User:Drcrazy102/DRN transclusion demonstration 2

Please note that the following is a demonstration of partial sub-page transclusion; full sub-page transclusion demonstration can be found at User:Drcrazy102/DRN transclusion demonstration 1. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Each of the below transclusions are sub-pages of User:Drcrazy102/DRN transclusion demonstration 2 (current page). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

DO NOT EDIT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING TEXT OR SUB-PAGES

Talk:Shah Rukh_Khan#perhaps_the_world.27s_biggest_movie_star.3F
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The article Shah Rukh Khan passed FA and TFA recently with a certain sourced statement in the lead and blurb. A couple days after it was TFA, someone thought that this statement should be removed. Since that time several other editors have chimed in on the discussion page, some agreeing with this, some wanting to keep it as it was, and some wanting to go even further in the direction that it was. DRN was suggested a couple times so I thought of giving this a try. I am the editor who took this article to GA, FA, and TFA, and I think that something along these lines needs to be in the lead for our readers.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Many more sources were brought to light upon request supporting the statement, and alternative statements were proposed, edited in, and rejected. The current form is different than the TFA version.

How do you think we can help?

Maybe we need some un-involved parties to help resolve the conflict now. There may be some involved who have some sort of agenda (this has also been suggested on the talk page).

Summary of dispute by Semitransgenic
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Saw an FA/TFA stating, in the second sentence of a WP:BLP lead, that subject was Described by the Los Angeles Times as perhaps "the world's biggest movie star" . It appeared to be an intentional misquote; either promotional (WP:SOAP) or hagiographic (WP:PEACOCK). Claims associated with a newspaper's POV need to sourced to an editorial statement. I removed the content, it was reverted. I corrected the attribution and opened talk flagging WP:POV.I questioned the validity of any claims employing the phrase "the worlds biggest." Further sources were offered, I suggested we employ the word "reportedly," this word use was disputed. It was demonstrated that multiple actors have been described as "the world's biggest movie star" and that no such claim can offered as a statement of fact. Various arguments were offered to do with audience sizes, earnings etc. to justify the claim; none of which stood up to scrutiny. To update, if we look at the Forbes World's Highest Paid Actor List 2015, in the top 10 we see three Bollywood actors (Amitabh Bachchan, Salman Khan, and Akshay Kumar), all of whom are exposed to the same sized audience as Khan, and all of whom earn more than Khan (similar claims about "world's" this and that can also be found for each actor). My view is we should not be making claims like this in a BLP FA without something like a properly sourced consensus statement of fact based on clear supporting evidence. Using entertainment news so prominently in the lead is inappropriate. Of all information found in a newspaper, such news is, arguably, the least reliable. Semitransgenic talk. 14:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Fideliosr
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Here's a brief summary of my concerns: Fideliosr (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no universal consensus that he is the "biggest" movie star in the world. The mention looks quite fanboyish.
 * Mere and inconsistent opinion of a bunch of journalists. Not that noteworthy stuff.
 * Tom Cruise vs. SRK debate, in my opinion, is irrelevant here.

Summary of dispute by Human3015
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Read this FA version (first para of lead), which says "Described by the Los Angeles Times as perhaps "the world's biggest movie star"". Some editors had concern that it is view of that journalist and not of LA Times, and it is "paid news". Some users said that chief executive editor or owner of that news agency should say that he is "biggest star" then only we can attribute to News agency. There are several other sources who call him "biggest star" as seen in this version. Most of sources called him biggest star in terms of number of people know him. Around 3.5 billion people around the world knows him. ,, , all these news sources saying that SRK has around 3.5 billion audience but as per other parties these are "paid news". I think we can simply write that "Shah Rukh Khan is known as biggest film star in the world in terms of number of people know him, it is estimated that around 3.5 billion people around the world know him". -- Human 3015   TALK   12:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Vensatry
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The fact that the claim appeared that way when the article passed FAC/TFA appearance is irrelevant. It's possible that our reviewers had overlooked that. The way in which the claim was there before I participated in the talk page discussion was clearly a violation of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Besides, I don't think it's a lead material. 's argument about the 3.5 billion people adds no value to the discussion. Wikipedia doesn't work that way! &mdash; Vensatry (Talk) 09:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Kailash29792
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have just tried supporting the article being how it was during its FAC pass, and TFA appearance. I supported the LA Times quote about the actor being in the lead because, even though it praises him, we are maintaining neutrality by quoting someone else rather than praise him through our own words. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Health care in the United States
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is a conflict on whether the several articles that relate to the Healthcare of the United States contain excessive negativity and are biased towards such negative opinions, including the sources that are largely opinion based and not reliable. It can potentially affect the neutrality and reliability of the articles in question as well.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing the issue constructively with the user on the article's talk page. Notifying another administrator for possible assistance as well. The admin is: User:The Blade of the Northern Lights

How do you think we can help?

Provide neutral insights on this issue and give a constructive decision on how to resolve this heated problem regarding an important aspect of Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by CFCF
The filing user has provided no sources for any statements whatsoever and simply deletes properly sourced material they find objectionable. There are other parties present in the discussion, also detailed in the currently active post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. Even a cursory glance at the page histories show that this single editor has seen unilateral opposition (from at least 6 other editors) and is now engaging in yet another time sink. (I have added more editors to the list of involved parties, because they have either edited the articles in question or commented about the behavior of the IP-user) Please disregard this notice and close as appropriate. CFCF  💌 📧 22:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Drbogdan
I also agree with the comments made by "User:CFCF" re the issue(s) presented (hopefully, this is a better location for my comment than my earlier post below) - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MaterialScientist
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Escape Orbit
I have some sympathy for the specific issue that filing editor 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 raised regarding the view that "Issues like injuries, homicides and sexually transmitted infections cannot be atributed to the system of healthcare or can be atributed at most a little."

However, when it was suggested that perhaps the content in question be moved to a new, more suitable article (like Health in the USA), this was rejected on the grounds that this article would also "portray the U.S. in a negative light". So the chief concern isn't accuracy or neutrality, but the image of the U.S.?

The other thrust of the filing editor's argument is that the fact was poorly sourced. It was sourced from an academic paper written for the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Some may disagree with the conclusions reached, but there are no grounds for questioning its reliability as a source.

The topic of this article can be controversial, and naturally opinions differ. It would be more profitable use of time to balance the opinions (and facts that they are based on) with others authoritative sources, rather than simply requesting that content is removed because you don't like it. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Flyer22 Reborn
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Ozzie10aaaa
I would concur with CFCF appraisal of the situation on the article in question,( and have little to add beyond his statement above) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Editors are divided on whether or not content relating to Elizabeth II at List of the oldest living state leaders is both biased and inaccurate. Now at the level of revert warring.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion at the article talk page and User talk:Neve-selbert.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a mediating service, part of which may involve reminding dispute participants of policies and guidelines.

Summary of dispute by Neve-selbert
I concur with GoodDay; in her positions as Queen, she is predominately referred to as being Queen of the United Kingdom (rather Queen of England, a popular misconception) rather than as Queen of Jamaica, Queen of the Bahamas or even Queen of Pakistan. Instead of over-complicating the article with the inclusion of every single sovereign state and entity she has ever reigned over in her entire lifetime (derived originally from the British throne), we can simply add a link to the Commonwealth realms, and readers can click this link and understand why, exactly she is the monarch—and has been the monarch—of almost a quarter of a hundred states. To follow the argument of Miesianiacal would be to remove the link within the table pertaining to the other Commonwealth realms, as he would make this collective group redundant by naming tirelessly and individually every single sovereign throne she has ever sat on. Neve-selbert (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GoodDay
IMHO, there shouldn't be any disagreement at the article-in-question. Verifable sources will easily proove that Elizabeth II is associated mostly with the United Kingdom. She was born there, got married there, was crowned there, will likely be buried there. Because she resides predominantly there, the UK is the only Commonwealth realm which doesn't have or require a governor general. Let's be honest, aswell. Do we often see headlines like Queen of Tuvalu, visits.... or howabout Queen of Antigua and Barbados, visited....? we must consider WP:WEIGHT here. Furthermore, having the United Kingdom and the other realms spread out into the article-in-question, in such a manner (instead of just having United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwelath realms), is un-necessary. For the article's structure, we should go with the consice & compact version. So again, there really shouldn't be a dispute at all. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Miesianaical
In the row for Elizabeth II, in the 'state' column, there is currently depicted a British flag preceding the words "United Kingdom and 15 other states". In the 'position' column is "Queen (1952-present)". The problems with the aforementioned are: a) Elizabeth II has been queen of only four of the 16 realms since 1952. She became queen of the 12 others at various later dates. b) The Commonwealth realms (what the "United Kingdom and 15 other states" is indirectly referring to) are not collectively represented by the British flag. Even if the flag is intended to be associated only with the words "United Kingdom", it is still possible for readers unfamiliar with the topic of the Commonwealth realms to interpret it as being associated with the whole bloc of countries. c) The UK holds no special status apart from, let alone "above", the other realms. Some editors claim it does by virtue of not having a governor-general and the monarch will die and be buried there. However, those are differences and "different" doesn't necessarily equate to "superior" or justify special treatment. This fact is recognised in the row for Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who was both President of France and Co-Prince of Andorra; it does not say in the list "President of France and head of one other state", though Giscard is (some editors would likely say) "known mostly" as President of France, will be buried there, had a representative in Andorra, etc. And d) not only are the not-UK realms relegated to second class status relative to the UK, but to every other country in the list, as well. The list consistently provides the flag and name of every country except when it comes to the "15 other states". Again, Andorra and France are both given full display and flags next to Giscard.

The edit I first made on 18 November seemed, to me, to resolve all those issues in a way that at least provided no reason to object. It still "favoured" the UK by way of keeping it at the top of the sub-list (though, that also follows the established protocol for listing the reams), yet made the other realms no different to the UK or every other country in the larger list by way of showing their names and corresponding national flags; it is more consistent with the list as a whole. Additionally, it corrected the misinformation on the length of Elizabeth II's reign as queen of 12 of the realms.

One editor stated my change did not recognise the countries Elizabeth II formerly reigned as queen of. However, the present iteration of the list doesn't, either. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  19:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Killuminator
The cause of this dispute is the perceived bias in favor of the United Kingdom. Queen Elizabeth II is head of state not only in the UK, but also for many other countries. These countries (Canada, Jamaica, Australia etc.) were completely omitted. Since the numbers of countries is over a dozen, some contributors are in favor of simply stating that she rules the UK + these other countries and some contributors wish to enumerate them claiming bias. Many users agree that the Queen is mostly associated with the UK (she lives in the UK, she's British etc.) and claim that giving same weight to other countries is not necessary and that this bias does not exist. I took a look at the UN website to see how they address the Queen. She is mainly referred to as the the Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other UN Member States which prompts me to believe that this is an adopted norm in international relations. In many ways, my stance is similar to that of user GoodDay so I will avoid redundancy. --Killuminator (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Foundation for_Economic_Education#Oldest_free_market_organization
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Unregistered user seem to think that only plagiarism is valid text in a Wikipedia article: "In 'History' it says FEE is the oldest free market org." 107.107.61.73 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

"The Clash of Economic Ideas by Lawrence H. White 'The oldest free-market American think tank is the foundation for Economic Education, founded in 1946, which as noted was ...' The Making of Modern Economics by Mark Skousen 'In his eighties, he continued to lecture at the Foundation for Economic Education in IrvingtononHudson, New York (the oldest free market think tank, founded in 1946 by Leonard Read), and ...'" Abel (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

"These refs do not say 'oldest org' just thinktank ..." 107.107.61.57 (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Foundation_for_Economic_Education

How do you think we can help?

By having someone explain what plagiarism is and explain how demanding plagiarism in no way shape or form helps Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by 107.107.61.57
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

-