Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. 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).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov	Closed	Trumpetrep (t)	14 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours
Breyers	New	Zefr (t)	8 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 5 hours	Axad12 (t)	22 hours
Dragon Age: The Veilguard	New	Sariel Xilo (t)	6 days, 6 hours	None	n/a	Wikibenboy94 (t)	5 days, 7 hours
AIM-174B	Closed	MWFwiki (t)	5 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days,
List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru	New	HundenvonPenang (t)	1 days, 17 hours	None	n/a	HundenvonPenang (t)	1 days, 17 hours
Ustad Ahmad_Lahori	New	Goshua55 (t)	12 hours	None	n/a	Drmies (t)	6 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 01:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Garage punk

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Garagepunk66 on 02:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Garage punk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Garagepunk66 (talk · contribs)
• Ilovetopaint (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a disagreement going on at the Garage punk article in involving me and another editor. There are also connected issues at the Acid rock article (and possibly elsewhere). Though I do not doubt that editor's knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines, I think he lacks sufficient familiarity and experience with this particular topic and is misrepresenting it and that he is using guidelines and rules in an excessive way that obscures the subject's meaning. There needs to be a broader overview taking into account more than just a few sources--there needs to be background of experience with the topic in order to properly and accurately convey its nature. The issue is complex. I ask that you refer to the talk page of the article for details. My position is this: The term "garage punk" is spoken of in two senses: a) when the term is used by commentators to refer to 60s music (as an alternate tag for garage rock), it automatically means Garage rock, so therefore operates under the Wiki-category designation of garage rock when referring to 60s music. There is not a separate subgenre within 60s garage rock called garage punk--they are the same, but b) there is a subgenre of garage rock called garage punk that began in the 1980s that is influenced by garage rock, but incorporates other influences such as post-1975 punk rock, that is the rightful topic of this article--that is how the article has traditionally defined it. There is a fine balance that needs to be maintained. That editors' edits have gone to opposing extremes, none of which are in balance. "Garage rock" (in totality) can encompass both 60s music and new music. The term garage punk can be used to refer to old or new eras (as a holistic alternate term for garage rock), but, when used to classify a subgenre of garage rock (separate from the rest of garage rock), it is used to discuss post-1980s bands. There is no 1960s subgenre of garage rock called "garage punk" traditionally established at Wikipedia or elsewhere. If a source uses the term "garage punk" for 60s bands, it will mention the exact same bands that are considered garage rock (i.e. the Sonics). Etymologically the terms "punk rock" and "garage punk" pre-date the existence of the term "garage rock". The main term for garage music used by critics in the early seventies was "punk rock" ("garage punk" was also used). After the term "punk rock" became associated with bands of the post 1975 punk movement, "garage rock" became the preferred name for 1960s garage music, which is its official designation here. When sources use the term "garage punk" to refer to 60s music (or garage music in totality), they are using it as a holdover and mean garage rock--they only mean it as a separate subgenre when referring to bands post-1980s. We cannot misread sources in order to create new genre categories that don't exist (or ignore the obvious ones that do).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have been in a long, extended discussion on the talk page, but I think that we have reached an impasse. Some of his latest comments suggest that he is not going to welcome me to make any future edits in the article, and he has not shown a willingness to adjust his edits to my concerns.

How do you think we can help?

We are going to need outside help in achieving a resolution. We will need people who are knowledgeable in rock music--particularly garage rock and its offshoots.

Summary of dispute by Ilovetopaint

Garage punk is associated to rock music from the '60s (distinct from garage rock or proto-punk) and a garage rock/punk fusion genre from the '80s. Just five seconds of Googling will tell you that the term is more frequently applied to '60s bands. None of the sources contradict each other on this fact. Though it's not explicitly said, they seem to treat the '60s and '80s styles as different "waves" of the same genre. A similar case can be found with Progressive pop and Progressive rock — prog-pop might describe a 1970s subgenre, but it was originally termed for 1960s prog-rock. Content on these articles is mostly determined by whichever terms the sources write, whether it be progressive pop versus progressive rock or garage punk versus garage rock.

Garagepunk66 believes that every time a source references 1960s garage punk, they're actually (subliminally) referring to garage rock, and that everything '60s-related must be relocated to the Garage rock article. He would like the focus of Garage punk to be solely on the '80s movement, going so far as to stamp out any mentions of garage punk existing in the '60s (see below). But such an approach indicates a severe editorial bias. Garage punk most definitely existed in the '60s, and the place to talk about '60s garage punk is, of course, the Garage punk article, as per the principle of least astonishment (WP:SURPRISE).

Instead of simply allowing the sources speak for themselves, Garagepunk66 has decided to engage in POV-pushing. This includes:

(examples of disruptive editing)

1. Changing every reference to 1960s garage punk into garage rock, even though sources explicitly say garage punk
2. Synthesizing a bunch of sources together in order to reach a conclusion that they don't really suggest
   (i.e. he will claim "in a departure from "retro" revival bands then attempting to replicate the exact look and sound of mid-1960s garage" even though one of the sources he cites describes the genre as a "a retrograde strain of weird, fun punk." Later, a single musician is quoted: "I don’t think of it [the movement] as revivalism." Not much more is said on the subject afterwards.) [1]
3. Undermining reliably-sourced statements if they appear to contradict his beliefs
   (i.e. "sometimes considered to be the first garage punk band" becomes "mentioned as a pioneering influence on modern garage punk"
4. Or removing them entirely.
   (This is the most obvious example so far)

I don't believe it's an editor's job to be a mindreader. If a source writes garage punk, then unless stated otherwise, they're talking about garage punk, not garage rock (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). I've repeatedly asked Garagepunk66 to supply direct quotes that support the content he wants added, but most of the time, I'm only given paragraphs upon paragraphs of his original research, thoughts, and feelings. For sources, he links to Reddit, Urban Dictionary, and a print book that is not possible to verify online. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Garage punk discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editor. This case is ready for a volunteer moderator to accept it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Added case filer as one of the users involved in the case. --JustBerry (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - I have accepted the case. I will post comments here to begin mediation shortly. --JustBerry (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note:

Due to the apparent complexity of this case, it would be helpful if both parties could provide bullet point their arguments. If you think that any party has misunderstood your thinking or perspective incorrectly, please respectfully correct such errors to avoid compounding of misunderstanding as mediation continues. To achieve a more defined resolution, it is important that points are made clearly and briefly; otherwise, important sub arguments may get left out of the discussion.

From what I understand, User:Garagepunk66 argues that “garage punk” in the context of 60s music refers to “garage rock”; hence, “garage punk” is not distinguishable from “garage rock” with regards to 60s music. Can you please provide third party references to substantiate this assertion?

Then, you proceeded to essentially point out that “garage punk” was influenced by “garage rock” and “punk rock” around the 1980s, which compares with User:Ilovetopaint’s point that garage punk is associated with a garage rock/punk fusion genre from the 80’s. Are there any disagreements with garage punk’s connotation in the context of 1980s music among both parties?

If there are no disagreements in garage punk’s connotation in the context of 1980s music, then we can continue the discussion of garage punk’s reference in the context of 1960s music. User:Ilovetopaint, you mention that 60s and 80s music styles of garage punk are different waves of music. Are you arguing that garage punk was differentiated from garage rock in the 60s? If so, how? Please provide third party references or articles that are relevant in pointing this out.

Do these series of comments cover the major points of agreements and disagreements among both parties? If not, please clearly and concisely state what is missing. As a final note, it would also be helpful if both parties were to indicate points of agreement and disagreement consistently and starkly in their responses (moving forward). --JustBerry (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Both Ilovetopaint and I agree that garage punk can refer to a certain strain of bands that were active in the 1980s. But, it was this subgenre of bands that has traditionally been the topic of the Garage punk article--so there we disagree. He contends that there is a separate 60s subgenre of garage rock called "garage punk" and that modern bands flow from primarily from that stem--and that the article should base itself on that. But, making such a contention takes the article from its original 80s-bands topic (and haphazardly creates a new subgenre of 60s music that has not previously been established to exist). I believe in sticking with the classifications as they have been established at Wikipedia (unless there is an overwhelming consensus in society and amongst editors to change them). I feel that the garage punk article should retain its original focus on post-80s bands and not attempt to re-define the subgenre. But, I do believe that the article should also provide the 60s background, etymology--but without re-defining its topic.
• Judging by his comments above and in prior edits, Ilovetopaint does not seem to realize that there were two garage movements in the 1980s. The first wave of groups were "retro" bands who srtove to look and sound exactly like mid-60s bands (Beatle haircuts, mod clothes, vintage instruments, 60s style recordings, etc.)--these bands are sometimes referred to as "garage revival". These bands are discussed on pg. 40-42 on Mike Markesich's book. Describing the L.A. garage scene in the early 80s:

One's authenticity to incorporate rporate the '60s was tantamount. Scene people were socially judged by their appearance (a complete '60s look via vintage clothes, boots, and hairstyle) and pop culture influences beyond the Sunset Strip of the '60s... For garage groups, their sound was held up to the highest standard (use of only vintage amlpifiers permitted)...

There is also an AllMuic piece called "Garage Revival" covering them. While the term "garage punk" is sometimes used to describe them (just as it is for 60s garage bands), it does not designate any specific subgenre.

• Whereas, a later wave of bands came along in the later half of the 1980s, that took garage influence and mixed it with other forms, primarily early 70s protopunk, and post-1975 punk, as well as other forms. They wanted a louder and more aggressive form of garge rock. This wave got tagged "garage punk" and in the late 1980s-early 2000s, these bands were thought of as a subgenre in the public mind as "garage punk". These bands, though influenced by 60s garage, did not attempt to look and sound just like the 60s bands. According to Markesich:

Holdover 80s scene garage groups and the newer arrivals moved past the strictly mid '60s influence, preferring louder soundscapes of '70s striped down rock & roll and punk. This expanding movement established a hybrid now widely categorized as garage punk..

• Ilovetopaint has asserted that there was a subgenre in the 1960s called "garage punk" that was distinct from garage rock, and at one point, he had the heading of the article worded in such a way that it made that look so.[2] And he still has things in the Acid rock article, that treat garage punk as a distinct 60s subgenre (separate from the rest of garage rock).[3] Though his latest wording for the heading has changed to a more 80s perspective [4], it is still confusing (please see my comments at the bottom of the talk page at the Garage punk, where I go into detail about why that is so). Here's what I put in the heading that was much more accurate and helpful to the reader, but which got taken out: [5].
• Followers of 60s garage rock often refer to 60s garage as "garage punk" (I often do), but I have never heard anyone suggest that it is separate from the rest of garage rock unless refereeing to the bands from the late 80s and their ilk. The term "garage punk" is interchangeable with garage rock when used to refer to 60s music. Like "punk rock" (in the early 1970s) it was one of the terms used to describe 60s garage--the term "garage rock" did not come into use until after the mid-late 70s punk movement, which re-appropriated the term. Here is a quote by Peter Aaron from If You Like the Ramones that shows how "garage punk" and "garage rock" are interchangeable when discussing 60s groups:

The term "garage rock" didn't actually come into use until after the era of its original practitioners passed. Theoretically, this music, also called "garage punk", was developed by amateurish, middle-class teens who rehearsed in the garages of their families' suburban American Homes during the mid-1960s.

• About the Acid rock article. Though followers and commentators of 60s garage rock often use the term "garage punk", we do not make it out to be a separate subgenre of 60s music. The official Wikipeida term for 60s garage music is "garage rock". While people who follow 60s garage are well aware that words like "punk rock" (along with "garage punk") were originally used to describe 60s garage rock, the sad fact is that most people don't realize this. Most people think of punk as something that came out of nowhere in the mid 70s. So, they will read the section about "Garage punk" in the Acid rock article and get confused. We have to be careful in how we apply categories and terminologies here in a way that does not confuse readers or tamper with established categories here. Whereas, if we refer to "garage rock" in the Acid rock article, readers will not get confused-they can click into the blue link to the garage rock article and learn about hundreds of bands--and they can find out all about the etymology and history of how garage rock was the first form of music to be called "punk rock".
• About the Sonics: just because one source says they are considered first garage punk band, doesn't make that necessarily true--its debatable. You have to be careful not to emphasize things form sources that are overstating. Garage rock/garage punk has its origins in the late 50s. I've read people say similar things about Link Wray. Some have referred to the Kingsmen's version of "Louie, Louie" as the "ur text" of punk rock, but other artists and bands did the song before them. While the Sonics formed in 1960, by the time they did their first recordings in 1965, they had a completely different lineup, so we don't know what their earlier lineups sounded like. The Rockin' Ramrods formed a couple of years later (1963), but went to the studio almost a year earlier and recorded "She Lied" in 1964--and they sounded a lot like the Ramones (in 1964!). [6] That takes nothing from the Sonics--they have as much reaon as anyone to get the credit, but generally I shy away from giving one band all credit for starting a genre, particularly one of unconscious origins, like garage rock/garage punk. It helps to have a little experience covering a topic and knowing the topography. There is a lot to consider.
• I beg to differ with the "disruptive editing" comment above. I was trying to do my job and make a necessary correction to avoid confusion amongst readers and make sure Wikipedia genres are properly represented. Though in the talk page discussion I did use the Urban Dictionary, I also quoted from two published books and made references to the MTV Iggy article. I also made clarifications about the content in the Guardian article, which uses "garage punk" as an alternate term for garage rock. When discussing 60s garage bands, or garage rock as a whole (old or new), the term "garage punk" can be used interchangeably with what we here at Wikipedia classify as garage rock. Garage punk is only thought of as a separate subgenre of garage rock when references the really loud, hard bands of the late 80s and 90s. I also have a problem with contentions such as "original research" and "point of view", when I am trying to be accurate and objective. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

References

• Are there any disagreements with garage punk’s connotation in the context of 1980s music among both parties?

I don't believe so.

• User:Ilovetopaint, you mention that 60s and 80s music styles of garage punk are different waves of music. Are you arguing that garage punk was differentiated from garage rock in the 60s? If so, how?

No. I am arguing that garage rock/punk are implicitly different, but explicitly the same. Regardless of whether sources are using the term for '60s or '80s music, none of them unequivocally state "garage punk is distinguished from garage rock". They say the opposite; that the terms are interchangeable. Some also say that there was a garage punk movement that developed in the '80s. Those sources have been referenced above.

Basically, my core point is that we don't have a single source (yet) that explicitly notes distinctions between '60s garage punk and '80s garage punk. This is the clearest, most comprehensive statement I could find on the subject:

Every now and then people start talking about garage punk, or, more likely, about garage rock or garage revival. In the early 2000′s there was a lot of hype about such bands [...] It’s rebranded slightly by the media every time, but the first and most important thing to know about garage punk, is that in between bouts of hype, it doesn’t really go anywhere. Like a weird, freakishly resilient punk beast, the music flourishes in dark corners, except for when it’s in SPIN. [...] For [Arish] Khan, who believes that there were garage punk bands even back in the ’60s, his mission has more to do with the present than the past: “I don’t think of it as revivalism. I think of it as carrying on a tradition of rock ‘n’ roll, without being purist, because I think rock ‘n’ roll is very important, like, for now. It’s sad when I see kids who have no idea who Chuck Berry is.” [7]

The bolded text shows us that at least Arish Khan believes '60s garage punk does exist in the context of '80s garage punk.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

We may not have a source directly contrasting late-80s/90s garage punk from the term's use regarding 60s bands, but we do have a source above contrasting it against the strict revivalist movement of the early 80s (and you'll notice that in Kahn's statement, he is trying to distance himself from the strict "retro revivalist" kinds of bands). I don't think it is necessary to have that "smoking gun" for the 60s, because if we fail to automatically make that distinction, then we'll end up creating a new 60s subgenre of garage called "garage punk". Since the use of the term "garage punk" predates the use of "garage rock" (going back to 1972), but since "garage rock" became the overriding term later on, we are safe to assume that the sources are using "garage punk" interchangeably with garage rock, when referring to the 60s. But, yes there is a connection to the late 80s/90s. Kahn wants to be part of that same tradition--rooted in the 60s, but letting it evolve beyond the '60s. So, he'd be part of that wave who got tagged "garage punk". In the public mind (at least in the late 80s & 90s), people were using that tag a lot, probably not knowing about the 60s influence. I have no doubt in my mind that the musicians, themselves, didn't want to create a new subgenre--just to update garage rock. But, public perceptions are a powerful thing and people love labels. I hate having to argue about labels. But, I just don't want people to get confused, that's all. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

However, "correcting" the sources is not a solution. I find it suspicious how you go back to the same Markesich sentence — it is one of only two direct quotes that you have pasted from the book. What exactly does he say before and after? What does he say about garage revival?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't correct the source, but rather find alternate wording that takes the broader view into account, but find additional sources that corroborate the broader view--I should have added a couple of additional sources about the Sonics' influence, which is no doubt, very strong. Concerning the garage revival (beforehand on pg. 40-42) Markesich goes into detail about the garage revival bands of the early 80s. On pg. 40, he begins by mentioning the first "revival" band, the Droogs (from Los Angeles) who began doing a mid-60s revival in 1972. Tey were almost ten years ahead of other such bands, but by the time a revival scene got going in L.A. in the early 1980s, the Droogs ahd moved on to other musical styles. Greg Shaw, who was one of the earliest garage writers in the early 70s (at the time the word "punk rock" was being used for garage), started Bomp Records, where in the late 70s, he released the first voulume of the Pebbles series. He actively supported the revival bands of the early 80s, and he opened the Cavern Club in L.A. and formed the Vox label to provide an outlet for these bands. Markesich describes the L.A. scene as revivalist almost to the extreme. The bands and people in the scene were demanded a very strict adherence to the exact look and sound of mid-60s bands--adopting the circa-1966 Sunset Strip look (i.e. the way the Chocolate Watchbandthe looked in the movie Riot on Sunset Strip) was de rigueur. On pg. 41, he notes the scene was very insular and judgmental--people were expected to act and look an exact "retro" part. He mentions some of bands from Southern California who recorded for Vox such as the Crawdaddys, the Pandoras, the Gravedigger V (pg. 41). Later on the page he mentions the New York revival scene of the early 80s, with bands such as the Fuzztones, and the Vipers. At the end of the page he mentions the Boston scene, with bands such as the Lyres. On page 42, he discusses the Chesterfield Kings, from Rochester, and then mentions that there were retr-garage scenes in Europe and Canada. At the bottom of page. 42, he discusses how there was a move away from strict revivalism:

...grous who originally swore allegiance to the sounds of Pebbles and the Chocolate Watchband headed down more psychedelic and harder rock avenues. It seemed only natural that most groups would not last of stay interested playing the exact '60s sound over and over for any lengthy period of time without incorporating change.

Then, at the top of page 43, Markesich mentions (in the quote I provided before on a few occasions) how a new hybrid emerged in the late 80s that got tagged "garage punk"--bands taking the garage influence but adding other influences and louder sounds into the mix. It was this particular post-revival subgenre of bands that the Garage punk article was originally intended to spotlight. But, he does not say much more after that about the later "garage punk" movement--Markesich is a strict revivalist--he has played in several revival bands. On pg. 43, he goes on to discuss 60s compilations, because his main focus in the book is the original 60s recordings. Incidentally, I'm not putting Markesich on a pedestal--I merely selected his quote about the late 80s/90s garage punk subgenre, because it coincided with how the article had been written for years, and how the subgenre category had been established at Wikipedia. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

"... We shouldn't correct the source, but rather find alternate wording that takes the broader view into account, but find additional sources that corroborate the broader view"

This is a very grey area that brushes against WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. The kind of edits that you've been trying to make have been like this:

Source 1: Lauren drank a glass of water.

Source 2: People sometimes drink water when they're thirsty.

Text: Lauren drank a glass of water to quench her thirst.

The truth: Lauren was not thirsty. She had a scratchy throat.

Virtually the same as you misrepresenting "sometimes considered to be the first garage punk band" as "mentioned as a pioneering influence on modern garage punk". Being one of the first garage punk bands makes you a pioneer for sure, but it doesn't mean you influenced others, let alone that you influenced "modern" bands in particular.

Also, you could have just written "Markesich talks about specific local scenes". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that the syllogism that was posed above would only be so of there hadn't been so many other things written. Anyway, what if one makes the mistake of focusing exclusively on a source where the writer opines that she was thirsty, but in truth she actually had a scratchy throat--then what would you do? There may be other sources that could be more helpful--and knowing about more about her situation might be helpful. The problem is that sometimes Wiki editors can latch themselves onto to certain statements in certain sources, but fail to see the truth of the matter, because they haven't read enough about a topic.

• In the statement about the Sonics, I was only taking what was, in the source, an overstatement (that lacked enough other supporting testimonies) and made it more objective and understated. And, I admitted above that I should have found other sources when I changed it. One can find plenty of articles testifying to the Sonics' influence, but most will not go as far as to say they were the first band of a this particular subgenre--just a major influnce.
• The MTV article attests to their influence and even has someone commenting that they were "more punk than the Sex Pistols", which is also an overstatement--but it does not say they were the first band of this subgenre. I could write "According to so and so, they are more punk than the Sex Pistols", and put that in a caption under the picture on the side, but would that be a good judgment on my part? Just because one person says something doesn't make it necessarily so.

When I write for Wikipedia, I'm not engaging in synthetic reasoning but summary. In sitiations like this I'm aiming not at synthesis, but synopsis. I don't try to come up with any new theories or hypothesis. I'm just trying to render an accurate portrayal of a musical genre, based on what I have read and learned from a multiplicity of sources I have encountered, using selected sources to convey the broader consensus.

• If you're dealing with a straightforward biographical situation--i.e. when dealing with a linear timeline--a literalist method is perfect--all you need is one or two sources to verify a straightforward fact.
• But, when you're dealing with broad topic in a genre article that must accurately explain how a genre of music is defined--and an article dealing with multiple players and personalities from different places (and in some cases placing them into a historical context), a method that is too narrowly-focused can actually have the inverse effect of leading into a blind alley.

Just because a particular source is reliable doesn't meant that it is infallible. Writers of sources have opinions too, and we have to sometimes be on the lookout for their POV as well. And, I don't know where you got the pretext for the current lead sentence ("Garage punk is a rock subgenre that evokes characteristics identified with punk rock")--it has nothing to do with what Markesich or the MTV Iggy sources say and it does nothing to properly characterize the subgenre or properly introduce the topic. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"I think the Sonics are more punk than the Sex Pistols" is an individual's opinion. "Sometimes considered to be the first garage punk band" is an observation on general perception. These examples are not equatable. And Laura Ansil (the Mxdwn author) wrote nothing about the Sonics influencing modern garage punk. From the article alone, you would have no idea that other garage punk bands still existed beyond the album she was reviewing.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note: I am inviting DRN volunteers to comment. An RFC may be needed to mediate this issue. --JustBerry (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Influencing modern garage punk but not founding it. Ansil overstates when she says "Considered by many to be the first ever garage punk band..." I've read no other source that has ever identified the Sonics as being the actual first of this or any other genre--but rather as a band that was ahead of their time and influential on later acts--as a precursor. Summers comes the closest, but is not saying quite the same thing as Ansil. According to Summers: "The Sonics created the template for American garage punk..." He means this in the sense of being a precursor to 80s garage punk (twenty years ahead of their time, but not actually starting the 80's subgenre). If we speak of garage punk as an 80s/post 80s subgenre (which is the proper domain of this article), then the Sonics would be a precursor--that is the way they are portrayed in Summers and MTV Iggy. If we use the term "garage punk" as an alternate term for 60s garage, then the same thing holds true--there is no way to identify a first band in that context either. In general, statements made by authors claiming that a certain artist or group was the first in a genre almost always tend to be subjective--and debatable. As a general rule of thumb, when evaluating what to emphasize from sources, I tend avoid putting too much credence on such statements, because they are usually hard to prove. For that reason, it would be better to allude to Summers (rather than Ansil) in the caption. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note: @Garagepunk66: @Ilovetopaint: Observing this discussion, it appears that much of the skepticism and disagreements comes from WP:SYNTH (subset of WP:Original research). As mentioned in the opening comments, there must be third-party references to substantiate assertions as a whole, rather than observations being made about references in third-party references/other Wikipedia articles. As such, the following types of evidence (by both sides of this dispute) would be much appreciated to better move towards a resolution in this case:

  1. How multiple bands state their influences were
  2. How multiple bands describe their influences and the relationships among them
  3. Multiple historical analyses of the terms' evolutions

As RfC will probably not get enough participants for this case, DRN seems to be more suitable for mediation of this case at this time. To reiterate, please stay away from synthesizing references and mentions in those references/articles and move towards how fellow readers/editors can verify that the terms used are (more objectively, rather than subjectively) appropriate in their respective contexts. --JustBerry (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Both Ilovetopaint and I agree 100% that the Sonics were a major influence on post-80s garage punk--numerous sources attest to this--agreed. So, that is good. But, I feel that it would be better to use Summers' characterization in the caption under the photograph, rather than Anvil's, because it is the more prevalent view. We are coming closer and the article seems to be moving in the right direction, but there are still sticking points. I ask that Ilovetopaint be open to some of my suggestions, just as I will listen to his ideas. Here are my remaining concerns--if we need to look at what multiple sources have to say, then let's narrow them to these matters:

• Since garage punk (as the post-80s subgenre of garage rock) is the proper topic of this article, Acid rock should not be listed as a derivative form in the info box. In the citation, Hoffman is using the term "garage punk" as an alternate term for garage rock (the influence of garage rock on psychedelic and acid rock is well-testified). Also, the this is causing problems at the Acid rock article that are going to confuse readers. We need to say "garage rock" there--if we link it to the garage punk article, people are going to get bewildered and confused.
• The lead sentence in the heading does not aptly characterize the garage punk genre. It only associates it with punk rock, which people will assume means post-1975 punk (it is blue linked to the punk rock article). Just as there was a prior etymological and musical background of punk (which most people are unaware), the better-known 70s punk was also a big influence on 80s/90s garage punk--but it is not as foundational an influence as garage rock. Post-80s garage punk is essentially "garage rock on steroids". The 60s stuff is the foundation. But, with the influences of early 70s Detroit proto-punk and post-1975 punk, we get the louder guitars, etc. Another problem is that the lead sentence is not supported by either of the two sources provided. A much more apt opening sentence would be: "Garage punk is a rock subgenre that is a hybrid between garage rock and modern punk rock, as well as other forms".
• The issue with the caption under the Sonics' photo (mentioned above).
• There is a problem with the opening statement in the "1980s–2000s: Fusion with 1970s punk" section. When it says "In the 1980s, there began a revived interest in the music of the 1960s, starting with garage punk...", there is a problem. The first revival movement in the 80s was the "retro" garage revival where bands dressed and played exactly like 60s bands (if the term "garage punk" is used for those groups, it is only as an alternate for garage rock and does not designate a separate genre). Then, there came the garage punk fusion movement in the late 80s and 90s. Markesich discusses the distinction between these two movements in the things I've referenced above.

So, if we could just get these things agreed upon and fixed, then I'd be fine with the rest of article. Let's work together to get these last stumbling blocks out of the way. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Saraiki dialect

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by AksheKumar on 07:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Saraiki dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AksheKumar (talk · contribs)
• Uanfala (talk · contribs)
• SaraikiStudents (talk · contribs)
• SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs)
• Peeta Singh (talk · contribs)
• Paine Ellsworth (talk · contribs)
• LisaRoy (talk · contribs)
• Gvinayal (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Wiki page related to Saraiki dialect has been poorly written. Much of the content was modified by Uanfala recently. Most of edits are against recently closed RFC and closed Title discussions. According to RFC & Title Disscusions Saraiki is not a Language [8].

• Still First line was modified as; Saraiki (سرائیکی Sarā'īkī, also spelt Siraiki, or less often Seraiki) is an Indo-Aryan language of the Western Punjabi (Lahnda) group, spoken in the southern half of the province of Punjab in Pakistan .Before modification it was; Saraiki (Template:Lang-pnb (Sarā'ikī) is a dialect of Punjabi..
• Same kind of modifications were made to Punjab Districts [9] [10] [11]. Mother tongue could be a dialect/language/pidgin/creole. Source also never defined it as Language. Still tagging Saraiki as Language is knowing fully cheating RFC.
• Dialect section was added to a Dialect Page. Not Sub dialects section. This section was poorly written language research paper that included Sindhi Saraiki. Ironically first thing article says is Template:Distinguish2 . This is a simple mess of central east west north arbitrarily crafted dialect folio. Cracks are visible e.g. Jhnagi is shown as Saraiki dialect but National census book for Jhang shows 97 % Jhang speaking Punjabi as mother tongue and 3 % Urdu [12] Dito for Shahpuri of Sargodha [13] and bars of Sahiwal [14].

References

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

[15] [16] [17]

How do you think we can help?

Restore article to give effect to RFC. Dialect section be scrapped.Punjab district edits should use what source says not what we want to show it.

Summary of dispute by Uanfala

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

The only "conflict" I have with AksheKumar was on the Layyah District – I've brought up the issue at the user's talk page, but it's a bit strange I see them come to the DRN without bothering to reply there first. As for Saraiki dialect, this is an article that AksheKumar hasn't edited and I'm not sure on whose behalf he's seeking dispute resolution. – Uanfala (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Adding that I don't have anything to say other than what has already been said on the article's talk page and I don't see any point in this thread here. I'm taking this off my watchlist so please ping me in case there's any development. – Uanfala (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Saraiki dialect discussion

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

@Peeta Singh: @Paine Ellsworth: @SheriffIsInTown:

• Volunteer note - There has been some discussion on the article talk page, although it has been disjointed. The filing party has listed one of the other editors at the top of the article and has pinged others. The filing party is requested to list all of the involved editors and to notify them on their talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - I will be closing this case shortly as a general close. The filing party, User:AksheKumar, has listed all of the editors on my talk page, but not here. Unfortunately, it isn't clear whether the filing editor, User:AksheKumar, will be able to take part in moderated discussion in English. They might be better off editing the Wikipedia in their first language. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: with all due respect Please Prefer nonjudgmental language. I am proficient in English. Next time I will use more simple words to make it clearer for your comprehension of the case. Summary of Conflict is reproduced in simple point by point sequence.

• Talk Page consensus Year 2012-13: Saraiki is not a Language. It is dialect of Punjabi
• Move request decision: Title should not be named as Saraiki Language it should remain Saraiki dialect.
• Move review decision: Move review decision was correct.
• RFC decision: Saraiki is Not a language.
• First Line: edited by user UanFala= Saraiki is an Indo Aryan Language. He discussed it on Talk page but failed in getting Consensus.

My OBJECTION first line should be in line with Talk page consensus, Move request decision, Move review decision, RFC decision. i.e. Saraiki is a dialect of Punjabi..

2ND OBJECTION Uanfla has added the term "First Language" for Saraiki dialect in articles on Districts of Punjab. Underline source have no such term instead the term Mother tongue is used. The term First language be replaced with mother tongue as it allows us flexibility to write Saraiki as a dialect not as a Language in line with first objection.

3RD OBJECTION One section in the said article was added by Uanfala naming Dialects which is poorly sourced . Fake groupings such as Eastern Saraiki and Sindhi Saraiki were added. This section heading should be Sub dialects. ONLY more reliably sourced 3 sub dialects of Saraiki Multani, Riasti and Thalochi should be detailed under the heading.AksheKumar (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

References

@AksheKumar you are a Indian. what do you know about Saraiki. Do you have any proof other then Rana Dasgupta that Saraiki is a dialect ? SaraikiStudents (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Since the filing party states that they are competent in English, they are asked to update the case header to list the participants and to notify them. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to SaraikiStudents It is not correct to call Saraiki a language different from Punjabi. Read more other then Rana Dasgupta on this scholarly link [18] Gvinayal (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. In September, a technical move request to rename Saraiki dialect to "Saraiki language" was contested and a Requested move was opened. I closed that RM in October as "Not moved", and it was taken to Move review, where my close was "endorsed". Since then, a turmoil of edits and discussion has taken place in regard to when a "dialect" should be deemed a "language" on Wikipedia. I have not followed all this very closely, except (1) to note that there appears to be very strong motivations both to include information that Saraiki is becoming widely considered as a "language", as well as that Saraiki is still widely considered to be a dialect of the Punjabi language, (2) to endorse a decision at Move review in regard to the Hindko dialect, which was opened by User:Uanfala and is, at this time, not yet closed, and (3) to participate in User:Uanfala's attempt at WikiProject Languages to erect a standard that will help editors decide when and if to change article titles from "Foo dialect" to "Foo language". I find all this intensely interesting, as I cannot yet determine myself if any resolution that would suit the needs of all editors involved readily exists.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 08:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Uninvolved editor's comment Peeta Singh was banned from Sikh and Punjabi related pages and is now blocked, so he will not be participating. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The filing party has now listed the other editors, and has notified them. In view of the wording of the notification, which appears to be non-neutral but in any case is not in syntactically good written English, I still have very serious doubts as to whether the filing party is capable of taking part in moderated dispute resolution in English. However, I will wait for responses from the other notified editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Filling Party As soon as I clicked edit, Page notice alert popped up "Please keep discussions concise, and on topic. Volunteers are here to help" Robert McClenon please follow this and focus on content rather than English language course. Gvinayal there are dozen more scholarly links to satisfy SaraikiStudents. According to them Saraiki is a Punjabi dialect/Variant/variety. I can paste them all but AksheKumar objections are procedural. I mean in simple words he is asking action for enforcement of Talk page consensus, Move request/Move review /RFC decisions. Paine Ellsworth resolution that would suit the needs of all editors involved already existed [19] right before first edit by Uanfala on 12 October 2016. It was a long standing version of this article. It was a balanced version and universally accepted since 2012. Not only it represented dialect status "mutually intelligible, morphologically and syntactically similar to standard Punjabi". At the same time it also elaborated Language claim "According to some, Saraiki is a separate language with its own standard as opposed to a dialect of Punjabi.The development of the standard written language began after the founding of Pakistan in 1947, driven by a regionalist political movement. I support filling party in all respects. LisaRoy (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT symbols

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by MercyStreet on 21:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC).

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. Location of dispute Talk:LGBT symbols (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MercyStreet (talk · contribs) Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) Ariadne Lily (talk · contribs) Dispute overview StasekLem has been repeatedly removing the asexual pride flag, bisexual pride flag, and other symbols from the LGBT symbols page, claiming that they are 'not in widespread use.' Multiple sources were provided on the talk page by multiple other editors. I believe he has violated the 3RR by repeatedly reversing edits even AFTER multiple sources were provided showing the widespread use of these symbols by orgs such as GLAAD, the Trevor Project, and even independent regional counseling facilities. I'm not sure if this is because he isn't part of the LGBTQ community or because he doesn't primarily speak English, but StasekLem seems to be setting himself up as the singular arbiter of what is or isn't 'widespread use' or 'enough sources.' We have provided half a dozen independent sources over the course of days and he continues to revert edits and talk down to the other editors. Have you tried to resolve this previously? 1. Provided the requested information 2. Provided more information when told it wasn't 'enough.' 3. Provided more information and references to the Wikipedia rules and regs in order to clarify sources. 4. Followed the Wikipedia procedures on dispute resolution when StasekLem made comment to 'shaking our walled garden' (clearly this is personal) and informed that I was seeking mediation 5. Disengaged and sought mediation. How do you think we can help? 1. Provide clear direction on what 'enough sources' are. 2. Remind StasekLem that he is not the sole arbiter of what is or isn't enough or what is or isn't widespread use, and that removing information from a page when a discussion is ongoing (by his own admission) isn't okay 3. Resolve whether or not 'enough sources' have been provided, and if not, how many more sources than six, covering 5+ years, are necessary. Summary of dispute by Staszek Lem I don't want to deal with reverse bigotry from a flock of new accounts, and I have already stated it their talk page that I will no longer discuss it and I have already stopped editing it. All my arguments are in the talk page. I came to this page during a routine cleanup of unreferenced stuff. This subject is not vital to my interests, therefore I am no longer willing to explain our core content policies to newcomers with apparent bias towards this subject who refuse to listen and keep accusing me of ignorance. Thank you, no more comment on this subject from me. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ariadne Lily Saw that the asexual content had been deleted. Went on talk page, saw several sources dismissed and comment broken up by another user, so provided more information on the talk page and restored Asexuality section, as credible sources were provided. Another user remarked on agreement with content restore, and remarked on Wikipedia's preserve policy. MercyStreet then provided more credible sources, in order to ensure content would remain, remarked on belonging to LGBT community and being aware of symbols. Stasek Lem then remarked on Wikipedia policy, ignored sources and claimed editors needed to find credible sources. MercyStreet remarked on seeking mediation. I then remarked on wanting to seek mediation as well, and mentioned disruptive editing and ignoring sources/lack of knowledge, requested no further removals until resolved, disengaged Was told I was belligerent by Stasek Lem. Other users continued providing sources. Talk:LGBT symbols discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. The filing party is expected to notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Volunteer response I am KDS444 and I am here to attempt to resolve this dispute. I have to begin by making some observations: Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) has an edit history of nearly 30,000 edits, more than twice my own, and that the other editors involved in this dispute have fewer than 50 edits combined. I must also confess that I myself am a member of the LGBT community, and therefore am not entirely uninvolved in the outcome of this discussion. However, before my community identity I am a Wikipedia editor, and more than this, I am a volunteer at this noticeboard. In light of this, I have two statements: first, I would like to hear from Staszek Lem on this matter. Second, I must state that there is no formal policy with regard to any "minimum" number of references required before any particular piece of information may be included on Wikipedia— much more important than number is the reliability of the sources. Once I have hear from Lem, I will comment further. KDS4444 (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Suggest close because I will no longer dispute this issue. As I wrote in the talk page, I have rattled this cage a bit and I hope it will naturally become more adhering to our content standards, because, as I see, people started discussing sources in the talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Closing It looks like this discussion has reached its conclusion, and my thanks to those involved for working it out. KDS4444 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC) 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.

Talk:Harry S._Truman

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Lakeshake on 21:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Harry S. Truman (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lakeshake (talk · contribs)
• Calidum (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For over 12 years, there has been a dispute in the article, covering several pages of talk page archives. Harry S Truman is also known as Harry S. Truman. There have been slow, prolonged edit wars. Compromises have been proposed such as Harry S. Truman (also Harry S Truman) (May 8, 1884 – December 26, 1972) was an American politician who served as the 33rd President of the United States but this has been reverted, which comments such as it being "dumb".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion

How do you think we can help?

Think of compromise language, suggests editors accept multiple proposals, not just their own.

Summary of dispute by Calidum

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

I've made my point on the talk page (and others have commented there as well). This appears to be forum shopping. Calidum ¤ 21:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This user is factually incorrect as no other forum has been used except DRN. I have looked and have not found any forum that this 12 year old dispute has been shopped. Lakeshake (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Harry S._Truman discussion

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

Why is this an issue, given that Harry S. Truman signed his name with a period after the S? See the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. Could it be more official? - Nunh-huh 00:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer response I am KDS4444 and I am a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard with no prior involvement in the Truman article. I have now read over the complaint and the responses, and I have also done some of my own research into this topic. I have a prejudice: I was taught long ago that "it" (i.e., the man's name) was "Harry S Truman", oddly with no period, as the "S" stood for nothing. My initial knee-jerk and VERY certain response was that the entire article should obviously be titled "Harry S Truman". Imagine my disappointment when I went looking for biographies on him: the titles of all of the major works state "Harry S. Truman". I am sure the authors of those biographies have their reasons, but that doesn't really matter much. It appears that reliable sources consistently refer to him as "Harry S. Truman". I may also find that disappointing, but I am not a biographer and it isn't my job to figure out the reasons behind that pattern. Now, I think everyone involved in this dispute (Nunh-huh, are you an involved editor? What is your role here? If you are involved in this dispute, then please add your name to the list of involved editors; if you are here to participate in attempting to resolve this dispute, I am not sure your approach so far is helping) knows the same story that I do: that President Truman had no given middle name, but instead had a letter "S" which stood for nothing, which is odd but there you have it. As I understand it, there is currently a footnote in the article which explains this situation for those readers who wish to get clarification on the point. I also understand that a large proportion of readers (myself included) expect to see "Harry S Truman" and not "Harry S. Truman", because that's what we learned once and we know it to be as true as how to spell "Fat Man" and "Little Boy", but is having an alternate name "Harry S Truman" in the lead sentence helpful here? I must tell you, it is splitting a fine hair: if I had wandered into the article with no knowledge of its history, I would be dead certain that some careless youngster had made some mistakes that I would now need to correct— and I would apparently be completely in the wrong to do so. Having the man's name appear twice in the lead sentence and be exactly the same except for a period certainly looks "dumb" ("Can't Wikipedia make up its mind? What kind of group-think got us "Harry S. Truman also known as Harry S Truman"?). At the same time, "Harry S Truman" was indeed an alternate name for him and the absence of the usually-expected period, while perhaps not the first choice of biographers deciding on which to use for the covers of their books, certainly has historicity. Could a footnote explain this? Of that there is no question. WP:ALTERNATENAME also says, "If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended." In the article section on his "early life and career" the first paragraph addresses this issue. Between the footnote and the article section, it becomes very clear that the S was a flip-flop issue. It looks like the article thoroughly discusses the matter, and I don't see any material benefit of repeating the man's name twice in the lead sentence with variation by a period except to calm down people like me, which I am not sure qualifies as a legitimate reason yet (...someday...?). Though I doubt my grandmother would agree with me, I am making an argument to leave the article as it is, with no mention of the no-period-S in the lead sentence, because the matter is well discussed within the article and because I can't see any benefit to doing so. Please let me know if my reasoning for this sounds convincing. KDS4444 (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Your thoughts are helpful. On the other hand, the hallmark of conflict is refusal to accept anything except your own version of the article. Many editors of the "Harry S. Truman" side are like that, unfortunately. I am flexible. I have suggested many ways, from having "(also known as Harry S Truman)" or just in the infobox.

As far as consistency, Wikipedia has articles that state in the first sentence "Frankin Delano Roosevelt" or the full name. Harry S Truman's full name was Harry S Truman, not Harry Samuel Truman or Harry Seaver Truman. Lakeshake (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

More uninvolved input: "Harry S. Truman" and "Harry S Truman" aren't two different names, it's one name, the first with standard English orthography, and the second with non-standard orthography. The variation in orthography is worth a footnote, which the article has. - Nunh-huh 20:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved input (please move if need be) This seems to be a matter of WP:COMMONNAME. If that is the case, I would assume that what would be of import would be whether the name appears in generally reliable sources more frequently with or without the "." Based on the example provided above, it seems that the subject himself used the period in his signature, which would I think tend to support the inclusion of the period based on his own signatory self-description. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• (And even that wouldn't really matter if published reliable sources said otherwise, which apparently they have not tended to do KDS4444 (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC))

• Support KDS4444's excellent exegesis and recommendation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, many years ago I remember "learning" that Harry Truman's middle "name" was simply "S", which was not short for anything, and therefore should be written without a period. I saw some article somewhere (this was pre-Wikipedia) which used the period, and I wrote in, pedantically, to point out their error, and they responded, politely, that I was mistaken. The respondent who was associated with Harry Truman in some official way, explained that I was correct that the S was not short for anything, but I was incorrect that this meant it should not be followed by a period. I spent quite some time in the Harry S. Truman Library last Saturday, and noted hundreds of examples of Harry S. Truman and no examples of Harry S Truman. Think it's fair to say that the Harry S. Truman Library counts as a reliable source.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed framework for resolution
1. all participants should accept multiple solutions, not just "my way only".
2. the DRN staff should accept that this dispute is over a decade old so declaring the current version as correct is not helpful to resolution. Lakeshake (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer response Oh, I ain't saying the status quo is correct, I am just saying that there don't appear to be too many reasons to expect it to change, given all the the history and precedent and accommodation. But if what I have already said doesn't convince you, then I am prepared to declare this matter closed with no acceptable resolution, which will allow it to move on to formal mediation. I will preface that by saying that in my experience, most snowballs in hell don't make it much past the 4th circle... But the 9th circle, of course, is a frozen marsh in which snowballs may do just fine. You gotta have one heck of a pitching arm, though. KDS4444 (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There should be careful and high level review of some sort because this issue has dragged on for over 12 years, involves a featured article, and involves a high level topic, that of a US President. I have already said my opinion, which is consensus requires that we don't insist on only our idea as the solution but accept multiple ideas and that Harry S Truman as the first words in the article is part of the best compromise (and probably includes Harry S. Truman in the title). If I had my way, it wouldn't be that but such is compromise, as I wrote. If you say that mediation is the next step, kindly do it as I don't know how (WP rules are very complicated...failure to help would only result in this dragging on to 15 or 20 years of dispute). Lakeshake (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note Okay, I am now going to go ahead and mark this dispute resolution as failed, though it doesn't make me feel very good. The next step is for involved editors to take this case to formal mediation, and to note there that dispute resolution was attempted and failed. Please see this link for further instructions (and tell them I tried really hard, 'cause I did!). Good luck! KDS4444 (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I ask that you keep the DRN open for a day or two longer because Calidum has not really responded much. He applied for the Arbitration Committee so that means he is an established Wikipedian. Encourage him or her to come to the DRN table with an open mind. Lakeshake (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• REQUEST TO DRN VOLUNTEERS: Calidum has written that he/she considers the DRN case as forum shopping. This issue has never been brought to any noticeboard, not Village Pump, DRN, RFC, Mediation, AC, etc. in the more than 12 years that it has been a problem. Is bringing this issue solely to DRN considered forum shopping? Yes or no? I believe no. Lakeshake (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have never seen any indication anywhere that raising a matter to a single noticeboard qualifies as forum shopping. If there are no clear evidences of behavioral problems to be addressed by other noticeboards, this would presumably be the best place to raise concerns. There might be specific questions regarding the specific phrasing used, and that might be relevant, but if that is the case I would welcome seeing the evidence of such phrasing problems. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• I feel he is forum shopping because he refuses to abide by the consensus on the talk page that emerged following his attempt to change the article. Going to mediation is entirely not needed at this point because consensus has already been reached. He needs accept this. Calidum 01:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - In my opinion, on the one hand, filing a dispute resolution request at one dispute resolution forum is never forum shopping in a strict sense. An article talk page is not a dispute resolution forum, but an earlier method of attempting dispute resolution. On the other hand, refusing to accept consensus as established at a talk page is a Wikipedia equivalent to vexatious litigation and is tendentious. Also, since this forum, like most but not all dispute resolution forums, is voluntary, requesting dispute resolution here is likely to be a waste of time if there is otherwise a consensus. It isn't forum shopping, but coming here if there is a consensus against an editor is not helpful and may be vexatious. That doesn't answer anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Given that five people have expressed a preference for the statu quo and just one (LakeShore) is opposed, consensus seems pretty clear but he refuses to accept it. Calidum 19:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Kurdish-Turkish conflict_(1978-present)#Restart_of_casualties_talk

– New discussion.

Filed by Ferakp on 12:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Kurdish–Turkish conflict_(1978–present)#Restart_of_casualties_talk 

Users involved

• Ferakp (talk · contribs)
• EkoGraf (talk · contribs)
• MAMODIVIC (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There are two users EkoGraf and MAMODIVIC(very likely sock puppet) who disagrees with my edits. Both users are cherry picking: they pick some old news and edit the casualties section according to those news, while they ignore newest sources.

I simply edited casualties section using newest sources: YeniSafak source which has published conflict stats(casualties) from 1984 to 2015, and AA source which has published stats from 2015 to November 2016. Also, 7 other sources support my edits.

However, both EkoGraf and MAMODIVIC disagree with my edits. They believe that the old Milliyet news from 2010, which has published stats from 1984 to 2010, should be used instead of newest sources because stats of newest sources(1984-2015) have mentioned only ~4,7k captured&wounded fighters while the old Milliyet news from 2010 has mentioned 19k captured fighters. So, they believe we should pick Milliyet stats from 2010 because casualties reported in that one are higher than newest ones. I believe this is wrong because newest sources from conflict are more reliable than older ones. Also, their source Milliyet has published conflict stats again in 2012, in which it hasn't anymore mentioned "19k captured fighters"(2010 stats were very likely wrong and they fixed it in 2012), but both users still want to use the older Milliyet news from 2010 even though the Milliyet news in 2012 doesn't anymore included that.

I try to tell both users that newest sources are more reliable than older ones and if there are 9 sources that support my edits, but only 1 source which supports their edits (+ my 9 sources are against their edits), then they need to either come with more reliable sources which will support their edits or give up. Both users are not understanding this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to tell them that cherry picking is not allowed in Wikipedia and explained with details what is wrong with their edits.

How do you think we can help?

If you convince both users that cherry picking is not allowed. If you convince both users that if there is 9 reliable sources against 1 pro-state source, then the latter one is in weaker position. If you convince both users that if a newspaper has published stats in 2010, and it has also published same stats again in 2012, and if stats of newspaper in 2012 are in conflict with stats of the same newspaper in 2010, then the newest(2012) should be picked and older(2010) stats should be ignored.

Summary of dispute by EkoGraf

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

First, its untrue I am cherry picking and second its untrue I am picking some old news, in fact, I have been trying to use newer more up-to-date sources over older ones. Ferakp was reverting back to a total of fatalities based on sources for the 1984-2015 period and 2015-November 2016 period. While I was trying to update it to a total of fatalities based on sources for the 1984-2015 period and 2015-December 2016 period. As far as I know, a source for fatalities from December 2016, is newer and more up-to-date than a source from November 2016. Now, regarding the numbers of captured, Ferakp is insisting on using the figure of captured from the YeniSafak source because (as he said correctly) its a newer source than the Milayet source from 2010. However, he misses the fact that the YeniSafak source only talks about the figure of captured wounded fighters, and not those who were captured unharmed, arrested or simply turned themselves in, which the Milayet source from 2010 does state (19,000+ total). (Between, contrary to what Ferakp said, the YeniSafak source doesn't mention anywhere ~4,7k captured or wounded, instead just 1,480 captured wounded) Ferakp then stated that another Milayet source from 2012 is more up-to-date than the 2010 one. When I used the 2012 Milayet link he himself provided (which cites 203,000 arrested/captured since 1984) he thought I was not serious and he reverted it back to the Milayet 2010 figure of 19,000+ (so please note, contrary to what Ferakp said, I did use the newer 2012 Milayet source, but he reverted the numb back to the one from the 2010 source). Ferakp showed bad faith with the sockpuppet accusations against me, even though I wanted to resolve the issue through discussion and didn't report him (but did warn him) about his violation of 3RR while he was edit warring with both me and the other user. I also warned the other user of being on the brink of violating 3RR. The other user (who Ferakp accused of being me as well) was established to be a sockpuppet of an earlier blocked editor who I myself came into conflict on a previous occasion and had lengthy discussions for the sake of finding a compromise solution on an earlier issue. EkoGraf (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Here you are wrong. Milliyet source from 2012 doesn't claim that 203,000 have been arrested. It claims 1,400 fighters have been captured. It also claims 203,000 people were arrested in cities and operations for being "alleged members of terrorist organization"(not even mentioning PKK). There is difference between captured PKK fighters and arrested people during the conflict. The section I edited is about captured PKK fighters, and under infobox, there is another place for arrested people during the conflict. If you ignore Milliyet's 1,400 captured fighters but decide to pick 203,000 arrested people and show them as captured PKK fighters, then you are simply cherry picking, especially after repeating this problem dozens of times in the talk page. Ferakp (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You again didn't read your Milliyet 2012 source fully, it says 1,400 WOUNDED PKK fighters were captured, not overall (captured unharmed, surrendered, etc). That casualties section of the infobox refers to all anti-Turkish militant groups, not just the PKK, which the Turkish government considers all to be terrorists, and according to them they arrested 203,000 terrorists. I am not cherry picking anything, but it seems you are at this point by ignoring both the 19,000+ figure (captured wounded, captured unharmed, surrendered, arrested) and the 203,000 figure, while focusing on the figures that are for those who were captured while wounded and making it out to be the figure is for the overall number of detained. Its a miss-representation of what the sources are saying. EkoGraf (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't say 203,000 captured terrorists. You are misinterpreting if you go with the 203,000 figure. Also, you added misinterpreted the president speech. According to the BBC, he said lost of "terrorists" are ~9k. What could "lost" mean in this case? Other Turkish sources say neutralized which means killed, wounded or captured. That's what I added but you decided to show the 9k+ figure as killed fighters.Ferakp (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The source says literally 203,000 people were taken into custody under the pretext of "being a member of a terrorist organization". I don't know how that can be misinterpreted. But listen, I don't really care about that number, because I personally think its over-inflated propaganda, I used it only because it was the source you provided and wanted it being used. As for the 9,500 figure, you (again) didn't read the source fully. I already told you to read the very next sentence Erdogan said. In the first sentence he talks about the 9,500 figure, while in the very next sentence he talks about the figures of those captured/arrested totally separately and stated them to be 40,000 detained and 10,500 arrested (which is a lot more than 9,500). If he only talked about a loss of 9,500 I would agree with you considering the Turks usually mean both dead and captured when talking about militant losses, but here Erdogan talked about those apprehended in a separate sentence and the figures were a lot bigger than the 9,500. EkoGraf (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MAMODIVIC

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

Talk:Kurdish-Turkish conflict_(1978-present)#Restart_of_casualties_talk discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been some discussion at the talk page. It has been minimal. It isn't clear whether the filing editor wants moderated discussion (what this board is for) or administrative action. The filing party has made a claim of sockpuppetry, which should either be withdrawn (and probably redacted) or made at sockpuppet investigations, because collaborative discussion is not feasible when there are conduct allegations. I am neither opening nor declining this case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - In the event that a volunteer decides to accept this case, it should be noted that the case filer has not notified the other involved editors of the DRN case. Holding off on sending talk page notifications to other involvement editors per Robert McClenon's comment above. --JustBerry (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - One of the editors has been blocked as a sockpuppet. The filing party has not notified the other editor and is expected to notify them. Does the filing party want moderated discussion? (That is what this board is for.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Pinging filing party Ferakp to answer question posed by Robert McClenon in the previous note. If significant time passes without any response regarding whether the filing party wants moderated discussion, I am in support of not accepting this case. In this situation, if the filing party later wishes to reach out to DRN again presuming the dispute continues with another involved editor, or set of editors, they are welcome to open another case. --JustBerry (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I have notified another user. Ferakp (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate

– New discussion.

Filed by HopsonRoad on 16:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HopsonRoad (talk · contribs)
• Muboshgu (talk · contribs)
• Tiller54 (talk · contribs)
• Shivertimbers433 (talk · contribs)
• Artaxerxes (talk · contribs)
• GoodDay (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is disagreement about whether an election result infobox should include a third-party candidate, who received less than 5% of the vote, in an election where neither major candidate achieved a majority. Those in favor of inclusion feel that the third-part votes prevented a majority. Those not in favor argue that the third-part votes were not determinative because neither major-party candidate persuaded swing voters to their side. They claim that inclusion in the infobox gives undue weight to a non-notable candidate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Suggested using an explanatory footnote, instead of a full-blown presence in the infobox.

How do you think we can help?

Suggest whether listing the vote tallies (as a percentage) of the top three candidates is more appropriate than an explanatory footnote with only the top two vote getters or suggest another alternative.

Summary of dispute by Muboshgu

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

Summary of dispute by Tiller54

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

Summary of dispute by Shivertimbers433

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

Summary of dispute by Artaxerxes

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

Summary of dispute by GoodDay

I'm a late comer to this dispute, as I only joined the discussion at page-in-question, today. We've a tricky situation there. AFAIK, the practice across US gubernatorial election articles, is to exclude candidates from the infobox, who failed to obtain 5% of the popular vote. However, in this particular gubernatorial election - no candidate got 50%, thus throwing the election to the state's General Assembly. Question is - Due we include the third party candidate into the infobox (even though he didn't get 5%) on the assumption that he caused the election to be thrown to the General Assembly (i.e did he personally take enough votes from the eventual victor, causing the victor to come up short in the popular percentage & thus require going to the General Assembly) or do we exclude, as we don't know if he personally took enough votes away. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate discussion

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

• Volunteer note - The filing party has not listed an actual article or article talk page above. The filing party is requested to edit the case listing and list the case in dispute (either the article or its talk page) correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The talk page in discussion is Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate. User:HopsonRoad 17:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk: Zsa Zsa Gabor

– New discussion.

Filed by Winkelvi on 16:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Zsa Zsa Gabor (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Winkelvi (talk · contribs)
• Pauciloquence (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A new account editor insists on reverting back in the following content to the article on Zsa Zsa Gabor: "The Gabor sisters were first cousins of Annette Lantos, wife of U.S. House Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), the first Holocaust survivor elected to Congress."

I have removed this content a few times because it is WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA which is wholly unrelated to the article subject. It is about the article subject's cousin's husband, not the Gabor family. The content does not enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject. The new account editor who keeps re-inserting insists it's pertinent. I fail to see how it is pertinent. The new account editor will not discuss, only revert. Rather than go to more drastic measures (AN/I or AN3), I thought of starting an RfC, however, because RfCs can drag on for up to 30 days - and because I don't think this warrants more drastic measures like AN/I or AN/3, I decided this would be a more appropriate forum. Would appreciate help on this. Thank you.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Article talk page, notes left in edit summary. [20]

How do you think we can help?

Convince the other editor that this content is WP:UNDUE, WP:TRIVIA. Their latest comment at the article talk page is, "I will not be bullied or threatened by you. I have asked for other opinions on the matter. While a discussion is occurring here please do not remove the disputed sentence as it is right now. If you do, you will be continuing your edit warring. A discussion is occurring." I think at this point, it's safe to say they are unwilling to discuss with me rationally.

Summary of dispute by Pauciloquence

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

• I notice in Winkelvi"s statement he said, "The new account editor will not discuss, only revert."

• But this statement contradicts that first statement. "I want them to see their viewpoint is in error, that's the whole thrust of hashing through a dispute: people who have differing points of view and would like those without their point of view to see it in the appropriate light (especially in light of policy, when policy is clear on certain aspects that are being addressed in the original, fruitless discussions)."

• So I did discuss with you on the talk page. Why did you write, "The new account editor will not discuss, only revert."

• "I think at this point, it's safe to say they are unwilling to discuss with me rationally." This statement is certainly not showing good faith.

• And btw, my wikipedia name is Pauciloquence, not new account editor. That is really quite rude of you. And you felt you had to say that three times. Why?

I have asked for other editors opinions on the article talk page. I would like to give them a chance to respond to that request. I feel that this posting at this board was quite premature, and just another intimidation and bullying tactic. I am not going to be bullied or intimidated. It is not wrong to ask for other opinions is it? Pauciloquence (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk: Zsa Zsa Gabor discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party did not notify the other editor of this discussion, but I have done that. I will suggest that the filing party review the purpose and FAQ for this noticeboard, because this noticeboard isn't the place to convince another editor of something, but for moderated discussion. If the filing party wants moderated discussion of whether the minor relationship information is due or undue weight, and the other editor wants to discuss, there can be moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Filing party note: I notified the other party on the article talk page and was about to notify them on their talk page when I noticed you had done that for me. It seems to me that asking or reminding me to do that would have been a better course than making a note here that I had not notified them (which is not quite accurate). Secondly, of course I want them to see their viewpoint is in error, that's the whole thrust of hashing through a dispute: people who have differing points of view and would like those without their point of view to see it in the appropriate light (especially in light of policy, when policy is clear on certain aspects that are being addressed in the original, fruitless discussions). Like I expressed in my original statement here, I intentionally chose this venue rather than something more "ominous" and threatening (ANI, AN3). It seemed to me that the other editor wants discussion but is unwilling to resolve anything (their discussion consists not of policy-based rationale but WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI feelings. Here is a great place to resolve rather than attack (which ANI and AN3 is often perceived to be and I don't want to happen). The point of this noticeboard is to convince others of certain viewpoint and policies via discussion and come to a resolution borne out of WP:COMMONSENSE and policy that should be the basis for that "convincing", is it not? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - My apologies if the wording was not ideal. In this situation, I think that a request for a third opinion would be even less formal and quicker. If you post such a request, this request can be put on hold until the third opinion is answered. Alternatively, we can just wait to see if they want to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Filer response: How about we keep it here for now and see if we can get a resolution between the other editor and myself? The irrelevant content I believe should not be in the article isn't harming the article at the moment, so I see no need for speed. If this is the best place for a peaceful resolution, I'd prefer that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Strongly support original poster's inclusion of this information in the article. This strongly smells like WIKI:IDON'TLIKEIT. 50.111.2.50 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)