Misplaced Pages

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

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

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 a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

• This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
• For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

• 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).

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

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:Carlos Gardel (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Zorzaluruguay (talk · contribs)
• binksternet (talk · contribs)
• oscarthecat (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There’s and ongoing dispute as to the POB of Mr Gardel. One theory claims he was born in Uruguay while a second claims France. Reading Gardel’s bio I realized that the english version treats the first theory lightly, focusing mainly on the second, and, following Misplaced Pages’s dispute resolution guidelines I proceeded to follow normal protocol. My first improvements were merely tweaks of the wording as recommended. They were removed by editor Binksternet asking for me to site the sources. I answered that the sources already in use could be used for either theory, and proceeded to reference my edits within the existing sources. Again they where removed, but this time by a second editor (oscarthecat), placing me in an “edit war” , and who, when given the same explanation seemed OK. Again they were removed by Binksternet claiming the sources as not valid (although they were for the original work). I proceeded to try to load the documents that back both theories in an attempt to state what document back what claim. They where Gardel’s Argentine passport and national ID, a copy of a Bordeaux census that shows a Charles Gardes born in South America and the will allegedly written by Gardel (not loaded). The documents were immediately removed by Binksternet citing proportionality of resources. I asked him not to continue to remove my improvements and to allow me time to garnish the necessary sources that back the first claim, which outnumber the second one. He simply re-edited the section in question and told me that he would not allow both theories to be treated equally and that any additional sources placed by me could be removed arbitrarily by Misplaced Pages.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried using the sections of the same sources that were in use originally in order to show that both claims are balanced equally. Tried referencing original government documents that back both claims, and that counter the other in an attempt to avert judgment.

How do you think we can help?

This dispute can be solved by clearly and simply placing equally both theories side by side, each backed by its own documental proof and stating, again backed by documental proof, why each theory claims the other lacks merit.

Opening comments by Binksternet

This is a simple case of the proper application of the WP:Neutral point of view policy. The biographies about Gardel, encyclopedias mentioning Gardel, articles in scholarly magazines about Gardel—the great majority of these say that Gardel was born in France and that he laid a false trail of a Uruguayan birth starting in 1920 when he was almost 30. The matter of proportion is properly applied in the article by greatly emphasizing the French birth but mentioning the controversy put forward by a few, that Uruguay was really his birthplace, not France.

The problem with Zorzaluruguay (the user name means "Song Thrush (Gardel nickname) Uruguay") is that he is relying on blog sources and original research to put forward his point. He wants the Uruguayan birth to be given equal status so that the reader can decide the issue. This would make for an imbalance in relation to weight; an artificially equal playing field for facts that are not at all equal in reliable sources.

If Zorzaluruguay were to bring facts in from reliable books he would have something worth putting in the article. This has not happened yet. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

@Zorzaluruguay: Published sources from the 1920s and 1930s should be considered primary sources in this case. No newspaper of the day had the whole story about Gardel, so why would we use such a newspaper to prove a point? Instead, modern researchers should be used as WP:Secondary sources because they have sifted through all the quotes and known facts to analyze Gardel's life in the big picture, and to present a thesis on what the truth is. Books, magazines and journal articles are the best sources. Self-published sources such as blogs are much lower quality—they cannot stand up to contradiction from scholars.
Why would you want to put the images of the passport and the ID card in the article? Nobody questions those documents, and they do not prove one birthplace or the other. Binksternet (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by oscarthecat

Carlos Gardel discussion

Request - Zorzaluruguay: could you update your opening statement to identify some specific sources you are using to support your position? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

My first corrections on Gardel's section involved referencing and citing sources. They where the same sources referenced by the original author of the section. They where removed citing wikipedia's sources guidelines. I re-inserted my edits but this time I referenced the specific sections within the original sources that dealt with the theory that he was born in Uruguay. Again they where removed but this time together with the sources of the original article, but leaving the original article intact. So this time I thought best to show the documentation that supports both theories and the arguments that followers of each make for and against the other. They where removed again, with a different reason, but this time the article was severely re-written by Mr binksternet (I do not know what this call sign stands for) to the point of nihiling the need for this section.

My point was never to argue the merits of one point over the other but to simply state both theories, but it looks that that was never binksternet's point.

I can begin uploading and naming sources for the first theory. That is no problem because while Mr. Gardel was alive all articles, interviews, reports and the like based on him stated one fact. My intentions to do this was told to Mr Binksternet and was welcomed to do so but told that wikipedia could remove them arbitrarily (I ask that you view the logs created in Carlos Gardel's talk section as well as mine, Mr. Binksternet's and Mr. Oscarthecat's). All of these sources are backed by several government documents, which are the ones I tried to show but was not permitted to. These documents are from various countries.

The documents are: a census of the Bordeaux region of 1887 that shows a Charles Gardes of 11 born in South America, Gardel's argentine's passport and national ID showing his POB, and the fourth document (not loaded) was the alleged will. The first three a part of the documentation that supports the Uruguay theory, the fourth is the only one that backs the French theory. Both are severely treated by opposing camps, and I wanted to show what they were. That is the basis for all the books you'll find on this subject. If you want to, but I do not think this is the place, I can site the reason for and against as presented by them, or allow the documents to speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorzaluruguay (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources: The following sources are not centered on the documents already provided. Those can serve as additional sources or, as I intended, complement the article directly. The sources cited below are recorded statements made directly by Gardel and an interview made to Berta Gardes where all her statements punch holes to the French theory. I could rewrite the whole piece based on these items alone, which was not my intention. There's also a whole library of indirect sources, interviews to friends and fellow musicians of the time, taken as early as 1902, which I didn't include because it would take me away from the origianl scope of my re-edit, it would include wikipedia as a forum to discuss his nationality, and thirdly because I don't have the will nor time to go over ALL the existing articles, reports, interviews and papers made about him that eco he was born in Uruguay.

a) “Vida y milagros de Carlos Gardel” by Nelson Bayardo (1931, La Republica); Gardel states to have been born in Tacuarembo, Uruguay; b) “El Pobre Gardel" by Cesar Gonzalez Ruano (1935, ABC Madrid); Spaniard interview that depicts Gardel as uruguayan; c) "Carlos Gardel" (1933, Popular film #336); french newsman interviews Gardel while in paramount studios regarding the POB controversy, was he ARGENTINEAN or Uruguayan, where Gardel afirms he was born in Uruguay, that his first concerts where held in Montevideo and that he moved to Buenos Aires when 16y d) "GARDEL EN EL BARRIO SUR DE MONTEVIDEO" (1935, El Diario Montevideo); Shows where Gardel lived in Montevideo as a young kid; e) "La tragedia de Medellin" (24/06/1935, Noticias Graficas Argentina); argentinian nespaper reports the crash, depicts repeatedly Gardel as Uruguayan born; f) "La Verdadera Vida De Carlos Gardel" (06/06/1096, La Cancion Moderna); Berta Gardes is interviewed a year after the crash. She states she couldn't communicate with Carlitos because they spoke different languajes;

--Zorzaluruguay (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but purported images of passports etc are of unverifiable authenticity (and WP:PRIMARY as well). Can you please provide secondary sources such as academic books etc which verify your claim. Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The validity of the passport and national ID has already been decided and has never been contested by either camp, and it should not be the case here. The section in Gardel's bio that I wanted to contribute to regards the controversy on his POB. My contribution is firstly the inclusion of the documents that support each claim, regardless of the validity that they might or might not have, according to either camp or third parties, and secondly mention the arguments for the merits, or lack of, that each camp gives them, without interpreting or analyzing them.--Zorzaluruguay (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IRWolfie. You'll need statements by reliable secondary sources to back up your claims. Primary sources, like the documents you've mentioned, should be avoided, as per Misplaced Pages's WP:RS guideline, if they invite the reader to make interpretive claims, especially if the primary sources allegedly contradict academic consensus on the subject. Otherwise, using the primary sources qualifies as original research.--SGCM (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an argument about the merits, or lack thereof, of documentation. Yes I do understand the proper use of sources in papers, but in this case all there is is a lot of smoke based on a few, arguably contested, documents. The only consensus on the matter is that both camps agree to disagree. All work, analyses, interpretations published by one camp is immediately countered by the other. These points of view we can post, with their respective sources, when both theories are discussed on their merits. Which is what I wanted to do. Unfortunately my sources were removed because the other side had sources that counters them, so I provided sources that counter those, and they were removed on the basis that the point was already solved because of proportionality.

Doing so only gets us knee-deep in an argument that everybody else gets into when this subject is raised, and it's silliness is what I thought interesting to show. This a BIG "he said she said" fight, and everyone wants to stand clear of it. Isn't there a disclaimer that you can place at the beginning of the section that warns the reader? One that warns that in actuality this argument is like the Lilliputian feud on what side you should begin eating a boiled egg from? That or we can leave it as the spanish version, or reference it maybe? This will be better than to claim that Gardel applied for uruguayan citizenship. --Zorzaluruguay (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, do you have reliable secondary sources?--SGCM (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had above. To the ones that were originally in the file we can add the ones referenced above and the documents, which although they can be classified as primary they could also be included. But I'm sorry, I don't understand. Do you want me to look for their isbn's?--Zorzaluruguay (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Academic sources, preferably recent ones. Newspaper sources and interviews from the 1930s are, in this context, primary sources. Sources from the 1920s and 1930s are not reliable, because it was during the 1920s that Gardel allegedly began falsifying his place of birth. The sources are too close to the event to be considered secondary. Do you have any modern scholars making the claim that he was born in Uruguay, not France?--SGCM (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well that's the thing isn't it? All materials that support one theory is denied because it counters the other. All materials that support the Uruguay theory are based on documents and/or references from that period or earlier, which is the time he was alive. Primary sources is defined as evidence, and that's all there is, evidence that he was born in Uruguay, evidence that the Charles Gardes alleged to be him was born in Amerique du Sud. There is no evidence that Gardes was in fact Gardel. The only evidence that he was was an unwitnessed handwritten note allegedly written by him. There is no birth certificate that states he was born in Uruguay because, like in Argentina, at the time it was prohibited to register children born out of wedlock (as silly as it seems now), they could only do so when they reached adulthood. Why did he then took out an Uruguayan ID card when he just could have said he was born out of wedlock in the interior of Argentina and obtain the same or better results? Because everybody knew where he was from. Everybody knew he arrived in Buenos Aires at 16, not 2. What substantiates this claim are the sources I mentioned which you won't consider. If we are now reviewing the merits of these documents based on what the french theorist say, then I have to say that it has never been proven that Gardel lied, nor the possible reason. It has been inferred yes that it was to avoid draft, but that argument is moot because he received gunshot wounds, in the chest and in the leg, from Che Guevara's father making him ineligible for active service (not denied by french theorists), and there are records that he traveled to Tacuarembo to recuperate (there are hospital and other primary sources as well as secondary sources that back this up, but its of the time so now I don't know if it meets wikipedia's guidelines for publication).

As I stated before, this section involves a controversy and all I wanted to do is align it with the spanish version of Gardel. If you regard secondary sources of the time has evidentiary and unqualified to support the argument then remove the section, its fine with me, but to state that there is no argument because the only sources you allow supports one version of the fact is silly. In all fairness removing the section altogether would be better then to have wikipedia as a source that gardel applied for uruguayan citizenship.

I recommend that if you still want to disavow these sources, if the lack merit sole because it counters what the other side says (sic), then simply reference the spanish version, if you don't want to do that well I guess its fine. I'm not going to waste any more time arguing.

Regards --Zorzaluruguay (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources are not rejected because they support an alternative theory. The problem here is that they are cited with primary sources of questionable reliability. If you had modern reliable secondary sources (like a history book or journal article written by a scholar), then there would be no argument over their inclusion.--SGCM (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the reason given to disavow those documents is exactly that. To quote "Sources from the 1920s and 1930s are not reliable, because it was during the 1920s that Gardel allegedly began falsifying his place of birth." This is exactly what the french theory states (without proof and only referencing each other).--Zorzaluruguay (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there modern scholars that support the Uruguayan theory? If so, reference them.--SGCM (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This case will be closed as resolved within 24 hours. There is a consensus that modern reliable second party sources must be used to make claims that might be contested.--SGCM (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would broaden SGCM's suggestion and ask parties to list sources inside this table:

Once replaced placeholders, please only add sources to the bottom of respective table cell, so that they could be further referred to by numbers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I was writting a paper that allows to weave all the sources. Besides the evidenciary sources showned before, I'm adding and additional 5 (there are more but I didn't want the paper to be source heavy). The first, although from 1945, deals with the accident itself but is of particular interest because it shows the charred remains of Gardel's passport. The next three are scholastic works performed by historian Silva Cabrera. In his first work reference Mr Silva deals with the general documentation of Gardel's POB, his second work deals with documentation from the 1902 uruguayan national ID that Gardel solicited, this request is composed of two pieces, one which obtains a sworn statement of the padre of the church where he was baptized (which includes parents' given and surnames) and the second where he requests his ID (again naming his parents). His third work deals with the accident and deals throughout the book on his POB. The fifth source references argentinian law that states if a government application is requested with false information its void and null, so if Mr Gardel lied as they want to so badly then he's not argentinian, possibly venezuelan (not quiding). --Zorzaluruguay (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Zorzaluruguay: Your responses here are very lengthy ... please see Too long, didn't read. It is best if you just find the best 4 or 5 sources, and just identify each source (publication date, author, publisher) and provide a brief quote. Just put them into the table format suggested by user czarkoff; or simply in a bullet-list. That is all we need! When evaluating the sources, sources published by major publishers or written by academics will be given more weight. For instance, the source The Life, Music, and Times of Carlos Gardel is written by a scholar and published by an academic press, so it will have more weight than non-academic sources. --Noleander (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC) I had--Zorzaluruguay (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The titles in the table above suggest that "Uruguay" theory doesn't deserve its current weight. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Question to Zorzaluruguay, do any of the sources that you've provided explicitly state that the French theory is wrong or inaccurate? Translated excerpts of the text would be most helpful for the volunteers here to evaluate it.--SGCM (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the lenght of my responses but from the beginning I responded by supplieng sources and references, only to have them denied because they were either too old, contradicted french theory, so I feel that what we're doing is checking the merits of one theory as measured by the number of sources the other has, and I feel that somehow I have to explain the sources provided and not just drop them out of context. So, of the three sources showned above, the mid three are scholastic. MR. Silva Cabrera is a scholar and historian of note with works published by private binding houses (there is no university press in Uruguay). Only the mid three deal directly with the merits of the french theory (it wasn't given credence for lack of direct evidence and its contradictory statements), by showing documented proof of Gardel's nationality (complemented with interviews of the time and later), by showing that there were much too many Charles Gardes in Toulouse, one born in the mid 70's in south america, one in 1890 and another (one of these?) who died in WWI, and by showing the unwitness handwritten note attributed to Gardel that is the keystone of the french theory. Its not that they need to prove the french theory wrong, is that the french theory never showed evidence that the uruguay theory is. --Zorzaluruguay (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide a translated excerpt for us to verify?--SGCM (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2012 (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.

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:Black Swan (film) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Awien (talk · contribs)
• Bbb23 (talk · contribs)
• Debresser (talk · contribs)
• SubSeven (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I corrected what I initially perceived as a typo, “It was perfect” instead of “I was perfect”.

I was reverted and referred to the talk page, where I discovered that this is a long-standing bone of contention. I then spent a lot of time and effort on the talk page trying to convince a trio of editors, only to have everything I said brushed off but never properly responded to.

So given the unlikelihood of ever convincing people whose minds were made up, I made a compromise edit stating that both interpretations exist. (Bbb23 had already expressed unwillingness to spend too much time and effort on this, I certainly didn’t want to either, so this seemed to be an unexceptionable way of leaving everybody equally satisfied and equally unsatisfied, and moving on). That edit too was reverted by Debresser as “Unacceptable to me”.

Their belief that the line is “It was perfect” is based on an apparently pirated early draft of the script posted on the website Moviecultists. My contention that opinions differ is based on the fact that the line is given as “I was perfect” on IMDb and on the vast majority of comments in blogs etc from people who saw the film. 11 of the first 13 quotes I found by googling “Black Swan ending” quote the line as “I was perfect”, for example: http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/blackswan.html

My edit therefore reads:

her last words are variously interpreted as "I felt it. Perfect. It was perfect", or "I felt it. Perfect. I was perfect".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Only the discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Tell them that my edit should stand.

Opening comments by Bbb23

Although I'm still not happy with the conduct discussions, I commend SGCM and Amadscientist for trying to keep the discussion focused. Because of that, I'll make a few comments. I've seen the film, but a long time ago. I don't remember what Portman said at the end. The Plot section of film articles is an odd beast because generally it's not only unsourced, but acceptable to be unsourced, at least in practice; I haven't found a guideline on it. I don't care that much how this issue is resolved as long as there's a viable consensus for it. I have no personal preference, except possibly to eliminate the quote entirely. My only reason for that preference is practical - to eliminate the argument and what I consider to be a waste of editor resources. Still, even if we decide to do that, someone will probably come along in the future and add it back in. Some things never seem to go away.

I don't like the idea of putting in both perceptions because I think it's too much Misplaced Pages-type clutter for something this trivial. Also, to the extent people are referring to Awien's latest sources, they are blogs. Essentially, it's like taking some kind of a vote, but instead of a vote of Misplaced Pages editors, it's a vote of some unauthoritative subset of the public. I'm against that. I'd rather vote among Wikipedians. Normally, of course, a consensus isn't reached by vote numbers, but, again, this is an odd context - it's just a question of what an editor thinks they heard. I, of course, would not vote because I don't know. Besides, I don't particularly want to vote.

I kind of like the idea of looking at a DVD or some other disk with subtitles and see what the subtitles say, although I've seen many times that subtitles are wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Debresser

The version "It" is based on the script (doesn't really matter whether it is a pirated version or not), and on what I heard myself. I checked it a few times. So did others. The change to "I" was made, and reverted, and the discussion was reopened. The editor did not provide a source for "I" in the discussion (till today). If he would have, I would have accepted a text with both versions and their sources. Such is accepted practice on Misplaced Pages, to have both versions and their sources (with the exception of non-notable fringe opinions).

The problem could have been avoided, if Awien would have been less bold (both with the original edit and his proposed compromise version) and discussed his edits, and would have provided sources. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by SubSeven

Awien has failed to produce anything substantial to back up his edits. We have a copy of a script that confirms the line as "It was perfect". You can quibble about whether it was a leaked version of the script, maybe it wasn't the absolute final-final version, but what has Awien countered this with? Not much. Quotes on IMDb are user-submitted. For all we know, Awien was the one who submitted it to IMDb. I don't think he did, but the point is, this is not a reliable source. Bouncing around on Google digging up various WP:SPS links doesn't help your case either (though the one that Awien linked to doesn't quote either version of the line verbatim anyway). Yes, I'm sure there are people in the world, like Awien, who misinterpreted the whispered dialogue. So what? There is no reason to acknowledge it in the article.

In addition, anyone who owns the Black Swan DVD, or can get their hands on a copy, can watch the ending with subtitles turned on and confirm that the dialogue is indeed "It was perfect". I suppose that posting a brief video clip of this scene with the subtitles would be considered reproduction of copyrighted material, so I haven't done so, though I'd be happy to go to the trouble in order to put the issue to rest.

No version of the "compromise" edit would be acceptable to me. --SubSeven (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, SubSeven, I have never submitted anything to IMDb. Awien (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Black Swan (film) discussion

Here's a compromise. The article will say that it is uncertain, and provide all the (properly sourced) possibilities. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. If all three editors (the ones engaged in the discussion) agree we can call this dispute resolved.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

All four editors are now involved in the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't that get us back to: her last words are variously interpreted as "I felt it. Perfect. It was perfect", or "I felt it. Perfect. I was perfect".?

Or I'm OK with rephrasing it as: her last words are uncertain, either "I felt it. Perfect. It was perfect", or "I felt it. Perfect. I was perfect".

Awien (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The latter version seems best. But a source should be added for each of them. Otherwise, the compromise is not worth much, since unsourced information which is obviously contended is so easily removed. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A question: Doesn't the DVD/Blu-ray come with English subtitles? Perhaps that source should be consulted.--SGCM (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The article can say "Disputed, might be..." without any particicular order. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This is Awien. I'm back after losing internet for a few hours when a wisp of the remains of Isaac brushed us here.

Debresser, I suggest we not worry too much about being perceived as contended - "uncertain" is neutral, and most people are aware that there can be ambiguity and/or uncertainty in life. In any case, to claim certainty when there is no certainty is intellectually dishonest. And if the edit does get removed, that gets us to what was our second-best option that you said you wouldn't oppose: taking it out ourselves because of the lack of certainty.

Ebe, I would prefer to avoid "disputed" as too strong. "Uncertain" is enough to say one can't be sure, and we don't want to call attention to disputes, do we?

SGCM, good idea. Anyone have the disc?

If everybody is OK with "uncertain", can I make that edit? Or would somebody else like to?

In any case, I'm now going offline for tonight. Hoping we have a solution, I wish you all goodnight. Awien (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Went too fast and missed Sub Seven above. Where DO we stand now? Goodnight anyway. Awien (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No consensus at this time. 2 for the compromise and two against. Best to give it some time. If "No consensus" is the outcome, no change should be made.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about last night, everybody. I failed to notice that the conversation was ongoing at the top of the page as well as the bottom.

There can be no certainty, but realistically, there's a very good chance (~80%) that the present statement is incorrect.

So re-reading, it seems to me we (can) probably have an actual consensus that rather than stating as fact something that is open to so much doubt, the most honest solution would be to refrain from pronouncing at all, that is, simply refrain from quoting the last line. It sounds as though at least Debresser, Bbb23 and I could agree to that. The "never going away" problem could be a bit alleviated by placing a hidden message in the edit box saying "Please don't add a quote before reading the discussion".

If that's acceptable, we're done. If it isn't, just so you know, I'll go to RfC. Awien (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with "uncertain". I'd prefer not to remove the last line altogether. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Me too, Debresser. But given that we're deadlocked on that unless Bbb23 or SubSeven changes his/her mind, I'm proposing removal as a possible way of achieving consensus or at least a majority. Awien (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What I specifically objected to was the compromise edit which gave both versions of the quote. A removal of the quote would be a better solution, IF a dispute could be demonstrated. But I see you guys talking about a dispute and an uncertainty and I don't understand what it is. If the version currently given in the article is confirmed in a script, and also confirmed in the subtitles, what is the dispute? --SubSeven (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

After watching this discussion for some time I would note that indeed the importance of the exact wording is not important for the article. I would suggest to get rid of the quote entirely or rewrite the description of the film's ending to cover the idea behind the quote. Keeping both versions violates WP:NPOV, as it gives an impression that the exact word is important and was discussed in sources as such, which doesn't seem to be true. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That could work. Perhaps the phrase "As the white ceiling lights envelop her, she whispers, 'I felt it. Perfect. It was perfect.'" should be reworded to "As the white ceiling lights envelop her, the film ends with her whispering that the performance was 'perfect.'"--SGCM (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

SubSeven, the script is not authoritative nor can be - I think that's proven. (You might want to re-read what has been said). A reasonably random sampling of ordinary filmgoers indicates that a good 80% of them perceive the last words to be "I was perfect", raising a very good possibility that the last words are in fact "I was perfect". Given that level of uncertainty, we can't honestly say authoritatively that the last words are "It was perfect". In the interest of integrity, the options open to us are give both, or neither. I prefer both, but I'm OK with neither. Awien (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

SGCM, I'm afraid that doesn't work because it's simply giving the "it" version as indirect speech rather than direct. Reference to last words would have to go entirely, which is why giving both seems preferable to me, but if we can't get consensus for that, so be it. Awien (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"As the white ceiling lights envelop her, the film ends with her whispering that her performance was 'perfect.'" Changed "the" to "her", which would make sense both if Portman said "it" or "I."--SGCM (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem here. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That's still "it" indirectly, SGCM. A more radical possibility, cutting reference to last words completely without being too obvious about it: Thomas and the cast gather to congratulate her—only to find that she is severely bleeding. The film ends with Nina’s cosciousness appearing to fade into white light. Awien (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That works. I have no objections.--SGCM (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I am telling you that the script AND the subtitles on the DVD confirm this version of the dialogue. Do you not believe me? Do you want me to mail you the disc so you can see for yourself? --SubSeven (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

SubSeven, for the sake of your own development of critical thinking skills, I would be much happier to see you recognising that the draft script you are so hung up on doesn’t and can’t prove anything.

As to whether I believe you about the subtitles, provisionally I take your word for that till I’m next at the library. Even so, subtitles too can be wildly wrong, as Bbb acknowledges above.

However, assuming that you are indeed telling the truth, subtitles are enough for me to withdraw my objection to keeping the present version at this time.

Thank you volunteers for your help. Bravo Debresser for your open mind. Bbb23, you are so right about the anomalous nature of plot summaries.

Eppure . . . she does say “I was perfect”.

But as far as I’m concerned, we can call the case closed. Awien (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone listened to the DVD commentary? Perhaps there is something there. Also, to be fair Awaien, you have not proven your case...at all. I listed to the quote and she seems to say "it" but as she fades off she does not pronounce the "T", but clearly to my ear she is not pronouncing the I as rhyming with "Eye" but as rhyming with "bit". I would ask that all parties begin showing their primary and secondary sources. If none can be produced I would almost be willing to say there has been no dispute actually shown here. Part of this is to prove your case and not just require a compromise when others are objecting. Also, if you are saying that you intend to take this to RFC if this doesn't go your way, why even come here to begin with? Wouldn't an RFC have been a better choice before taking up the time of volunteers here?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Awien broght this here and they're now willing to accept what SubSeven says. Can't we just close the case as resolved?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2012 (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.

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

• Tony Scott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Erzan (talk · contribs)
• 82.209.185.111 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An going edit war is brewing over the nationality of Andy Scott. At his death, dozens of credible media sources were describing him as a British-born director. So on his page, he was edited as a 'British director' in the introduction section. Yet the use of a wide range of media sources to back up an edit is, according to some users, irrelevant. Thus one or two users have taken it upon themselves to change 'British director' to 'English director'.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Request further discussion regarding the repeated edits on the talk page. Offered a whole array of sources to back up my editing.

How do you think we can help?

Edit the article, using the media reports as sources, to 'British-born director'. Protect it from further editing, until the issue is solved on the talk page.

Opening comments by 82.209.185.111

Tony Scott discussion

• Hi! I am a DRN volunteer and will be helping out mediate this discussion. I am awaiting opening statements before we can begin. Electric Catfish 00:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I am from the UK. For what it is worth this British/English controversy is absurd. Either description could be equally valid. The only person who could adjuducate on whether he considered his indentity to be primarily English or British is Tony Scott himself and sadly he is no longer with us so we will never know. --Corbynz (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of a personal preference a default position clearly favours British as it is a more inclusive term internationally. We all have British passports - there is no English passport. We are all citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - we are not English citizens. We all vote in British elections - there are no national English elections or an English legislative assembly. The Queen) is Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - not England. We have a British government - there is no English government and the chief executive of our government is Prime Minister of the UK of GB and NI just like the Queen. English mainly tends to be used within Britain as one of the four distinctive ethnic groups that make up our state alongside the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish. --Corbynz (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not start the discussion before I or another DRN volunteer has opened up this thread. This thread will not be opened until we receive opening statements from the IP editor. Electric Catfish 00:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the IP address is interested in participating in the DRN case. The case will be closed within 24 hours.--SGCM (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2012 (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.