Revision as of 10:59, 18 September 2022

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 04:46, 27 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.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current disputes

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Srijanx22 (talk · contribs)
• Sapedder (talk · contribs)
• Chomskywala (talk · contribs)
• Elephanthunter (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The main issue is that User:Srijanx22 is repeatedly and deliberately adding content that directly contradicts several sources in the long-standing stable version, specifically that the subject was a "leading figure" of a secessionist movement, when several reliable sources in the lead alone clearly state otherwise. This has been brought to their attention repeatedly in the talk page, but there is a fixed refusal to acknowledge the matter, much less balance the two views per NPOV.

• In addition, the edit adds a few redundancies to the lead, and screws it up from a compositional perspective, which also seems inconsequential to the user.

• The full attempt at a discussion is available on the talk page under *Lead*, if it is not too crazy-making.

• This noticeboard was also recommended earlier by a couple of admins at AN/EW: RegentsPark C.Fred

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

], ]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Restoring neutral wording to the beginning of the page lead, giving both sides equal representation as the long-standing version had, not unilaterally declaring one viewpoint by ignoring the other. It has been explained to this user repeatedly that their edits are directly contradicted by several reliable sources in the lead alone, and requires balance, but to no avail. Possibly having neutral editors help formulate this, maybe based on the pre-dispute version if it is found suitable.

Summary of dispute by Srijanx22

The main argument is entirely about the word "militant" on the first sentence which is perfectly valid per WP:LABEL and is backed by multiple reliable sources. I don't think participation by other editors is necessary because this is a pretty simple dispute and has been mostly between me and the OP. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale discussion

• Volunteer Note There have been more than 2 people involved in this discussion. All involved must be invited to participate here. Please tag them above and place a notice on all of their pages. To other volunteers- there has been significant discussion on the talk page over a prolonged period of time. It has been borderline personal- but not ANI level as of yet. Appears to be good candidate once all are tagged to participate. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nightenbelle, what would be the threshold for inclusion here? Chomskywala (who initiated the discussion) and perhaps Elephanthunter were the only ones to contribute meaningfully in terms of discussion volume and/or explanation to warrant participation imo, beyond random unelaborated yeses and noes. Currently both seem sporadically active, but I can certainly message them. Sapedder (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Invite anyone who has contributed to the discussion- but they do not all have to participate for this to continue. But they should be offered the opportunity. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I have messaged the contributors. Sapedder (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

To moderators and observers, just a suggestion, maybe for later: in order to keep things focused and avoid muddying the waters, perhaps we can discuss each clause in isolation, as these are two distinct assertions anyway. The first being a) the primary issue, "leading figure of Khalistan movement ," a cursory tertiary claim directly contradicted by several in-depth, reliable secondary sources; and then any issues with b) "militant leader of the Damdami Taksal" and the flaws and redundancies that this introduces which have been explained ad nauseum. This may facilitate things imo. Sapedder (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

First statement by moderator on JSB

I am opening this dispute for moderated discussion. First, please read the usual mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long posts do not clarify the disagreement. Overly long posts may be collapsed, and the poster may be asked to summarize. Uncivil posts will be collapsed. I do not claim to be an expert on the modern history of South Asia, but I will expect the editors to provide me with any background information that I need. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, except in the space provided for the purpose. Address your comments to the moderator (me) as representative of the community.

There are two principal parties to this discussion. If any other editors join, they are welcome to participate. Every editor is expected to read this noticeboard at least every 48 hours and reply at least every 48 hours. If you will need a break from the discussion, you may ask to have the discussion put on hold. Otherwise you are expected to respond.

The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they either want changed in the article, or what they want left the same that another editors wants changed. (I think I know, but I am asking anyway.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

First statements by editors on JSB

Frankly, what I would want doesn't differ much from the long-standing version of the lead some weeks ago. The end of the lead was specifically designated for the two widely divergent narratives on the subject, but wasn't too strident either way in terms of proclaiming what he was or wasn't, or wanted or didn't want; it simply states the difference in opinions, presents the sources, and respects the reader enough to let them make up their own mind. From a compositional perspective, one starts with staid, objective facts, then progressively builds upon them, not with such sweeping proclamations which so easily invite contradiction and instability. Any additional sources could be added there in the ending para, which then leads to further detail in the main body. That would be the only real change I would put forth from the long-standing version, that the sources simply be added to the respective viewpoints already equally represented in the closing of the lead (though at the risk of WP:OVERKILL, as there are a number of sources already which essentially say the same thing). Sapedder (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was obviously a 'militant' per his participation in Operation Blue Star and the sources I provided here. The opening sentence must say he was a "militant" just like Misplaced Pages calls Osama bin Laden, Anders Behring Breivik a 'terrorist' on lead. JSB was the key figure of Khalistan movement. These are just facts and should be preserved on lead. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator on JSB

The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the article. This means that we need to be clear about what words in the article are in dispute. Read Be Specific at DRN. One of you has been specific, and one has not. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Based on the specific reply, it appears that the issue is whether to identify the subject, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, as a "militant". We have to identify him in a way that he has been described by reliable sources that is consistent with the neutral point of view. It would appear that his supporters would have identified him as a "freedom fighter" and his enemies would have identified him as a "terrorist", and neither of those would be consistent with neutral point of view. If there is objection to calling him a "militant", please specify what you think the article should say, and why.

Do either of the editors have any other specific issues about the wording of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Second statements by editors on JSB

The main issue is that there is a unilateral attempt to refer to the subject as "leading figure of Khalistan movement ", when clearly this is contradicted by several reliable secondary sources already present, brought to attention, and repeatedly ignored (something to note is that the sources stating this are mostly aged tertiary sources, which tend to recycle the same few lines of uncritical hearsay anyway). This absolutely does not belong in the opening, as it is reliably disputed by arguably better sources, so I do think I'm being a bit magnanimous by simply requiring NPOV and balance. Again, I would say there are two sub-debates here as to the wording.

And as anyone who has read the talk discussions will have noted over and over, the problem is that the phrase "militant leader of the Damdami Taksal" makes the Damdami Taksal sound like a militant organization, which it is not. The problem has never been the word "militant" per se, it already exists twice in the lead as "militant cadre/leader of militancy," as can be seen in the long-standing version I would point to as to what the article should say (the dispute has been limited to the first paragraph of the lead, but the rest of the lead should also be taken into consideration). So yet another shoehorned inclusion, which disregards/mischaracterizes a historic institution, is careless and inaccurate. This has pointedly never been addressed, and it must be to get anywhere. Sapedder (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator on JSB

Read Be Specific at DRN. If an editor wants a change made to the wording of the article, they should state exactly what they want changed.

Sapedder states that there are two sub-debates as to wording. Please state exactly what sentences you want changed. If Srijanx22 wants any specific portions of the article changed, please state what they are. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Third statements by editors on JSB

• To be clear: Remove (a) "leading figure of Khalistan movement ." Not NPOV, contradicted by several secondary sources right in the lead (some are shown here at the very end of the section in green talk quote blocks). These divergent viewpoints are already adequately described at the end of the lead.
• Remove (b) "militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal." This wording wrongly makes the Damdami Taksal sound like a militant group, and this creates a redundancy in the paragraph ("Sikh organization Damdami Taksal" and "prominent orthodox Sikh historical institution Damdami Taksal." Latter is more correct anyway).

To reiterate, remove "...was a militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal and the leading figure of Khalistan movement. He..." as per the pre-dispute wording, as statement (a) is not NPOV and statement (b) mischaracterizes an institution with its flawed wording. The attached tertiary "citation" is not even properly formatted to boot. Sapedder (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• "militant leader" should be retained. It is supported by many reliable sources. The opening sentence needs to be clear that he was a "militant" just like Misplaced Pages calls Osama bin Laden, Anders Behring Breivik a 'terrorist' on the opening sentence.

JSB was the key figure of Khalistan movement, so "leading figure of Khalistan movement" is also entirely correct. Srijanx22 (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion on JSB

Minneapolis

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Minneapolis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SusanLesch (talk · contribs)
• Magnolia677 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Can the mention of the Dakota be improved? This jazz club was founded across the Mississippi in Saint Paul as a place where people can meet for good food and jazz. Its name has changed over time. The club now welcomes other music genres. It moved to downtown on the Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis, and is still known for fine dining. This is a content dispute as outlined on the Minneapolis talk page.

One editor removed ""Steve Hoffman won the James Beard distinguished writing award for What Is Northern Food?." His reasons include the residence of the author and the topic of his article. Mr. Hoffman wrote an article about food from Minneapolis, extending his range to a larger geographic area. He begins and ends his article in Minneapolis. I'd prefer to include him.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Minneapolis#Dakota

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Minneapolis#Deletions_by_Magnolia677

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can help us improve the Dakota's mention. At first, one editor removed it completely, then posted shaved-down descriptions that are unrecognizable. Let's restore it to life.

Summary of dispute by Magnolia677

Minneapolis discussion

• volunteer note combined two discussions on the same page with the same participants. Conversation has been ongoing for aprox 2 days. Appears to be a dispute over application of policy regarding promotion, sourcing, and puffery. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• volunteer note 2 If Magnolia677 (talk · contribs) will confirm their willingness to participate- I'm happy to mediate this discussion. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but I'm not sure what more to say, other than what's already on the talk page of the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Non-moderator volunteer note 3 - User:Magnolia677 - The moderator will ask the questions or otherwise lead the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Moderator's Statement 1

Okay lets get started! First of all- both editors are reminded to respond to the moderator, not each other. Comment on content not editors, keep your responses concise- under 300 words per response is ideal in most cases. To begin with- each editor please indicate that you understand these guidelines and then concisely tell me your ideal end result of this dispute. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Magnolia677's Statement

SusanLesch's Statement

Thank you, Nightenbell. I understand your guideline that this discussion is content resolution, and does not concern editor conduct. Ideally:

• the Dakota will have a brief description in our article that befits a lively music venue of national stature that serves food worth mentioning.

• our paragraph on James Beard award winners will be restored, including Mr. Hoffman who won in 2019 for this article. P.S. Mr. Hoffman resides in Shoreview, a Saint Paul suburb, not in Minneapolis proper. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Big changes have taken place in the restaurant, where the all-new culinary team includes Remy Pettus (Bardo), executive chef; James Beard winner Tim McKee (La Belle Vie), creator of the culinary program; and Nathan Rostance (Bachelor Farmer), general manager. in Espeland, Pamela (September 10, 2021). "The Dakota reopens, shiny and ready; Nachito Herrera to headline 20th annual Selby Avenue JazzFest". MinnPost. Retrieved September 13, 2022. ...before Pickett started wondering if the Dakota, a nationally known venue that had weathered its share of ups and downs over 35 years, would survive. Not only did it survive...
2. Bream, Jon (September 9, 2021). "Remodeled Dakota finally reopens in Minneapolis with New Orleans music and food". Star Tribune. Retrieved September 13, 2022. After a long pandemic hiatus, the world renowned Dakota music club and restaurant will finally celebrate its reopening
3. "About". SJR Hoffman. Retrieved September 13, 2022. Steve Hoffman shares one acre on Turtle Lake, in Shoreview, Minnesota, with...

Volunteer Question Can you please link the sources that support your first goal? As to the second- Please provide the source that shows Mr. Hoffman is a resident (current or former) of Minneapolis? Nightenbelle (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm so sorry- both of those pieces are publicity pieces- not news coverage. please review WP:RS and provide independent 3rd party sources (IE- not ones generated from a publicity event like a soft opening where media is invited in exchange for articles they will write to generate publicity) Do you have any non-publicity sources? If not- then the food quality is not considered notable and therefor it would be against policy to include it at all- and this board cannot endorse anything against policy even if it has consensus- policy is primary. Shoreview is a suburb of MN- actually more a suburb of St. Paul, but I guess that leads me to ask- are other people on the list actually from a suburb? Or would he be unique in this? Nightenbelle (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The Star Tribune has a larger circulation than the Boston Globe (updated figures). MinnPost was founded by the former publisher of the Star Tribune. Jon Bream is the Star Tribune music critic. Pamela Espeland is dead but she was "was particularly knowledgeable and passionate about jazz." I'm sorry too. I have to question your questions about the reliabilty of either paper and either author, per Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#News_organizations:

"The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint."

Paul Berglund lives in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Tim McKee lives in Stillwater, Minnesota. That's arguably not a suburb, Stillwater is a separate place, and is part of the greater metropolitan statistical area. Gavin Kaysen and Alex Roberts both live in Minneapolis. I stopped there. Nightenbell, why are we doing all the work? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Its not the size of the publication- its the type of article that is the problem. The publication itself is totally fine. However- both of these articles were reviews of a soft opening open to press- IE- paid publicity. (Free food if you come write a review) Thats the problem here. The type of article.

As far as Mr. Hoffman- I'm satisfied with that part and it can proceed with mediation. The food review, however, barring other sources- is not acceptable to add as the food quality is not notable via independent sources. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

All right, sorry, I understand your concerns. Perhaps food can't be supported.

Am I still trying to establish notability for the Dakota? The establishment itself isn't under question is it? (Source #3 here obviously can't be used but is for your information only.) I'll find more if you need them. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Desmond, Declan (Feb 23, 2020). "3 Minneapolis music venues ranked among best in U.S., the world". Bring Me The News. Retrieved September 14, 2022.
2. Weatherby, Taylor (January 29, 2018). "Super Bowl LII Music Guide: Where to Catch Cardi B, The Chainsmokers & More in Minneapolis". Billboard. Retrieved September 14, 2022.
3. Zimmerman, Brian (March 19, 2019). "Jazz Travel Guide: 25 U.S. Venues You Must Visit". Jazziz. Retrieved September 14, 2022.

P.S. Two local food reviews. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

References

1. March, Stephanie (April 1, 2012). "Dakota Jazz Club & Restaurant". Mpls/St. Paul. Key Enterprises. Retrieved September 14, 2022.
2. Zelickson, Sue (December 9, 2019). "Sue Z.'s Eats: Brim, Dakota Jazz Club". Minnesota Monthly. Retrieved September 14, 2022.

The Dakota itself is notable- it has its own WP page- so that establishes its notability. As for the weight of putting it on the page- That is one of the things we will discuss in this mediation. If other notable nighclubs are not mentioned, it is undue weight to mention this one.

Moderator's 2nd Statement

So it appears that this case is two fold- 1) If and How to include the article by Mr. Hoffman- and 2) If and How to include mention of the Dakota. Magnolia677, to move foward, I would like you to explain any objections / concerns you have on these two points. I feel I have a good understanding of SusanLesch's point of view- but I would like to understand yours as well please. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Magnolia677's Statement

Thank you to the volunteer moderators for your hard work on this project. I sincerely appreciate your skills.

First, my response to "How to include the article by Mr. Hoffman"

I have no issue with any part of Steve Hoffman's excellent essay What is Northern Food? being used as a reference in this article. It is well written and includes several discussions about food in Minneapolis. There may be better resources though, as I have not researched the topic much.

My concern is not about the reliability of Mr. Hoffman's well-written essay; my concern is entirely with the unencyclopedic way SusanLesch wishes to use this source. Rather than select information from the contents of this essay, and use that information to expand the article and add encyclopedic details about food in Minneapolis, SusanLesch instead only wants to add information about the author: "Steve Hoffman won the James Beard distinguished writing award for What Is Northern Food?"

Mr. Hoffman is an excellent writer, but has no Misplaced Pages article, and lives in a suburb of Minneapolis; his award was for an essay not specifically about Minneapolis.

In other words, Mr. Hoffman's essay was not the focus of this edit, and was not used as a resource to improve the article. Instead, Mr. Hoffman's award was the focus of this edit, and appears to be used as a means of bragging and puffing up the article.

Bragging about non-notable people does not improve an article; this edit was unencyclopedic and should not be restored.

Second, my response to "How to include mention of the Dakota"

This edit has had several iterations:

• "According to DownBeat, Dakota Jazz Club has been one of the world's best jazz venues for 25 years."
• "The Dakota Jazz Club on the Nicollet Mall offers exceptional food along with jazz greats, attracting national audiences."
• "The Dakota, formerly the Dakota Jazz Club and Restaurant, expanded its offerings in 2018 from only jazz to include more genres of music. Executive chef Remy Pettus delivers the club's menu, created by a James Beard Award-winning chef."

The concerns I mentioned in my edit summaries and on the article talk page included the following:

• There was an overwhelming consensus at this RfC that magazine rankings like this are unencyclopedic.
• The location of this venue is trivial; this isn't a travel guide.
• These edits are loaded with puffery and promos: "exceptional food", "jazz greats", "attracting national audiences", "expanded its offerings", and "Award-winning" (which is specifically used as an example at MOS:PUFFERY).
• The history of the venue is unnecessary; readers can visit the article.
• Readers do not need to know the name of the non-notable executive chef.
• Stating that the menu was created by "a James Beard Award-winning chef" is over-the-top puffery.

My bigger concern about this edit is...why? The Dakota Jazz Club is just one of many music venues in the city, and the linked article, Dakota Jazz Club, is completely unsourced. Why choose this one?

Why not First Avenue, located in an old bus station, and featured in Purple Rain?

Why not the Minneapolis Armory, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and is where Price filmed 1999, and Aerosmith filmed I Don't Want to Miss a Thing?

These two venues would certainly be more appropriate at meeting the suggestion at WP:USCITIES#Arts and culture that: "This section should include a description of the cultural aspects of the city, such as points of interest, museums, libraries, mentions of the city in popular entertainment, etc."

Is it because some magazine did not call these places "one of the world's best", and they don't have award-winning people writing their menus?

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia; it is not People Magazine. Locations in a city should be selected for in-depth discussion because of some unique characteristic, not because you can brag about them. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Moderator's 3rd Statement

Thank you for your comments Magnolia677.

Regarding including the Dakota- Would you both be amenable to including it this way:

"Minneapolis has many popular music venues such as, The Dakota, The Minneapolis Armory, and First Avenue."

That way we are not giving undue weight to one club- but instead listing several notable ones.

Now- as for Mr. Hoffman's article- SusanLesch What part of the article are you wanting to use Mr. Hoffman's article to support? If an existing part- it seems Magnolia is totally fine with you adding it as a source- if you are wanting to add a new section on food- could you share the proposed wording and how Mr. Hoffman's article will support it? Nightenbelle (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

SusanLesch's Statement

Adding the Armory is a brilliant idea. However presentation is still at issue. If we give a list it sounds like it's definitive and it isn't. (Fine Line, The Cabooze, there might be a hundred.) First Avenue is covered in prose under Prince and in a photo and caption. Plus it's mentioned in the lead. I'm struggling to be able to say anything about any club.

Regarding Mr. Hoffman, have we entirely removed James Beard awards from the table? If so, the whole paragraph has to go. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Magnolia677's Statement

I agree that listing the Armory or any other notable establishment would improve the article.

Regarding Mr. Hoffman, if "the whole paragraph has to go", it would improve the article by removing the many non-notable names of award winners. I will look through Hoffman's article--and others--for some encyclopedic content to add to this section of the article. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Moderator's 4th Statement

So it sounds like you two have reached a point where you can move forward together on the talk page regarding the Mr. Hoffman article.- As for listing nightclubs- there are a few options as I see it 1- Make a proper list on the page OR a category/list all their own. 2- Word the sentence to be clear that there are many such wonderful music spots IE- "Minneapolis has many notable clubs a few of them being......blah blah bah (Pick maybe three or four to place here)"

Do either of those sound acceptable? Nightenbelle (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

MAgnolia677's statement

Sounds good. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

SusanLesch's statement

I think we've entered dangerous territory to conclude that James Beard awards are not important. For example, Joanne Chang's entire biography hangs on that notability of James Beard. Are we saying awards don't matter, like the Harmon Trophy? I imagine all kinds of people with Misplaced Pages biographies have only won an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, or Tony award. Maybe we could consider the implications for WP:ANYBIO. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I can agree to your resolution of the Dakota, if Magnolia677 will write the sentence, and not leave us with what we have now, "The Dakota is a musical venue." Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Moderator’s 5th statement

I will write the sentence if Magnolia doesn’t want to- no worries about it staying like it is.

As for James Beard awards- they are notable for biographies- they give a person notability- however- in a large city like Minneapolis- where you have many James beard winners, an individual winner becomes less notable for the overview page. It stops being practical to list every winner of a notable award- and listing one but not all winners of comparable awards in all areas (architecture, art, business, etc) would be undue. Make sense? Nightenbelle (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

susanlesch’s statement

Yes, it makes sense! I can agree to your reading, Nightenbelle. Thank you.

Wonderful, we established that Mr. Hoffman is in fact notable. Quite an accomplishment against the steady drumming from the opposition about "non-notable," "puffery" and "unencyclopedic promotion."

We remove Ann Kim, Alexander Roberts, Tim McKee, Paul Berglund, and Isaac Becker. Should we also remove Dara Moskowitz Grumdahl and Andrew Zimmern? (National awards I think.) Should we keep Gavin Kaysen? He won two regional James Beards and medaled in the Bocuse d'Or. Young Joni can go (the other dispute about WP:USCITIES might make it moot). Then I'd take out Kim Bartmann restaurants because other deletions made a mention undue.

I cannot agree, however, to remove Owamni and Sean Sherman and his partner Dana Thompson. This has been a long term disagreement with Magnolia677 . Owamni won a national James Beard this year for new restaurant (all the other chefs have only won James Beard regional awards). I can expand it but not remove it.

References

1. "Artisan & Authenticity Award". La Liste. 2022. Retrieved February 17, 2022.

magnolia677’s statement

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SusanLesch (talk · contribs)
• Magnolia677 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

August 26, an editor applied to Minneapolis an obscure RfC from November 2021 at Chanhassen, Minnesota. I agreed in principle and posted to Wikiproject Cities to have the results of the RfC posted as part of WP:USCITIES. I copied the RfC results to WP:USCITIES. An uninvolved editor improved my text. I had second thoughts. When I reverted my attempt, the first editor reverted me. This editor has removed himself to a separate thread. Posting the dispute here to avoid another edit war.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Rankings_not_included

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Minneapolis_content_disputes

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

WikiProject Cities used to be strong with many participants. Nowadays not so much. Participants appear to agree that rankings such as exampleCity being the ~7th 'Best Place to Live in the U.S.' have no place in Misplaced Pages. We evidently disagree on the implementation. Perhaps you can help us put a fair-minded guideline in place.

Summary of dispute by Magnolia677

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline discussion

• Volunteer Note - Is this a content dispute about words in the US Guideline? If not, what is it? It is not clear what the issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the words. The precise wording of the guideline needs to be created. I reverted the guideline today as db-author and pointed here. I would be happy to give examples above of what went wrong if that would help. Guidelines must avoid implementations like "I know it when I see it." Does this answer your question? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note Two - Waiting for a response from User:Magnolia677. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

First, like every policy and guideline on Misplaced Pages, US Cities was created by a consensus of editors, and has been expanded and revised through discussions and proposals and the outcomes of RfCs. In this instance, SusanLesch added the outcome of this RfC to the US City guideline. It was then edited by another editor. Days later, SusanLesch changed their mind and deleted their edit. I reverted it, because I also agreed the edit should remain. If SusanLesch believes "the precise wording of the guideline needs to be created", then she needs to gain a consensus on the US City guideline talk page. I can't force other editors to participate in discussions there.

Second, this all began when I used this RfC to remove some magazine rankings from the Minneapolis article which were used to add more bragging and puffery to the article . SusanLesch referred to it above as "an obscure RfC from November 2021". The RfC was publicized on the appropriate RfC noticeboards, it was participated in by experienced editors, and the consensus was clear. I'm confused as to what was "obscure" about this RfC from last year, and why it should not apply to the Minneapolis article. Likewise, this RfC is frequently used to remove "affluent" from the first line of so many US city articles.

Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator on US Cities Guideline

Magnolia677 may have said that they are not interested in moderated discussion, because they want to resume discussion at the guideline talk page to try to reach a consensus. Moderated discussion here is voluntary, and an editor has a right to decline moderated discussion. If Magnolia677 wants to resume discussion at the guideline talk page, I will close this case. If they are willing to have moderated discussion here, they should indicate by stating that. If there is no response within 24 hours, I will assume that they are declining moderated discussion, and will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors on US Cities Guideline

Reverse Racism

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Reverse racism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gumbear (talk · contribs)
• Sangdeboeuf (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The first sentence of the opening paragraph seems to violate NPOV, SYN, and is out of place as the first sentence in the opening paragraph. It defines reverse racism very narrowly without proper justification (i.e. to include only "affirmative action and other color-conscious programs" as a form of anti-white racism). I will avoid summarizing the entire discussion but, essentially, I asked that the definition either be properly substantiated or changed. Only one of 3 cited sources arguably supports the published definition (though appears out-of-context), while one of the other sources clearly contradicts the definition with a much broader definition. User Sangdeboeuf offered another uncited source, but it also seemed out-of-context (it was a statement on the origins of reverse racism rather than a definition). The current definition, aside from being a synthesis of 2 sources that don't claim to be definitions, would not encompass complaints the EEOC defines as "reverse-discrimination," U.S. Supreme Court decisions, or international non-white, non-AA acts of reverse racism/discrimination that are reported as such.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Reverse_racism

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide an outside, 3rd-party neutral perspective on this sentence.

Summary of dispute by Sangdeboeuf

The issues raised here have been addressed and refuted on the talk page already. The lead sentence does not say that "reverse racism" is limited to the issue of affirmative action as Gumbear earlier claimed. It does say that reverse racism is a concept applied to affirmative action and other color-conscious programs because that is what the sources say. The user is also claiming that Garner (2017)—who does in fact offer a definition of "reverse racism" on page 185—is not cited in the text even after I linked to the exact citation. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverse Racism discussion

Zeroth statement by moderator on reverse racism

Now that both editors have replied, I will determine whether moderated discussion is the way to resolve this dispute. Please read the usual ground rules. Do both editors think that moderated discussion, in which I (as moderator) ask questions and the editors answer, is likely to resolve the dispute? The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, and so we will discuss article content only, not conduct or other issues. Each editor will be asked to be specific in exactly what they want changed in the article or left the same. I would like each editor to reply, in one paragraph, whether they will participate in moderated discussion, and, optionally, exactly what they want changed ( or left the same) in the article. Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

If both editors agree to moderated discussion, we will continue with moderated discussion. Otherwise I will advise what the next steps or next forum are.

Comment 0.5 by moderator

If the editors want an outside Third Opinion, then I am willing to provide one, just as if it had been requested at the Third Opinion noticeboard. If I do that, I will not available as a moderator for any further discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by editors on reverse racism

I'm willing to participate in a moderated discussion, thanks. However, if Gumbear really wants an outside, 3rd-party neutral perspective, than this dispute may be more simply resolved thru WP:THIRD. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards