just I've had a busy week. I do not consider valid criticism or discussion over an article personal, nor do I feel any ownership of said article. I'm all for discussion focusing on content, although it has been difficult so far with inconsistent and muddled arguments being presented, and at times it feels like the intention is not productive or seeking to improve or edit the article, and instead only to have portions deleted and declare disagreement with editor's own personal POV. I have acknowledged some highlighted examples of POV and addressed them as I saw appropriate, although that apparently wasn't good enough. Quite why the editor in question doesn't just address the problems themselves I don't know. Formulaonewiki (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Volunteer note: Thank you both for the quick response. I am hearing everyone wants the article to be as good as it can be, including having a neutral POV. Rather than boil the ocean, let's focus on specific issues in the article and see if we can reach a compromise. I thought we'd start with the second paragraph, but instead maybe we should start with the various controversies are presented? Coastside (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  Comment: Well, the dispute arose over two things. One was that there is a non-neutral selection of sources being used, the second is that there is paragraph in the lead on the rivals' upbringings and that its inclusion in the lead is undue and that the relevancy tho the drivers' rivalry is questionable altogether. Maybe we could have an uninvolved person's view on this at last.Tvx1 18:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Volunteer note: Ok, I'll focus on those two topics and see if we can build consensus how to improve the article. There's a clear effort here by the participants to work toward compromise through the dispute process, and that is something to celebrate. It may help to remember, as per this this humourous essay, that "the straightest of straight poles should ensue, so long as there's an equally energetic group of warriors pushing the pole in the other direction." Coastside (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Volunteer note: On the issues of the paragraph on the rivals' upbringings and relative abilities (currently first paragraph under History) I would point out that this is understandably sensitive with regards to NPOV. Comparing their upbringing is sensitive and comparing their abilities is sensitive. Furthermore, the implication that their relative abilities can be attributed to their upbringing by putting the second sentence immediately following the first raises concern. It doesn't appear the sources are specifically making the argument that they have abilities that can be traced to their upbringings, so this is likely WP:SYNTH. The second sentence itself is not balanced in terms of construction, because Hamilton is attributed with two strengths (faster driver, natural ability) while Rosberg is attributed with a weakness and a strength (not as quick, more intelligent). Also, referring to Buxton (maybe he should have a redlink since he's notable) as a pundit and commentator does suggest undue consideration to his opinion on the matter, specially given the sensitivity of comparing the two in this context. I suggest using a simple descriptor. Improving this sentence for NPOV might be something like:
"Commentator Will Buxton compared the character and driving styles of the pair, describing Hamilton as the faster driver with more natural ability and Rosberg as the more intelligent driver."
Beyond that, I suggest more structural changes here. The history section should talk about the history of the rivarly, meaning their relationship, so starting with their upbringing is reasonable, though not as a way to argue their relative strengths, rather to introduce their early relationship as one of friendship. They started out as friends who karted together, and then they developed a rivalry. It makes sense for the history section to describe how their relationship evolved. It seems that story is taking a back seat to discussion about which is the better driver, or at least to comparison of their relative ability. Coastside (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Volunteer note: I joined the fray in the article, so see additional comments there. My main point is that the participants need to stop debating bias in general, and start proposing specific improvements to the article. The idea is not to "win" the argument -- it's to push toward more NPOV content and wording. Less heat, more cooking. Coastside (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Israel Defense Forces

  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Puzzledvegetable on 13:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC).

Talk:Clairo

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Benmite on 19:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC).

Marriott International‎

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Matthew hk on 02:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC).

Talk:Sarah Rose_Summers

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Toglenn on 14:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC).

Global catastrophic_risk

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by AbrahamCat on 20:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC).

User talk:Softlavender#Parentheticals

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by TonyPS214 on 15:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC).