Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012
Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 edit
– General close. See comments for reasoning.19 July 2013
 | Futile. Primary participants in the dispute have not chosen to join in (no criticism implied, participating in dispute resolution is always voluntary). — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
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 started anew when I made various attempts to get the article listed as a featured article. In the process, editors begin to renew some content disputes. In general, the language of the whole article is in dispute as violating WP:NPOV. Since it deals with living people, WP:BLP is also in dispute. Also, WP:OR is in dispute regarding the background section. The talk page has become dysfunctional and there is no agreed upon consensus. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Multiple RFCs, requests on notice board, and very extensive conversations on the talk page. How do you think we can help? I think you could review the talk page, frame the discussion, and aid the parties to find compromise language. Opening comments by arzel editPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Anonymous209.6 editPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Roscelese editPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
My work in the article has been sporadic - I'd be happy to comment on individual issues, but am not sure I have much to say about the dispute as a whole. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Opening comments by Thargor Orlando editI do not have a ton to say, either. The article is unlikely to be improved as it's more a coatrack than anything else, but it can't get deleted. The only issue I feel strongly about at this point is the polling information, where some editors would prefer not to use information from 2008 and 2012 to contrast a certain vote total even though we have reliable sourcing to do so. I don't have a big dog in this hunt, so my concerns mostly end there. Opening comments by A Quest For Knowledge editI'm not aware of being a part of any dispute over this article. To the best of my knowledge, I have never edited this article beyond minor edits and WikiGnoming. I do offer my uninvolved advice and comments on discussion boards and talk pages (as I do for lots of articles). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Opening comments by Goethean editPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Milesmoney editI guess I'm here because I edited the rape article to put back the Steve King quote. The edit comment from Anonymous209.6 said that he or she (they?) removed the quote because "BLP again - King responded to a very specific question - never said he never heard of rape or incest - no WP:RS say he did". Thing is, that's just not true. There were *four* refs for that quote, and they confirmed that he spoke exactly those words. Gotta say I don't really understand what the objection is or why they keep removing it. There's just no question that it's a legit quote. MilesMoney (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Discussion editPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
24-hour closing notice: In light of the fact that this has been listed for five days without some participants choosing to join in (no criticism implied, participation in dispute resolution is always voluntary), this request will be closed as futile by a volunteer after 16:00 hours UTC on 25 July 2013 unless the remaining participants join in, or indicate their intention of doing so, prior to that time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|