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.
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.
The dispute must have beenrecently 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.
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).
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 18:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as apparently abandoned by the filing editor. The filing editor has been asked to state what they want to change in the article, and has not made such a statement, a week after being asked for it, and more than 48 hours after being asked for it a second time. The filing editor has wasted their time and that of the moderator. Either resume discussion on the article talk page, or don't resume discussion on the article talk page. The suggestion was made at WP:ANI that a Request for Comments might be in order, but if neither editor will even state what changes they want to make, they are not likely to contribute usefully to an RFC either. If edit-warring resumes, an admin should impose a more severe remedy than the previous one-week partial block. Discuss on the article talk page, or leave the article alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion 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.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Involve other neutral editors with familiarity of music certifications and sales to outline whether or not certifications equate to sales. If not, outline if total certified units (which in and of themselves are not a matter of dispute but rather a fact) can be simply be reported as certified units as opposed to sales in articles (e.g., Brown has certified ___ million units worldwide, as opposed to saying Brown has sold ___ million units worldwide based on his certifications).
Various editors have said that a Request for Comments may be the best way to resolve this dispute. Preliminary discussion may determine whether an RFC will be used. Please read DRN Rule A. Do the editors agree to moderated discussion subject to these rules? The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the encyclopedia. Will each editor please state, concisely, what they want to change in the encyclopedia, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change?
Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three days ago, I asked two questions, but the questions have not been answered. I will revise and restate the first question. Are the editors interested in moderated discussion subject to DRN Rule D? Chris Brown is a living person, and biographies of living persons are a contentious topic. If you agree to moderated discussion, you are agreeing that the procedures for contentious topics apply to any conduct issues. Second, please specify what in the article you want to change, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It is not necessary and is not helpful to wait until your edit-warring blocks expire. If you want moderated discussion, please answer. If you want this dispute resolved by an RFC, you can request moderated discussion, and the moderator will assist in writing the RFC.
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.
When it was founded, Wikipedia had many discussions in the early years to figure out what units to include or not include in articles, A compromise resulted in the USA and the UK having different primary units from the rest of the world, which seemed like a reasonable compromise. see Wikipedia:Measurements Debate.
Editor Mr.choppers seems to think the MOS does not apply because a certain unit was used when a vehicle was initially sold, regardless of the wording in the Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Primary Unit.
This problem goes back years, with Mr.choppers reverting every edit I make to do with which unit is primary. This time it stems from editing Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV, Mercedes-Benz Actros and numerous other vehicles going back years, I’d like a decision on what constitutes the primary unit.
The next disagreement.
The UK and the USA have received exemptions for strong national ties, which no other country has! But what is the criteria for “strong”, it seems to me that any ties to the USA or the UK are classed as strong national ties even if other editors say they may be weak or trivial. In the case of the Peugeot 505, it was exported to the USA and Australia so how do we get strong national ties to the USA? It is a French designed and manufactured car!
The Manual of Style is apparently interpreted differently by different editors and needs clarifying. Is a strong national tie 50% or more than 50%? Who decides? Let’s take Tesla, whose cars are made in the USA, China and Germany, all units used in design and manufacture are SI units, so which country has strong ties and which units are primary? Well it is a Company headquartered in the USA, so that would give strong national ties.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The manual of style states three options: In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States and the UK. In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units.
Can an editor pick and choose something else because of the ambiguity of the remaining wording regardless of the statement "will be SI units"?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The issue is that there are two kinds of horsepower, metric and non-metric. Most of the world (Europe, Japan, Latin America) uses metric hp, US and UK and some other english-speaking countries uses imperial hp, and a few countries like New Zealand, Asutralia, and South Africa have switched over to SI. There is no recognized standard for how to distinguish metric and non-metric hp (some use the German abbreviation PS for metric hp, but this is somewhat inappropriate for French or Italian cars, for instance). The definitions of these units are very similar, which often makes it hard to tell which unit is being used - sometimes you can tell from context. Non-english sources are almost certainly using metric hp. Here are the conversions, showing how close these units are:
While many countries have officially switched to SI (kilowatts) over the last several decades, this process is by no means complete. Nearly all references, all magazines, all journals, and most manufacturers have held on to metric hp and it is still the primary unit in many situations and markets. I will be happy to provide links and examples if needed, but will limit myself to VW chairman Ferdinand Piëch laying down a target number of 1,001 metric horsepower (736 kW; 987 bhp) for the Bugatti Veyron in 2001. Metric hp is current, it is used industry wide, and I would argue that it remains the most commonly used unit worldwide outside of insurance companies and government offices.
Don't get me wrong, though - I do not want metric hp to be the prime unit across Wikipedia. Kilowatts are the default lead unit for most cars of the last two-three decades, while imperial horsepower are still dominant in UK and US.
What I recommend is that we always lead with the appropriate unit, instead of using a one-size-fits-all method. The appropriate unit is typically the one used in the car's home market when it was built, or the one used in the majority of reliable sources. It is rare that there is any conflict - the Peugeot 5CV, for instance, was built five decades before there was any thought to use kilowatts. Peugeot uses metric hp to describe it. The US-market Peugeot 505 is a bit less clear; for me, what matters is that the engines were heavily re-engineered for the US market, with federalized cars also receiving different sheet metal and a significant number of other technical changes. Again, all references for the US Peugeot 505 uses imperial hp to describe the car, from factory manuals to period articles to current writings about it.
I am not entirely sure what Avi8tor wants to have changed, but describing a French car from the 1920s using kilowatts is anachronistic and in contradiction to MOS since it contradicts the units used in all reliable sources. There are always edge cases, like the US-market Peugeot 505, but those situations can and should be discussed. Avi8tor also has a problem getting metric v imperial hp mixed up with horsepower ratings systems like DIN vs SAE, gross versus net, and often drags in tax horsepower (which does not directly relate to power outputs) as well. Avi8tor has introduced factual errors, like here, where he carelessly changed the output from 110hp/81kW to 109hp/81kW. Minor to some, but still a factual error. Sorry about dragging you all into the bewildering world of horsepower... Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.choppers is quick to blame me for something I did not do. As you can see from his reversion, the stated value prior to my convert template inclusion was hp & kW, He was happy with those the day before with a previous edit until I got involved, I chose kW as the primary unit. You didn't like what I'd done and changed the convert template to metric-hp and kW. Neglecting to follow the manual of style for a European Vehicle which would be kW & PS or metric horsepower, whatever you want to call it. The difference between the two units is about 1 horse. Avi8tor (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that Avi8tor cherry-picked from the MOS above, so here is the relevant text as it applies to older automobiles:
In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.) I have shared this sentence with them on numerous occasions but it remains unacknowledged. Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on the user talk page. A statement on the article talk page is not sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Note - The template that opens a case does not automatically notify the other editor. It appears that the filing editor reasonably thought that it did, but it doesn't do that. The filing editor must do that manually. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are the editors interested in moderated discussion, subject to DRN Rule A? If so, I will ask each of the editors to start off by stating what they want to change in the article, or what they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same. I understand that one issue has to do with the units of power. Are there any other content issues?
The reference is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Units of measurement/Unit choice and order. Shortcut MOS:UNIT or MOS:UNITS about halfway down the page.
This debate in a nutshell is how we interpret the MOS. I see "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units", Mr.choppers sees "or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.". Sources can be cherry picked depending on what country they are from. USA all imperial, Australia all SI. I live in France, the owners manual for my two cars give power in kW only, as do owners manuals in the UK. Mr Choppers live in the USA so he'd prefer NON SI units worldwide. I follow the MOS and place SI units primary for countries outside the USA and UK. The MOS needs to be fixed to remove the ambiguity. Less than 50% of Wikipedia users are from the US or UK, all those other countries use SI. Wikipedia is for an international audience. All owners manuals for cars in Europe (including the UK) have kW for Power. I can send a copy of that page. Avi8tor (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask two questions that I have already asked, but that were not answered directly. First, do you agree to take part in moderated discussion, subject to DRN Rule A? Please read it (again, if you have already read it). Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. I will ask the questions, and you will address your answers to me and to the community. Be civil and concise. Participation in moderated discussion is voluntary, and it will not continue unless the editors agree to the rules. Second, please state briefly what you want to change in the article, and where, or what you want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change. If you want to change the units of measure of the power, specify all of the locations that you want to change. Do not, at this time, explain why, only what you want. We can discuss why later. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Of course.
2) I want the units of power to reflect the units used in reliable sources on the topic. For the Peugeot 505, that is kW/metric-hp (I would prefer to lead with metric-hp but it doesn't really matter) for all markets outside of North America, for the federalized cars I believe it should be non-metric hp and kW. This was the existing state of the article until 31 May 2024. Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes.
2. I think the manual of style needs to be more specific in that the primary unit outside the USA should be SI as stated in the MOS. Consistency of the displayed unit is important. The unit/s following can be non SI. This would include RPM, hands or whatever is used in that field. I believe this way every English speaker on the planet will understand the unit they are used to. Avi8tor (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Peugeot 505 article currently lists the power for all engines primarily in CV, which is metric horsepower, and also provides kW, and hp (imperial hp). The Peugeot 5CV article lists power primarily in hp, and also in kW. The SI unit of power is kW (kilowatts). (That is, the watt is the basic SI unit of power, and automobiles have power that can be measured in kilowatts.) I am asking that any editor who wants to list the power primarily either in CV or in hp should provide a reason. One editor referred to cars made for the US market, for which hp is the standard unit of power, but I see no mention in the article of any cars that were specifically made for the US market. So my question is what reason is there for using any measure other than kW as the primary measure.
Are there any specific suggestions for how the MOS should be changed or clarified?
I think the primary problem is some editors read the statement "or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic" as meaning if they can find a source with their preferred unit, this gives them free reign to use a source unit other than kW, which I believe is not the intent of the MOS. Equally some argue that SI was not in existence so we can use the original unit.
If a way can be found to more forcefully state the intent of the MOS or equally remove the statement that appears to give free reign.
The other item not yet addressed is the "strong national ties". I see no strong national ties of this Peugeot model with the USA as it was still made in France and also exported to Australia. Reading the MOS on strong national ties, strong national ties has more to do with language and spelling in different countries. Avi8tor (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the CV (this is one of many abbreviations in use; there is no recognized abbreviation for metric hp) in the 505 article and the "hp" in 5CV refer to metric horsepower. Leading with kW works for me for the 505 but is historically incorrect for the 5CV, which was designed and sold and only ever discussed in terms of metric horsepower. Using both horsepower units would have a silly result, since the difference is only 1.4 percent:
{{cvt|11|hp-metric|kW hp}}: 11 hp (8.1 kW; 11 hp)
Here are a few references for the 5CV; all use metric horsepower: [1], [2], [3], [4] (5CV cars in general, no mention of kW), [5], [6], [7],
The MOS is fine as is; it reads In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.) (underlining mine). Reliable source discussions are exclusively metric hp for the 5CV, mainly metric hp but also kW for the 505 (excluding North America). Leading with kW for the 505 is fine, incorrect for the 5CV. I would still argue that the 505 is primarily a metric-hp design, which is why you see nice, even, marketable power outputs of 110, 130, 150, 160, and 180 hp (m). In the 1980s, European manufacturers typically released both DIN (metric horsepower) and EEC (kilowatt) ratings, see period technical description, pages 16 and 17. They lead with metric hp, FWIW.
The section Peugeot 505#North America is limited to North American-market cars - federalized cars were significantly re-engineered, due to the completely different regulatory environment in the US, and there is almost no overlap in content between this section and the remainder of the article. All power and torque figures are different and are specific to US market models. There are currently seven cited works in this section; every one of them uses imperial hp exclusively. Unlike British or Australian market models, the US 505 was not merely an export model, this version has strong ties to the US.
I am not saying that I get to cherrypick because I managed to locate a single reference which uses one unit or the other - when reliable sources, period or current, do not use kW at all, then it is anachronistic and misleading to lead with kW. Metric market cars built pre-SI should not lead with kW. Examples include Mercedes 15/70/100 PS, which is literally named after the metric-hp power output. In 1962 the power of the Mitsubishi Minica increased from 13 to 13 kW (17 to 18 hp; 17 to 18 PS) - this looks ridiculous if you lead with kW. The Fiat Uno 75 (and all Fiats of the era) is named for its output in metric hp. The VW Golf TDI 140 is named for its output in metric hp (as was the rest of the lineup). Avi8tor has already been debating this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Power_and_Torque_units, where other editors agree that leading with the appropriate unit as per references is the correct option. But while the rest of the world continues to use metric hp as well as kW (with kW dominant for newer cars) to describe cars, Avi8tor is trying to create a one-size rule which will not make anyone happy and, which while meeting a particular reading of the MOS, violates other WP rules.
The MOS leans towards SI units (which I agree with) but it also includes a carveout for using the units used in reliable source discussions. This is as it should be, because Wikipedia's purpose is also to reflect the sources as per WP:V. As per WP:SOAP it is not for us to ignore the units used by the manufacturer and by reliable sources (period and current), in an effort to advocate for SI adoption. Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this disagreement only about which unit of power is mentioned first? Is there agreement that kW will be mentioned? If so, is it really that important which unit is mentioned first?
When I said to read and follow DRN Rule A, I forgot to restate Rule A.1, "Be civil and concise", and in particular I didn't emphasize rule A.1.2, which says to be concise. I didn't ask for a 660-word explanation of why we should lead with CV.
An editor writes:
I am not saying that I get to cherrypick because I managed to locate a single reference which uses one unit or the other - when reliable sources, period or current, do not use kW at all, then it is anachronistic and misleading to lead with kW. Metric market cars built pre-SI should not lead with kW.
When an editor says that they are not saying that they get to cherrypick, they usually mean that they are defending their cherrypicking. The Peugeot 5CV is pre-SI. The Peugeot 505 is not pre-SI.
The following discussion 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.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There have been repeated requests from multiple users requesting the removal of a claim in the subtitle of the "crop circle" message. The referenced sources do not support the "hoax" claim sufficiently for it to be present in the subtitle of the section. A minority of editors are reverting any removal of the claim then using the removals as proof to have the article locked. They mock or ignore any users that try to have a discussion, and hide behind "consensus" to wait out anyone that's trying to improve the article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
As it says at the top of the edit page: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources." I think the dispute would be resolved with a change to the subtitle or if better sources are added that support the current subtitle.
Multiple IPs does not necessarily means "multiple users". Not sure why only two editors are being singled out when, like VQuakr mentioned, more are involved and we all agree the current version of the page is the one that should be kept. We are not a "minority of editors", this has been consistently enforced judging by the article's history. Consensus is clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ïvana (talk • contribs) 03:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Multiple editors other than the two listed are involved in this dispute. Talk page consensus appears clear to me, but if the mediator here decides to clean up this case with all participants added and accept it I am willing to participate. VQuakr (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by volunteer (Arecibo message)[edit]
After looking into this case, I am willing to moderate this dispute. I have included 4 other editors who have participated on the talk page but were not listed by the filing editor.
Consensus appearstobethat reliable sources state that the circles being made by aliens is a hoax. So I'm asking the filing editor: can you provide reliable sources that state that (1) the circles were made by aliens, or (2) that there is reasonable doubt to believe that the circles were created by humans? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have contributed on several occasions to this page. My experience is whilst resident at the SETI Institute as a Charter Asociate. All my views on this "hoax" are on the article Talk page. Thanks & regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) is not my burden to prove, it's the burden of those that want to have "hoax" in the subtitle. The sources in the article do not sufficiently support having it. Two of them are news articles with no basis for the claim other than the third source, a statement from SETI saying that it is only "highly improbable" the source is anything other than human (2). We should be asking the editors that want to leave it it, can they provide reliable sources that prove the claim it's a hoax? By all means call it "most likely" a hoax in the article, but the sources aren't sufficient to have "hoax" in the subtitle.
@David J Johnson You like to mention you're a "Charter Associate" at SETI. There's no such thing. I put that phrase into Google and the only result is a wikipedia talk page you were mentioned in. Even if you did work at SETI, that doesn't give you any authority over the article. 67.149.172.22 (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC
Well, I'm sorry you could not get confirmation. I have many items of confirmation from the Institute. I have not stated I have any "authority" over the article, only my experience in being very close to the subject at the time. This is not the place to discuss anyway. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When considering what counts as a reliable source it should be noted that - "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed." The standard of sources (and in my opinion evidence) is much lower here than usual, due to the fringe nature of crop circles and their general unreliability. Proving or disproving the reliability if the SETI seems like the best way to resolve this. Clubspike2 (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal"
Tell me, how is the referenced source The Independents that states nothing other than "It was of course a hoax" verifiable? The second source Universe Today misquotes and references the third source, a statement by SETI that only claims it is highly improbable that the source of the circle was anything other than humans. Calling it a hoax in the subtitle is way too strong a message for the given sources. Asking for the text of the page to reflect the sources shouldn't be controversial, but here we are.
Addition: In the talk page, I believe user Ïvana proposed changing the subtitle from "Arecibo Answer crop circle hoax" to "Chilbolton crop circle". I would support that change as well, it removes the unwarranted "hoax" and I think "Arecibo Answer crop circle" is a bit clunky of phasing anyways. The rest of the section sufficiently describes the facts and SETI's position. 67.149.172.22 (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the usage of hoax, since I believe the sources support it. I proposed another name just so deter people from edit warring. But again, consensus is clear, so my first option is to keep using hoax. If for some reason the section title is deemed unfit then we can go through alternate titles, but that doesn't seem to be the case. - Ïvana (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot claim consensus is clear if you have a repeated debate about the inclusion of "hoax" in the subtitle. That is the opposite of consensus. Getting N+1 users to counter any number of individuals in a discussion thread is not consensus. 67.149.172.22 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is neither a vote nor a requirement for unanimity. The number of editors making an argument isn't directly relevant. There is consensus because inclusion of the descriptor is consistent with the relevant policies and guidelines. VQuakr (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by volunteer (Arecibo message)[edit]
SETI stated that it is "highly improbable" and listed many arguments. Theothersources have made the logical conclusion that this must be a hoax. So – considering Wikipedia's verifiabiltiy policy – can the filing editor provide a source that states that aliens created these circles or there is reasonable doubt to believe that humans created them? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An academic source would be better than a newspaper, of course:
Excuse the intrusion, but even if, arguendo, we were to accept this paper at face value and agree that ion vortices are responsible for some or all crop circles, that in no way explains a coherent design like the so-called "Arecibo reply." The question here is not about crop circles broadly, but about this one specifically. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by editors (Arecibo message)[edit]
The Independent is a generally reliable source. We don't need them to discuss in detail the methodology they used to arrive at the conclusion that a specific crop circle was a hoax, in order to use the information in the source. As an encyclopedia we do not perform original analysis in-house, but we are allowed to rely on the published analysis and critical thinking of others. VQuakr (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by volunteer (Arecibo message)[edit]
On the talk page multiple editors suggested the alternative "Chilbolton crop circle". Does anyone have any objections to that? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mildly object to the alternative section header phrasing of "Chilbolton crop circle". I would take no issue with "Chilbolton crop circle hoax". The guideline section WP:ONEWAY reminds us to treat fringe theories in context, which in this case means making clear that the mainstream viewpoint is that this crop circle, like all crop circles, was created by humans. VQuakr (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third statement by volunteer (Arecibo message)[edit]
Editors have stated that they prefer the original text (Arecibo Answer crop circle hoax). So considering that the IP hasn't made a great argument against it and guidelines also recommend it, I think we have consensus to keep the original text. If there are no objections against it within 24 hours, I will close this dispute. Thank you for your participation. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to close it, there's no counterargument to "I'm right, you're wrong". Despite the comments by [User:David J Johnson], this was no "hijacking". Multiple new users independently read the article, realize that "Hoax" in the title is improper, and try to change it. That should be a sign that it needs to be changed, not cause for celebration at bravely defending your precious article. 67.149.172.22 (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Closed as pending at the neutral point of view noticeboard. The instructions for DRN say: We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums. As another editor says, it is under discussion at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Let the discussion at NPOVN continue for a few more days. If the discussion fizzles out inconclusively or is closed as having been inconclusive, discussion can then be started here. In the meantime, you may optionally take part in the discussion at NPOVN. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion 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.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The Laken Riley Killing is a politicized, sensationalized murder that's notable because it's being used as propaganda fodder by immigration activists and a former US president. It's one of a set of several sensationalized US murders in which 1. the suspect was an illegal immigrant; 2. activists latched themselves onto it to make broad, disputed claims about illegal immigrants and criminality; and 3. it got sucked into the middle of a political debate about immigration.
When Reliable Sources cover these murders, they address how these crimes have been politicized, and they also cite research disputing the propaganda claims. The editor TanRabbitry, who's involved in the Laken Riley article, wants the article to say that the murder occurred during a "historic surge in border crossings," that the murder was "extensively referenced by proponents of stricter border security," who claimed that the murder and "similar violent crimes occurred due to the Biden administration's border policy." He's been highly resistant to including any statement about the fact that academic studies show no positive link between illegal immigration and violent crime (not even a single sentence will he agree to), despite the fact that I produced a dozen+ sources, and to say nothing of the fact that the sources they're currently using in the article also mention this. This issue has been talked out extensively on an NPOV noticeboard (linked in my report) and the article talk, but it's going in circles and getting nowhere. I would also add that the rationale for non-inclusion often involved erroneous interpretations of Wiki rules like "coatrack" (this isn't a tangent - the relevance is established in reliable sources) and "Right Great Wrongs" (again, irrelevant -this is verifiable information in RSes).
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I'd like to come to an agreement that the relevance of the disputed information is, in fact, established in reliable sources, and that a sentence or two addressing this aspect is due for inclusion.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@Jonathan f1: -- you didn't specify which editor you're referring to with the edits above. Would save external observers a lot of time and confusion hunting for that info if you included it. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!20:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TanRabbitry is involved in the Laken Riley article and is the main editor involved in this dispute with me. Masem was involved in the NPOV noticeboard discussion, which has been going on for days and is currently at an impasse. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Closed as declined by the other editor. The other editor has deleted the notice of the filing of this case request, which is a way of declining to participate in moderated discussion. Whether it is a rude way of declining to participate in moderated discussion is not significant. The next steps are continued discussion at the article talk page. However, I have a few comments. The filing editor states that they want to do a complete rewrite of the article, to replace the existing Class C article with a version that will pass Good Article review. In the discussion on the article talk page, other editors have agreed with the other editor or disagreed with the filing editor on some of the issues, which should be seen as a lack of consensus for extensive changes to the article. In particular, there seems to be a lack of consensus for any change to the etymology. The filing editor used a variant spelling in filing this case, which itself implies that consensus is against them as to the name. If the filing editor still wants to rewrite the article, the least disruptive way to try to do this would be one or more RFCs. There isn't consensus for a rewrite of the article. Discussion on the article talk page can continue as appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion 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.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I think the article needs a full rewrite, since I would like to make it a GA. M.Bitton consistently reverts changes to the article.
I attempted a range of improvements on April 18, April 19, May 12, May 21, June 14, and June 25. As you can see, I have tried different approaches each time, but continue to be reverted. This diff shows how little has changed.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
At the very least, maybe we could agree on a to-do list of the article's current problems. A more narrow ambition, perhaps we could resolve the article's coverage of etymology. Pipe dream, a better assessment of how to handle the dish's origin?
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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– Discussion in progress.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.