Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:33, 3 January 2013

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

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

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 05:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Leveson Inquiry

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Leveson Inquiry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Meerta (talk · contribs)
• Jimthing (talk · contribs)
• Paul MacDermott (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Leveson enquiry is a two-part inquiry investigating the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal. It took evidence over nine months, and last month a 2000 page report was published for part one. It is the largest event for the press in the UK since the war, and has ramifications well beyond the press. The report collated the evidence, commented, drew inferences and made recommendations. E.g. Sections of the press had "wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people".

The report contained a mistake concerning one of the founders of the Independent newspaper (i.e. Brett Straub - who did not found it), which may have come about by an assistant on the report relying on a Misplaced Pages that had been edited in bad faith. This was talked about in a humorous manner on a satirical news quiz programme. This now has a whole section to itself on a rather Leveson Inquiry spartan page. This seems out of proportion and similar types of addition had already been argued against in other Talk page sections.

Arguments are being ignored and consent and conclusions assumed and I have requested that certain comments about me be taken back. The tone is surprising in parts. There was a period of edit reverting, maybe warring, which may seems to be continuing.

The discussion in question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Leveson_Inquiry#Brett_Straub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerta (talk • contribs) 21:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerta (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

All the appropriate arguments have been made in the section often by more than one person.

How do you think we can help?

It might be helpful if one or more experienced Wiki editors with background knowledge of Leveson can read carefully through this section http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Leveson_Inquiry#Brett_Straub (including sub-heading "Mentioned on Have I Got News for You", and now part of "Further info needed") and assess everything that has been said. There have already been four or five contributors to the discussion.

Opening comments by Paul MacDermott

I feel this should really be taken to WP:3O before coming here, but since the discussion is open now I'll add my thoughts. I originally raised the issue of whether to include a brief reference to the incorrect naming of Straub as a founder of The Independent in the Leveson report after seeing an item about it on the aforementioned quiz. I thought it possible someone might decide to add it so a discussion was needed, but had no strong feelings about its inclusion myself. Having seen the information added and removed by other users I became more involved in the talk page discussion, but have made minimal editing to the Straub section itself. I removed some unreferenced text and suggested sources should be added. 2 were subsequently provided, 1 of them from YouTube, which I removed per WP:YOUTUBE amid possible copyvio concerns. To me there seems to be a WP:UNDUE element to the section as it stands, although I'm not against the idea of a brief mention of Straub in an expanded version of the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) (disclaimer) 22:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by AJHingston

As I have been involved in the debate I should comment here. The issue seems to me to be how WP:UNDUE should be interpreted in the context of WP:NPOV as a whole when the topic has been the subject of widespread media debate, a report totalling almost 2000 pages and nearly 600 witness statements. The article has been recently (and I think reasonably) pruned, for example to remove the list of oral witnesses, many of whom are notable enough for a BLP. In some cases their evidence was a top news item. The inquiry and the issues raised have been the subject of very extensive media coverage. The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition have all spoken about the recommendations and their differences are the subject of cross party talks. In this context, the inclusion in the report of an error from Misplaced Pages is of course something of great interest to Wikipedians but it is not seriously suggested to have any material significance nor do there appear to be other similar errors in the report. True it has been picked up on a popular satire show, but such shows have also referred to other aspects of the inquiry. They are tribute to the interest and importance of the subject but not included in the article. If the Brett Straub affair is to stand as now and be given due weight then the rest of the article will need to be enormously expanded to include the evidence of witnesses, the media coverage, the detailed recommendations of the inquiry, the discussions about implementation and the alternative proposals of the industry. Some of that may be desirable, but in total it will not lead to a good article. A good balanced article needs to be selective. --AJHingston (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Jimthing

Re. the Youtube video: it has fair use rights attributed to it, so whilst we do have WP:YOUTUBE we also have WP:ELNEVER (precisely "...or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use"), and anyway there is also another BBC cite given also, added when link was live. Re. the Straub section inclusion: I partially agree with AJHingston on his points that the article needs to be expanded upon to include much more missing detail, which it is sorely in need of, this would then negate the WP:UNDUE argument being raised here against this interesting detail. I did in fact raise the issue of missing detail in the page talk ("Further info needed?") which Meerta agreed with, but instead of adding anything to expand the page to therefore negate the UNDUE reasoning, instead they wasted more time opening this DR instead, running contradictory to the UNDUE issue they are suggesting by not expanding the article to negate it's prominence. To be honest I can't really believe this has been taken to a DR for it's inclusion, as whilst the inquiry/report is of a serious nature, this doesn't negate being able to have less serious points like this Straub incident too, as it forms a wider point of interest to the reader. Examples of this can be seen across site, including—but not exclusively—a great deal of articles with Trivia sections on them, listing such info for this very reason, so they are not mutually exclusive types of info.
Jimthing (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Leveson Inquiry

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I closed this because it appeared that the filing editor may have left Misplaced Pages and because no volunteer had yet addressed the case. I see that it has now been reopened by the filing editor, which is fine, but when a case has been open as long as this one and no one has addressed it it is frequently the case that there is no volunteer who cares to do so (and some may feel that for one reason or another that they should not take it because they are non-neutral). We will let it sit for another day or three to see if someone may choose to take it, but if they do not then I'll probably close it again as stale. I do not know if the bot will relist it in the case summary or not. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been re-listed. Thanks for clarifying. Please let me know where to take it next if no one does take it up. Edit: For the record, I haven't done anything that should lead anyone to think I've left Misplaced Pages. I see this comment on the site sometimes, but now it's been applied to me I must say I don't understand it.Meerta (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2012.(UTC)

To clarify to volunteers, this discussion still hasn't been opened. Meerta (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I am willing to take the case. I will do a quick read of the situation tomorrow and come back here. Regards. — ΛΧΣ 06:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the dispute still going on? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. If it gets resolved before the volunteer opens it one of us will delete this. (It has already been deleted once, which meant I had to open it again...Meerta (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take the place of Hahc21 for this dispute if he does not mind. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Either way, perhaps good idea to delete this stuff before opening?? Meerta (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to delete it all. I will just ask the other parties if continuing is needed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind. Sorry, I had another big personal issue that caught me off-wiki since yesterday morning. I will be glad to help Ebe123 to solve this matter, as I have already read all the discussion. — ΛΧΣ 19:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd actually forgotten about this until I was reminded of it this morning. I'd even forgotten who Brett Straub is to be perfectly honest, which I suspect probably goes for most people. Taking a fresh look at this, I think it could be briefly mentioned in the article, but not in so much detail as it presently is. Alternatively, how about mentioning him at The Independent article as the incident really concerns that. If a 2,000 page report has just one mistake that's pretty good going, I would think. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

So, which of the users were actually against the inclusion of the content? In my opinion, if its necessary and gives any value to the article, then the content should be added. Then it comes the how. Its addition needs to be proportionate to the value it gives. If it gives little value, then a line briefing the information is enough. — ΛΧΣ 00:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Of the users with Opening Comments here (plus the filing editor, me), all were against this degree of inclusion except Jimthing. I think both myself and AJHingston think there's no grounds for inclusion at all, and Paul MacDermott suggests (I think) it might be better in the article for the Independent newspaper as anywhere. There had been other discussion on the page as you'll know from the discussion about "novelty" or pop inclusions, when weighed against an inquiry and report of great gravity. It is worth remembering when looking at sources for this article that opinions in press and related sources have to be viewed through a special filter for this story, because this was an inquiry into and with consequences for a powerful press. The reporting in the inquiry itself was itself considered relevant to the report. (Incidentally the distinction between fact and opinion having become less distinct in the presentation of current affairs was a theme in the evidence to the inquiry.)

The other discussions tended to conclude that such types of inclusions should be left out. There was a Christmas compilation of Have I Got News For You shown last week which had a sequence about the Leveson inquiry. Leveson had been discussed repeatedly on the show, but the Brett Straub thing wasn't included here, and to be honest I was not really surprised. The clips focused on the various subjects of the inquiry as the objects of satire, rather than the inquiry itself. Meerta (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It certainly isn't necessary for the article (re. previous post by ΛΧΣ). Meerta (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I do feel quite strongly about this because the inquiry was on a serious topic on which the Wikipeida Foundation itself might well have been called to give evidence (as were Google, Facebook etc). It deserves a good article. It would be difficult to convey to outsiders the extent of coverage that this topic has had over more than a year, and the nature of that with journalists largely seeking to justify their own position and actions and many others using it as an opportunity to express contempt for the profession. Somebody trying to use the internet to find out what the inquiry was about and what it said will have a hard job without resorting to Misplaced Pages unless they refer to the report itself. If I felt that the Brett Straub affair was typical of one significant strand in the reaction to the inquiry and the the issues it raised then I would not object, but it is not - it is really about Misplaced Pages. Does anybody want to argue that it deserves a similar section in the Misplaced Pages article? Yet the justification is as strong. --AJHingston (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I see that a proper consensus is not reached yet. First, I'd like to point several personal comments over the section: adding "(series 44 episode 8, originally broadcast on 7 December 2012)" in prose is overdetailed, it fits better within the references; This: "...originated from an erroneous malicious edit" should be in quotes, because there is no way to know how that really happened unless the person who wrote the report said so. Is this the case? I won't give my opinions about the section itself yet without getting more into the content. — ΛΧΣ 19:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No the inquiry haven't commented on this (or anything else really since publication of the report). It isn't something that could impact on the conclusions and recommendations. Meerta (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume that this means the inquiry didn't affirmed that it was "an erroneous malicious edit", but information posted somewhere else no? (newspapers, etc)? In which, if that's the case, it should be taken with a grain of salt and put into quotes. I will check the sources to be more in context. I'd like to see any update regarding what the parties think. Paul MacDermott expressed that he "think it could be briefly mentioned in the article, but not in so much detail as it presently is." From your (Meerta) comments above, I think that your live of view aligns woth Paul's one: it might be mentioned, but briefly. I'd liek to hear the opinion of the rest of the users involved, please. — ΛΧΣ 00:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The inquiry won't affirm this, because it doesn't have any bearing on the conclusions and so on. The report is finished and this would be treated the same way as an irrelevant error in some court judgement. Others inferred that the malicious edit in Misplaced Pages was the cause.

My view probably aligns with AJHingston's. I think it's a frippery, irrelevant and only worthy of an amusing aside (though not here) that probably has more relevance to Misplaced Pages than anything else. The inquiry has the same kind of gravity as a major criminal or civil trial. As AJHingston says, it's hard to express the amount of coverage there has been about it in the UK. HIGNFY's Xmas show had a series of clips from over the year, but unsurprisingly (to me at least) this wasn't one of them. The Spectator's assertion along the lines that the report is a "cut and paste" job has no evidence to back it up. The 2000-page report was praised by all sides in Parliament as a great piece of work. It is intended, as it says, as a collation of the enormous body of written and oral evidence given to the inquiry, with comment, inferences and conclusion from this evidence, and recommendations.

From page 51 of the report: "As for the Report, the consequences are different. In an ideal world, I would have wished to write, re-write and hone this Report so that every nuance could be the subject of mature reflection. As previous inquiries have shown, given the amount of evidence whether oral,documentary or read-in, that would have been a task of very many months duration. This Report, therefore, is the work of many hands,1 all working to my direction and reflecting my views; that is the inevitable consequence of the way in which the work has had to be done. I place on record my appreciation to all those who have collated the evidence in relation to different aspects of the Report. Having said that, I repeat that every finding of fact, every conclusion and every recommendation expressed in this Report is mine alone. Equally, any errors are my responsibility."

The footnote says: "That is to say, I have been assisted in the drafting by Counsel and by civil servant members of the Inquiry team; the Assessors have been invited to provide comments on drafts only where appropriate."

All this incident tells us is that even employees of the most reputable organisations can still fall foul of Misplaced Pages's inaccuracies. It has no direct relevance to the inquiry or the report, or the issues they were about. The fact that it was seized on in some quarters to try and diminish the report to any degree won't be surprising to anyone who followed the inquiry carefully. Meerta (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Meerta is misrepresenting the issue here repeatedly, yet again. The issue is nothing to do with what the inquiry/report was/wasn't about (or its 'seriousness'), nor even how the media was/wasn't portraying it (positively or negatively). The issue is, why should WP all of a sudden remove all points of humour across the articles on site —regardless of the articles seriousness or any other reason— when they never have been before. The Straub section is one of these, and like other similar ones, it's been added right at the bottom of the article in one small, short, to-the-point paragraph, separate from reaction section (hence no inference thus taken in it making any judgements about the report), with those HIGNFY refs there, as previously explained, because it's a news programme on the main national broadcaster watched by a mere ~7 million viewers weekly in this country, giving it some form of national prominence, much like any newspaper, and helping prove AJHingsons point about "extent of coverage that this topic has had over more than a year"—certainly enough to justify it's inclusion here, and the Inquiry's repeated mention on the programme proves that. As for the description "erroneous malicious edit by an anonymous contributor", well what else was it?...erroneous (as it certainly wasn't correct, it must be an error, of course), malicious (it wan't done for good reasons, regardless of being a joke, so yes again), anonymous contributor (the edits were by an IP address only, presumably an anonymous associate of the aforementioned, so again, yes); pretty much defines this descriptive prose doesn't it. Again, while incidents like the Straub one are not part of the report directly, this doesn't preclude them form being mentioned as part of related information; they are not mutually exclusive for inclusion on article pages. Jimthing (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, my issue is with malicious. You can't be sure why it was done. It could've been a mistake, and mistakes are not malicious. That word should not be used as it cannot be sourced nor proven as to be true. My recommendation is to leave erroneous edit by an anonymous contributor, and try to source it if possible. But going back into topic, I am not completely sure wich is your side now Jim. Are you in favour of the inclusion of the content? If so, at which degree? A passing mention or a three-to-four line paragraph like it is presented now? if not, why? Thanks. — ΛΧΣ 23:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you actually checked the HIGNFY cites given (hence why included in the article cites in the first place), part of what you hear them mention is how some anonymous 'friend' contributed to WP adding Straub's name across many articles across the site, in effect giving him a 'pretend' public profile trying to warrant his inclusion in his own WP page by linking to him across several WP pages, with the Independent newspaper quote ending-up being cut/pasted into the Report. So no, it wasn't a mistake but was malicious, as per my explanation above. I have edited the point to make this clear, and I have removed the wrongly included "(series 44 episode 8, originally broadcast on 7 December 2012)" which is in the cite itself hence is over-detailed, as you previously mentioned above. Apart from that I'm for leaving as it is, as there is nothing wrong with what's there for the reasons I have given (both above, and on the page talk), the details explain the incident. Thanks for taking the time to review the dispute BTW. Jimthing (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

But that is all about Misplaced Pages, and might be a response to my question whether anyone thinks it significant enough to be in an article on that topic (such as Vandalism on Misplaced Pages). Your case for inclusion in the Leveson article seems to be that you thought that the HIGNFY piece was funny and it referred to Leveson. But there has been very extensive coverage of the inquiry and report in straight reportage, op-ed pieces and comedy shows. What is its relative importance to, say, the evidence that the then deputy Prime Minister had his messages tapped by the media and that the police took no action, to take just one of hundreds of possible examples? Yes, we could try to cover it all in Misplaced Pages, but it would have to be a very long article. That is where WP:UNDUE comes into play. --AJHingston (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I can see I am in a minority here, and I don't want this to drag on and on endlessly wasting editors time. I have edited the page moving the exact Straub incident off the page and onto that vandalism page, in acceptance of the WP:UNDUE argument, just making a small comment in the reaction section about it accordingly as per other editors requests as a compromise, as it should be mentioned somewhere here. If this is now dealt with, this dispute should be closed, provided other editors are reasonably happy to do so. Jimthing (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I must confess I didn't realise we had an article about Vandalism on Misplaced Pages, but it seems an appropriate place for this incident. ALso happy with the toning down in the Leveson article, so I've no objections to how things stand now. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

When I suggested (in common with AJHingston) that it should only be included in a much longer article, I really meant only in principle - in reality it would have to be a miscellaneous encyclopaedia of a kind which probably wouldn't get written about this. I see nothing wrong with humour in some types of article, but for this one not so sure, and these types of inclusions were argued in other sections with the "novelty" items ending up being removed. But I can't have any huge objection to the way it is now, with the prominence and phrasing it has. I'm ok with this.

In general, it's just not a very comprehensive article. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal - that looks like a good article. On the other hand, the article for the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday in Derry is also quite short, despite being several times longer and more expensive than the Leveson inquiry, so perhaps this is acceptable for this. I'm sure the article on Bloody Sunday itself is a lot more comprehensive and draws on the Saville report.

As for the section moving to the Vandalism article, that's seems fine but I would still remove the Spectator reference. It isn't relevant to vandalism but more importantly it's misleading and simply untrue, as I've tried to explain. (The report is intended in part as a collation of the evidence.) To me it's an example of the politically motivated commentary that came after, but there are so many good examples of that. Meerta (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article is not a very good one as it stands. There was a much longer version prior to publication of the report which had a great deal about the process of the inquiry, though not the detail of the evidence before it nor the commentary upon it, and that was largely removed and briefly summarised along with a short section on the report itself. One of the things that needs to be done is to work through the report and summarise more fully. But I did feel that there was no point in doing this unless we could reach a consensus on the amount of detail, or the inclusion of odd things people found interesting (of which there were a great many especially given the prominence of the witnesses). --AJHingston (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this specific dispute is now resolved, if I have understood the comments above. The other parts of your comments may be valid about the whole article, but they should be addresses on the talk page directly where they belong. Though FWIW, I agree the article should have more depth for sure. Can someone, perhaps ΛΧΣ, please close this now. Thanks. Jimthing (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

List of indigenous peoples Talk page

The rules of this noticeboard say that it is not for use while other dispute resolution processes are pending. The RFC in this case has not yet been closed and has a number of days yet to run (30 days is customary). — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Paloma Faith

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Paloma Faith#Age (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paloma Faith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Stellaseeker (talk · contribs)
• Criggy77 (talk · contribs)
• Majorbonkers (talk · contribs)
• jmb (talk · contribs)
• JuneGloom (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Paloma Faith's date of birth was initially listed on a few websites as being 21st July 1985, making her 26. Further investigations (such as magazine articles from 2007 like http://www.exacteditions.com/read/trespass/issue-1-8880/23/2?dps=on listed on the discussion page) show her true date of birth to be 21st July 1981. However despite several users providing proof to her true date of birth, such as UK BMD records, the previously mentioned magazine articles, company director records and even a scanned birth certificate (which I however understand is not acceptable for Misplaced Pages), her date of birth is constantly reverted to 1985 due to "lack of sources" despite the sources for her 1985 date of birth being two "pr spin" web articles.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Voluminous links to documentations confirming her 1981 date of birth have been provided, however these have all been dismissed as unacceptable and her date of birth reverted back to 1985, despite the fact there is far more evidence to her 1981 date of birth than the 1985 date of birth.

How do you think we can help?

Review the submitted resources regarding the date of birth, and/or provide an acceptable usable source for a UK based registration document (such as a BMD document, company register document etc) regarding the same.

Opening comments by Criggy77

Opening comments by Majorbonkers

Opening comments by jmb

I came across the dispute by chance after seeing some doubts about her age in the press so looked it up on the GRO (official British government reference) index through two sources and confirmed 1981. Her name is quite unusual so it is very unlikely there is any ambiguity because of someone else with a similar name.

It was then that I found that several others had also looked up the date but corrections kept being reversed because of an incorrect date being given in unreliable sources like newspapers (I wonder how many of them have used the incorrect date on Misplaced Pages as a source!). I must admit that I have lost a lot of faith in the accuracy of Misplaced Pages because of this incident and distrust any fact I see on Misplaced Pages until I can confirm with a trustworthy reference. jmb (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by JuneGloom

Talk:Paloma Faith#Age discussion

Peter Proctor

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Peter Proctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Peter Proctor#References (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chantoke (talk · contribs)
• Nucleophilic (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a physician here that also has an article about his work, Peter Proctor. He also sells hair loss products online at drproctor.com. Over the past several weeks, I have been editing Androgenic alopecia and Management of baldness and have come across several hidden ads for his website drproctor.com, which I have removed. From there, I have begun to look at his biographical article, and found unreferenced claims about being on medical faculty at Baylor and UTMB Galveston. I asked for information on the article talk page, to which a user "Nucleophilic" responded. He has had a large role in writing the Peter Proctor article, but denies being the physician. He provided references that showed papers published by Proctor that had the addresses of the institutions on them. They did not list his faculty status. I referenced the alumni directory, the largest database of Baylor faculty in existence, and his name was not listed. I am extremely careful with my edits, so I also called the chair of the Department of Ophthalmology, which was one of the departments where Nucleophilic claimed Proctor was on faculty. Dr. Jones was unavailable when I called, but his senior secretary also did not recognize the name. Nucleophilic has re-entered the faculty information multiple times on the article, despite my removing it, and despite not addressing my concerns on the talk page. I feel like this is a case of Russell's teapot. The central issue is whether Proctor's mailing address listed on his publications qualifies him to be listed as faculty at the two institutions on his Misplaced Pages page. Because an individual can be listed on a paper for an address during medical school, residency, or fellowship, or even if volunteering in the lab for free, they do not satisfy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Especially for the page of a doctor selling online medications and practicing telemedicine, for which a website as large and influential as Misplaced Pages represents a major conflict of interest.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution pyramid, but have been receiving veiled ad hominem attacks from Nucleophilic on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Provide an outside opinion. I am extremely careful with my edits. Also, personally I have not had experience disputing someone that may or may not be the subject of the article I am revising.

I just want to make sure I am not missing something or breaking proper etiquette.

Opening comments by Nucleophilic

Wow. Actually, I had walked away from this issue, pretty much figuring it was not worth contending, one way or another. Basically, I was just going on what the subject's published papers report. According to WP:reliable sources, these are the highest level of authority on wikipedia. This aside, intuitively contemporary papers seem the most reliable source for decades-old information.

Can't say how reliable the much later sources cited by the complainaint are, since I have not seen them, nor did he provide a link, etc.. Or even (IIRC) a formal citation. In contrast, I provided links to material directly listing the subject's professional address as such. Similarly, claiming to have talked to this or that person is prima facia WP:original research and not allowed.

That said, I wonder where this editor gets the "veiled threat", etc. Editor seems a little sensitive over minor legitimate differences of opinion. Things like this usually get resolved on the talk pages, not immediately brought here. Unfortunately, everybody seems to be taking a wikibreak for the holidays. As for complaintant's editing of management of baldness-- I do not understand his claims. Unfortunately, his manner of editing was hundreds of edits over a few days with few to no edit summaries or comments to the talk page. As well as throughly confusing me, this seems to be generating some concerns over there. Anyway, I suggest this matter be taken back to the talk page where it belongs. Nucleophilic (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Peter Proctor discussion

Talk:Henry Kissinger#The Section on Kissinger's Role in Latin America

The rules of this noticeboard say that it is not for use while other dispute resolution processes are pending. A Third Opinion was requested on this matter and a Third Opinion Wikipedian, RayAYang provided an initial opinion and is still working with the parties to the dispute. That process must be completed before attempting other dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Marseille#Immigration

Consensus against inclusion of material, thus no dispute, but see my closing comments, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Single-payer health care, United States National Health Care Act

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Single-payer health care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• United States National Health Care Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs)
• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs)
• North8000 (talk · contribs)
• Arzel (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The main dispute which has been going on for months is whether certain polls are polls of single-payer healthcare or simply polls of "various levels of government involvement" in healthcare. Me and Scjessey are of the opinion that they are single-payer polls and Thargor Orlando/North8000/Arzel are of the latter.

This is the contested version in question.

Me and Scjessey hold that the consensus of virtually every reliable source is that they are single-payer polls but the other editors challenge this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

• First DRN
• Second DRN
• NPOV noticeboard

How do you think we can help?

By deciding whether or not they are single-payer polls.

Opening comments by Scjessey

Opening comments by Thargor Orlando

Once again, CartoonDiablo rushes to DRN as opposed to hashing things out at talk. The issue is not really content at this point, as the result of more eyes at the articles is resulting in an actual consensus coming about. The issue is CD's conduct at this stage - edit warring, 3RR, misuse of sources, violations of basic verifiability policy. These are not things DRN is designed to solve. We're here because CD's continued forum shopping has yet to result in his viewpoint winning, and I'm sure he'll try to escalate it yet again when this also fails to go his way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by North8000

I have not been involved in any such dispute. I briefly commented on this in November and then was asked to look in by an uninvolved admin which I have done over the last 2 days. What I saw is behavioral problems by CartoonDiablo and Scjessey, (more so CartoonDiablo,) and my efforts have been towards something that will get those resolved. We may have been inching on a path towards that which I suspect is why this DRN was opened (as a smokescreen). North8000 (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Arzel.

Single-payer health care, United States National Health Care Act discussion

A discussion has been open about this (behavioural) at 3RR noticeboard. Also, DRN is about content, not conduct, so the opening comments would have to be re-made. I'll close the discussion soon.

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution