Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

Shortcuts WP:DRN WP:DR/N 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. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Whataboutism#Statement_of_fact_in_WP_is_sourced_by_Teen_Vogue_opinion_piece 

Users involved

• DeadEyeSmile (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
• Jack Upland (talk · contribs)
• 159.246.20.2 (talk · contribs)
• Stickee (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a statement of fact in the Wikipedia article but the source that it links to is an opinion piece. (Please search for "This is my argument:" on the talk page for full details of my point.) I have debated with Binksternet over the last couple of weeks about this issue and he has been unable to refute me. I went ahead and made the change today and immediately it was reverted by Volunteer Marek, who is otherwise active on the talk page but has not participated in the debate before now. I would appreciate some guidance in the best way to proceed here.

Since Binksternet has mischaracterized my argument, I will paste it here from the Talk page:

This is my argument:

The article makes this statement of fact: "When asked to defend his behavior or accused of wrongdoing, Trump has frequently shifted the topic to Democratic figures, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and even U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice." It then links to the Teen Vogue article, an opinion piece, as a source for this statement. A statement of fact must be supported by facts, not opinions. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Debated the point extensively for more than a week on the talk page, waited for any other interested party to join in with the debate, waited for 24 hours after asking Binksternet to refute my point again.

How do you think we can help?

It seems like a pretty straightforward issue to me but it is clouded because it is about a politically contentious figure. I think someone uninvolved in the politics of it needs to look at the argument and advise from a Wikipedia POV. Is it OK to support a statement of fact with a source that is an opinion? From what I have researched the answer is no.

I see DeadEyeSmile trying to remove some text that he clearly does not like and does not want in the encyclopedia. This approach is a violation of WP:NPOV. And when he is foiled in his repeated attempts to remove the text, DeadEyeSmile commits the false equivalence fallacy, adding more text to tell the reader that Trump's whataboutism is just as prominent as Chomsky's notional whataboutism.[9] However, only one observer – Terry Glavin – accused Chomsky of whataboutism, and he did so by misrepresenting Chomsky's speech, which contains a perfectly fine assessment of world politics, and embraces further debate ("Glad to go beyond in discussion and don’t hesitate to bring up other questions.") True Soviet-style whataboutism aims to derail debate, which is what Trump does regularly, as described by many observers, in many publications.

Among the multiple sources saying Trump employs the whataboutism tactic is a piece written by columnist Lauren Duca titled "Trump’s Treatment of the Susan Rice Story Is Classic 'Whataboutism'". Duca compares Trump's diversionary tactics with Soviet whataboutism, saying "Trump’s tactic of shifting focus to left-wing figures like Rice and Clinton can be best understood through a Soviet Union propaganda technique known as 'whataboutism.'" I find the Duca piece to be a clear-headed description of the issue. What about this piece is unreliable? It's opinion, of course, being an op-ed column, but its facts are not in question. Articles about political topics frequently have opinion pieces used for the facts they contain, and for the analysis and comparisons made. Duca's piece was written for Teen Vogue, but that does not disqualify it as unreliable. Duca is known for her strong statements about the toxic behaviors of the Trump administration, for which she has recieved online harassment by political opponents, primarily male, so much so that Twitter shut down Martin Shkreli's account because of his harassment of her. Perhaps some people here don't like Duca's political views, or wish to reduce her in importance by removing her work from Wikipedia. I think a smart woman writer and a sharply accurate political piece are perfectly reliable sources for us to use.

There is a long history in this article of using opinionated sources to try to score political points. The Teen Vogue article is clearly a highly opinionated source. There is also an issue of circular sourcing. When discussing "whataboutism", the Teen Vogue article links to an NPR article which links to the And you are lynching Negroes, which links back to Whataboutism. As I've argued before, I think WP:NEOLOGISM applies.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer note - The list of editors does not include all of the editors who have discussed on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that Binksternet has reverted another change I have made to the page which has nothing to do with this situation. I worked with another editor Stickee to come up with a properly sourced example of whataboutism by Noam Chomsky (See talk page "Noam Chomsky Example" section) and Binksternet has taken it upon himself to declare unilaterally that the examples must only be about Donald Trump and that Noam Chomsky's whataboutism is not to be included in the article. This is despite the fact that others have suggested in the page history that more examples be included. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer note - The other editors have been notified. I will comment that the article, Whataboutism, is not about a neologism. The term Whataboutism has been used with regard to Soviet dismissal of American claims of human rights violations in the Soviet Union since the Cold War, and the Cold War ended in either 1989 or 1991, depending on what milestone you use, but, in any case, the term is of much more than a quarter of a century age. I will also remind the editors that ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply under the American politics ruling. Therefore, although moderated discussion here is voluntary, resolving a content dispute by content resolution techniques is an excellent way to avoid having conduct issues dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement. Awaiting statements by the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be acting as the moderator for this discussion. Please read and follow User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. It appears that the area of disagreement is the section of the article concerning the use of the term Whataboutism with respect to Donald Trump's replies to criticisms of his administration, and in particular to discussion of a column in Teen Vogue. I will offer my own view that sourcing a statement about a column in Teen Vogue to Teen Vogue is appropriate, because the article is about the term and the technique. State your concerns concisely. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was not a party in prior discussions about this article but I noticed this DR/N entry and would like to participate. Three initial remarks:

1. The moderator stated that "whataboutism" cannot be considered a neologism because it "has been used with regard to Soviet dismissal of American claims of human rights violations in the Soviet Union since the Cold War, […so that…] the term is of much more than a quarter of a century age." This sounds incorrect. I could not find any use of this term in the 20th century as indexed by Google Books: [10]. @Robert McClenon: Can you point us to any sources demonstrating use of this term prior to the Economist editorial of 2008?
2. (Copied from my talk page comment) The first sentence: Whataboutism is a propaganda technique first used by the Soviet Union, in its dealings with the Western world. is false on its face. Whataboutism is an element of rhetoric that has been used by every politician and every nation for millennia (and even, according to the NPR source first cited, by schoolchildren! ). Apparently an Economist journalist in 2008 wrote that it was a "typical" tactic of the Soviet Union vs the United States; this may well be the case but it's also a "typical" tactic of China vs. Japan, France vs. Germany, Israel vs. Palestine, Iraq vs. Iran, and pretty much every pair of nations who ever waged a hot or cold war against each other. A more correct first sentence would be: Whataboutism is a neologism coined by The Economist journalist Edward Lucas in 2008 in reference to the rhetorical technique of pointing out similar misdeeds in your opponent's behaviour compared to what they accuse you of, hoping to focus on their hypocrisy instead of the matter at hand.
3. I removed the "Soviet Union" sidebar from this article and was reverted by Sagecandor. In the ensuing talk page discussion, I laid out my argument this way:

The sidebar about the Soviet Union says nothing about this phenomenon, even though it includes Soviet propaganda. As it stands, displaying this sidebar makes no sense in this article. The journalist coined the term almost 17 years after the Soviet Union was dissolved, in a bid to shame Russia; why not include a Russia sidebar then? or a journalism sidebar? or an international relations sidebar? or a politics sidebar? or a fallacies sidebar? or a rhetoric sidebar? or a philosophy sidebar?

Two other editors (Jack Upland and PackMecEng) agreed that this sidebar was undue, while Sagecandor repeated that it should be here because the article "is soviet". I do not want to edit war over this but the current balance of discussion looks to be against this sidebar, and nobody has credibly refuted my rationale to remove it. Can the moderator give us some guidance?

I will add that our own article Propaganda in the Soviet Union, which is well-developed, says nothing about "whataboutism" and does not even mention this technique by another name in its section about Soviet propaganda abroad.

Thanks for your consideration of my input. — JFG ^talk 20:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with these comments. I simply don't understand the moderator's comments about "whataboutism" not being a neologism. The question of when the Cold War ended doesn't seem at all relevant. The support for this article in its current form seems completely irrational. Editors seem to be responding based on their opposition to the USSR, Putin, or Trump. Many people would oppose at least one of those three, but that's not a valid basis for an article. I would like to see rational arguments, rather than assertions, bizarre reasoning, and threats.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that the term "whataboutism", while used with respect to the Soviet Union, may be of recent origin. The more common term for the Soviet argument may have been And you are lynching Negroes. However, if the term was used in 2008 by a reliable source, the policy against neologisms does not apply. The complaints about the article seem to be all over the place. Will each editor please state in one or two paragraphs what they think should be done to improve the article? (Making the article into a stub that refers to other articles is a valid suggestion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Shark attack prevention (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ilenart626 (talk · contribs)
• Allenmt92 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is around the wording of two sections of the Shark attack prevention page particularly on whether to include the product "Anti-Shark 100" (an aerosol spray made from dead sharks) in the Personal shark repellents sub-section. As we cannot agree with the wording, my recommendation is to delete all reference to Anti-Shark 100. There is also an issue with the neutrality of the Shark shield sub-section, which I believe is fine / wording should be left as is.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on talk page. Requested a Third Opinion

How do you think we can help?

Help to resolve what the appropriate wording should be on the on the Personal Shark repellent and Shark Shield sections. Also Robert McClenon suggested we try "moderated dispute resolution" following Allenmt92 refusing to participate in Third Opinion.

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page. The other party has been notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Volunteer note: Is the other party interested in dispute resolution? If so, please provide a summarry of the dispute above within 24 hours. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 3, 2017 at 07:20 (UTC) Reason: Other party not interested in dispute resolution.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:2017 Finsbury Park attack#Back to the original question again (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Erzan (talk · contribs)
• Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk · contribs)
• Timothyjosephwood (talk · contribs)
• This is Paul (talk · contribs)
• InedibleHulk (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

2017 Finsbury Park attack is being described as a terrorist attack by arguably many if not all credible sources, users are removing reference to 'suspected terrorist attack' and suggesting sources from the BBC, UK Prime Minister, UK security forces, the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Independent, London Metropolitan police and London Mayor are not enough to call this event simply a 'terror attack'. Some users have suggested it vital to wait for the trials verdict, however it has been explained by other users that the verdict of the suspect is not reliant upon whether this event is being treated as a terror attack. Many terror attacks are committed by individual/s who will never face trial for various reasons.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Provide many credible sources and suggested a compromise to change 'terror attack' to 'suspected terror attack'. Despite all credible sources provided simply referring to the event as a 'terror attack'.

How do you think we can help?

Suggest whether the sources from below are A) credible and B) allow the page to describe this event as a 'terror attack':

The BBC ''Finsbury Park terror attack'

The Telegraph 'Finsbury Park terror attack'

The Independent 'Finsbury Park terror attack'

London Metropolitian Police force 'Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park'

The Guardian 'Finsbury Park terrorist attack'

The Economist 'Terrorist attack at a London mosque'

The Financial Times 'Terror attack near London mosque' Erzan (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. Good luck. I'm travelling and I'm definitely not going to try to hash this out via mobile, but I'll try to be around. I was playing a bit of Devils advocate, and I'm not really emotionally connected to either version. Anyway, regardless, this is an argument that can be reliably predicted to carry on for at least the next year, regardless of what version gets used in the short term. It's the same song and dance with every similar article.

There's good arguments to be had either way, and neither version is probably totally NPOV, but I'm not sure there is any obvious version that is. TimothyJosephWood 22:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original dispute was whether to repeatedly use the phrase "suspected terror attack". The phrase is used in the lede and was then subsequently referred to as the attack. It seems unnecessary to keep using the full description throughout the text. After all, the reader is likely to know what we're talking about. Another issue seems to be whether we call this a suspected terrorist or just a terrorist attack. We need to be aware this topic is currently the subject of sub judice rules under English law, since legal proceedings have been brought against the suspect. It is possible a juror at any future trial may read our article, so it's important we say nothing that could influence their opinion. This is Paul (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Terror attack" is a buzzword, "terrorist attack" is a crime. If the latter is said at all, it needs a "suspected" appended, or it's prejudicial. The former would imply Osborne's guilty of the crime he's charged with, strongly enough to confuse many readers, and adding a "suspected" to that is just superfluous.

It should either be called a "suspected terrorist attack" or simply an "attack". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:13, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

As an involved edd, just not that involved at the time of this resolution I would say the problem is one of BLP, there has been no conviction and so we are saying he committed a crime of which he has not (yet) been prosecuted. It is true it is being called a terrorist attack by many, but we cannot, we are bound to say that it is an allegation only.

Also I have only seen one source that says it was a terror attack [[11]], and it goes on to say "She made her pledge as more details emerged about the suspect in the", implying the one place they say it (in connection with what Mrs May had said) is a kind of quote.

Thus I am not sure that the media is saying this was a terrorist attack in quite an unequivocal way as the OP suggests.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum.

Whilst some sources have now been presented I am still unsure about listing this as a terror attack rather then alleged terror attack. The problem is that all the sources say the accused is only the "suspect" or "allegedly" carrying out the attack. Thus we need wording that does not convey guilt. It seems it is easier and less wordy to just say "alleged Terror attack" rather then say "terror attacks whose alleged perpetrator", or some such.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

It seems that many of the parties (including the nominator) are still editing both the page and the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Volunteer note: Checking pre-requisites:--
  • Discussion on talk page Y
  • Informed all parties--N (2 accounts which are memtioned here as participants in the dispute are seemingly unregistered!)
    • Suitable for DRN--CY. A volunteer may open the dispute after all the other parties have been informed and have filed their opening statement(s).
  • *Meanwhile, all parties should:

N Not edit the topic in concern (unless reverting serious vandalism or copyvio et al.).

N Stop all discussions at all other venues related to this dispute.

N Abstain from commenting on contributors in their respective statements, comment on content instead.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged replies by participants. Please wait till a volunteer opens the dispute or use your summarry section. Yashovardhan (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not sure if this is correct, Tim (at least) is an very active account and all have been informed on their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] All parties who have made edits and in active dispute have been informed. Erzan (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] I have reverted this edit which was made shortly before this discussion was initiated. The article should not have been changed in this way by someone who intended to open a dispute resolution discussion immediately afterwards. This is Paul (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Volunteer note: All parties have been properly informed. All those interested in dispute resolution are requested to file a summary in the respective section above. Those not interested may want to state in the summary section that they are not interested and remove their name from the list. Meanwhile, all parties are requested to follow the suggestions given by Winged Blades of Godric. A volunteer will start the case soon after all/most of the parties have responded above. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Volunteer note: @Yashovardhan Dhanania:--You prob. erred. No doubt that the user notified the two red-linked accounts about the DRN but they don't exist and are un-registered!(Thus the U2.)Winged Blades ^Godric 16:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Volunteer note: --All non-volunteers, please use your own sections.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Volunteer note: Thank you @Winged Blades of Godric: I've checked the discussion and corrected the two user names. I've also informed them on their talk pages. Note to Volunteers : when opening this dispute, you may want to collapse all these volunteer notes. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Nathu La and Cho La clashes#Discussion about improving this page (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fenal Kalundo (talk · contribs)
• Capitals00 (talk · contribs)
• 2405:204:6400:F012:0:0:174B:D8A0 (talk · contribs)
• Adamgerber80 (talk · contribs)
• Razer2115 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I raise concerns about some of the content in current main article which I think obviously violate the five pillars of Wikipedia. I opened a discussion and explained my rationale and gave time for editors who support current version to gather supporting sources to back current version. This goes on for few days and I found while my concerns remain unchallenged in talk page, my counterparty don't seems like to talk about content with me in talk page and wouldn't even allow me to insert tag in current article to indicate a dispute is in presence -- my edit was immediately reverted without refuting my reasons. So I conclude this discussion is going nowhere without third party's help.

Dispute focus on two issues: first is I think irrelevant information is included in the main article without proving any supporting sources; second is I think a piece of opinion is stated as a fact and is given unduly weigh.

My rationale is: for the first one, the topic of this page is about a "military conflict", information about "territory change" is included in section "aftermath" without providing any evidence that these two things are connected. For the second one, giving some conclusive statement in lead is a lot of credit, the sources to back it up must match this status whereas the only source to back this statement is a stand-alone statement in a book^[1]. Moreover, the authors of this book writes that sources for making this statement could be "3.Author", and the theme of this book is about economics rather than history thus no further information is written in this book to back its own statement.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I try seeking help form Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in section "14. Can I conclude this source unreliable?"

How do you think we can help?

Please conclude: 1. Whether "territory change" related information should be included in the main article without any sources support the connection; 2. Is that appropriate to state this as a fact and give this the credit to be put in lead According to an independent source, the end of the conflict resulted in the defeat of Chinese military in the hands of Indian forces.

•  Volunteer note: While there has been adequate discussion, the parties concerned have not been notified on their talk pages. Please use the template {{DRN-notice}} to notify potential participants on their talk page.All parties are requested to file a summary in the respective sections above. Meanwhile, do not edit the page in concern, stop all other discussions and only comment on the content (and not the contributor) in your summaries. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC) [edited: 09:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)][reply]