Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Jagtar Singh Hawara	Closed	Write&Publish (t)	2 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours
Washtub Bass	Closed	DaveCW (t)	1 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 8 hours
RRR	In Progress	SaibaK (t)	1 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours	SaibaK (t)	1 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 08:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

1 Spore (2008 video game) (Example case)

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Example on 13:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, we have discussed this issue on a talk page, and we reached stalemate in our discussion.

Location of dispute

• Spore (2008 video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Example (talk · contribs)
• Example2 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Me and Example2 (talk · contribs) are having a bit of a dispute about Spore (2008 video game). Some of the references in the article support the genre being a god game, others support the genre being a life simulation or a simulation game. I think we need to come with a way to have both listed in the article, as all references seem reliable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried talking about the issue with Example on the article talk page, but I need some extra input on what I can do here to move forward with resolving this dispute, as there are numerous sources supporting the different genres.

How do you think we can help?

Direct me to ways to resolve this dispute, or where I can get assistance in resolving the dispute. We need to come up with a compromise as how to move forward with the article.

--Example (talk)

1.1.1 Opening comments by Example2

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Statements that this game's genre is simulation are simply untrue. No policy, guideline or essay on Wikipedia demand that we spread lies in article just because the misled reliable sources stated so. --Example2 (talk)

1.1.2 Spore (2008 video game) discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

The dispute at hand seems to be to me that there are multiple possible genres to the article, and many sources backing up the different genres, however the issue of which genre best fits is still an issue. A mediation cabal case might be useful here, the assistance of a third party editor could assist in working out a compromise that works well. Example3 (talk)

Augmentative_and_alternative_communication

• Augmentative and alternative communication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Two related issues

Two editors might suit some outside opinions with resolving two related issues. Firstly, there is a difference of opinion on the answer to the question of "Are the peer reviewed proceedings from academic conferences considered acceptable sources for wikipedia?" (Two pertinent facts may well be that a: both editors would like the article to go to FAC and have the required high-standard of sourcing and b: the conferences in question are often computer science ones that may be treated differently by some editors).

Secondly, there is a difference of opinion about a paragraph being included in a section of the article, when the content is surmised in the History section of the article. The paragraph in question is [1]

The full conversation on both matters is at: Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Rate_enhancement_strategies

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Failedwizard (talk · contribs)
• Poule (talk · contribs)

There is a great deal of mutual respect between both editors, the conversation has been measured, sedate and reasonable on both sides thoughtout; however it certainly appears (to me anyway) that this is caused by deep differences in philosophy and I think both of us would welcome editors who might be able to offer some opinions.

This step was proposed in advance on the talk page, will post back to talk page now.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Augmentative_and_alternative_communication}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

The full conversation on both matters is at: Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Rate_enhancement_strategies

• How do you think we can help?

It is my believe that the dispute is relatively technical in nature and if editors who felt experienced in that particular field where to give us their interpretation of wikipedia's policy on either or both of the issues then I think either or both of us would happily accept the consensus and return to working productively together.

Failedwizard (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Augmentative_and_alternative_communication discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Hi Failedwizard, and thanks for posting here. Sorry that this dispute has been sitting here for so long with no reply - it looks like it slipped through the cracks. Are you still having problems here? Let us know if you are and I'll have a look into it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Any opinions would certainly be welcome - work on the article has been at a standstill since this was posted. :( Failedwizard (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a brief read through the discussion, and I have some suggestions for you. Now, if I am reading this rightly, then the sources that are being disputed are the same ones that are used in the disputed paragraph. (Please let me know if I have got this wrong or missed something important.) In this case, it seems a good idea to check the sources first, as the writing obviously depends on whether they are of acceptable quality. I wouldn't feel confident commenting on the acceptability of the sources in this case, as it's not really my field of expertise. I recommend making a post at the reliable sources noticeboard asking for their opinion on each of the sources in question, along with their context in the article. We have editors there who know a lot about academic sourcing, so it seems the obvious place to start. You could also leave a note linking to the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science if you want the opinion who specifically knows about computer science. We can save discussion of the paragraph itself after we have come to a consensus on the sources. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I've made a request at wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Academic_Conferences, and hope to hear from some of the editors there shortly. Failedwizard (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

British Ceylon or Ceylon

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. K. P. Ratnam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) C. Nagalingam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) V. A. Alegacone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) M. Alalasundaram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) V. A. Kandiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) P. Kandiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) T. Sivasithamparam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) A. Amirthalingam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? A dispute has arisen as to whether the subjects' birthplace should be given as British Ceylon or Ceylon. Cossde believes it should be Ceylon and is demanding that sources are provided for the usage of British Ceylon. Everyone else believes it should be British Ceylon. All the subjects were born when Sri Lanka was ruled by the British. There is an article covering this period - British Ceylon. The term British Ceylon is rarely used outside Wikipedia. Generally Sri Lanka prior to 1972 is known simply as Ceylon. But the problem is that Ceylon was ruled by different countries and there are different articles for each period (Portuguese Ceylon, Dutch Ceylon, British Ceylon and Dominion of Ceylon). My main concern is that when the reader clicks on the wiki link to the subjects' birthplace they are directed to the correct article. If they were to click on Ceylon they would be redirected to Sri Lanka. The subjects were not born in Sri Lanka. If we were to look at their birth certificate it would say they were born in Ceylon, not Sri Lanka. As a compromise I have suggested using Ceylon (note the piped link). Cossde has rejected this. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Cossde (talk · contribs) Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs) Obi2canibe (talk · contribs) Sudar123 (talk · contribs) Blackknight12 (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=British Ceylon or Ceylon}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? The dispute has been discussed at the talk page. How do you think we can help? Decide if we should use British Ceylon or Ceylon (with piped link) or Ceylon obi2canibetalk contr 19:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC) British Ceylon or Ceylon discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Comment: What do biographies of the subject say? PiCo (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC) The sources I've seen don't mention the country, they only mention the town/city of their birth.--obi2canibetalk contr 23:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Suggestion: Instead of discussing the country and appropriate demographic adjective, why not circumvent the entire issue and put a reference to the geographical Ceylon. In other words, instead of using "British Ceylon" or simply "Ceylon", maybe it would be better to say "the island of Ceylon" (an obvious geographic reference instead of a political reference). Notice the piped link to Sri Lanka, whose article explains the geopolitical timespans of Ceylon's rulership. Just a suggestion that the involved parties may want to consider. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Agree: Yes, this suggestion seems very practical and acceptable. Cossde (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC) But the problem is that the Sri Lanka article isn't about geographic region, it's about a country/state/political entity. The fact it outlines the geopolitical history of the island pre-1972 (when Sri Lanka officially came into existence) is, IMO, not relevant. Many country articles contain history prior their official creation e.g. the history section in the United States article includes pre-1776 history and that in the United Kingdom article includes pre-1801 history. Would it be appropriate to state that, say, a native American chief born in the 10th century was born in the United States or that Alfred the Great was born in the UK? This is in essence what Cossde is asking for the articles under dispute.--obi2canibetalk contr 21:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Comment:Under People of British India, there are hundreds of them identified with British India; similarly why the personalities who were born in the time line of British rule in the island of currently named Sri Lanka, can't be identified as they were born in British Ceylon?Sudar123 (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Basically I guess because the term "British Ceylon" isn't in common use, and the term "British India" is. I also suspect that British India was a phrase used back in the 19th century to describe the two-thirds of India that was under British rule; the other third was ruled by maharajahs and was known as Princely India. There was nothing comparable in 19th century Ceylon. PiCo (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I did a search for "British Ceylon" and come out with the following hits Google Web, Google NewsGoogle Books and Google Scholar. I don't find "British Ceylon" is an isolated term. Though we can't compare British India with British Ceylon, the term "Ceylon" was used before and after the independence until it gets the current term, "Sri Lanka" in 1972. So, I am not finding anything wrong to indicate the "Ceylon" before the independence as "British Ceylon".Sudar123 (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC) If you were to look closely at the articles Portuguese Ceylon, Dutch Ceylon, British Ceylon and Dominion of Ceylon these are documentation of the administrations of the particular eras such as Portuguese rule, Dutch rule and British rule. The reader would gain more information from the pipe Ceylon. Mind you there were no territorial changes since 1815 to present therefore British Ceylon and Dominion of Ceylon actually relates to Sri Lanka just as there is no difference between the Union of India and Republic of India. Therefore it can not be said that Sri Lanka was created in 1972. However British Ceylon is more complected as there was company rule in 1790's, British rule limited to the coastal areas from 1798 to 1815 and this article I found on Encyclopædia Britannica stating that British Ceylon dates from 1796–1900. Cossde (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC) You're quite right - there was only one Ceylon at any time so there was no need for contemporary records to add the "British" prefix. But we here at Wikipedia face the problem of having four separate articles and the prefix has become necessary.--obi2canibetalk contr 21:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Prefix problem could be solved with renaming the articles as British Colonial rule in Sri Lanka, Dutch rule in Sri Lanka, etc. Cossde (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC) A comment which may not directly help the dispute. It doesn't seem that there is any article on Wikipedia that gives any explanation as to when the island has been called Ceylon, when it has been called Sri Lanka, what the difference is and why it matters. There also seems to be a confusing interchangeability of use in different articles, so that, for example, the island is referred to as Sri Lanka in relation to a time when it would have been know as Ceylon. I don't know whether this is pure anachronism or what, but the difficulty is that WP isn't doing anything to help me understand. I would suggest that (a) there should be some section of some article about the name-change and that (b) having Ceylon simply redirect to Sri Lanka is not very helpful. Maybe there could actually be an article with the title "Ceylon" or else a disambiguation page. --FormerIP (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I strongly support your view that, "(a) there should be some section of some article about the name-change and that (b) having Ceylon simply redirect to Sri Lanka is not very helpful. Maybe there could actually be an article with the title "Ceylon" or else a disambiguation page."Sudar123 (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC) The answer to that is simple, Ceylon was referred to as Lanka locally in Sinhala before and after British rule, after the constitutional change in 1972 which lead to the country becoming a republic it was renamed as Sri Lanka, and the English version of the name was changed from Ceylon to Sri Lanka. It does not mean that these are two diffident countries just as there is no diffrense between Mumbai or Bombay since its both the same city. Cossde (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I don't think the problem is really solved by giving an explanation on a talkpage, Cossde. --FormerIP (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC) The problem could be solved to some extent some thing like the creation of: Zaire (disambiguation), Siam (disambiguation), Formosa (disambiguation), Zanzibar (disambiguation), Persia (disambiguation).....etc.Sudar123 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC) But the preference is, there should be an article with the title "Ceylon".Sudar123 (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Ceylon (disambiguation) is already there. But we should come to some consensus whether to use the British Ceylon or a re-direct to Ceylon (disambiguation) or a new article on Ceylon.Sudar123 (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Ah, OK. So, given that there is no article titled "Ceylon", "Ceylon" should redirect to the dab page, rather than to "Sri Lanka", at least for the time being. --FormerIP (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Agreed. The current situation where it redirects to Sri Lanka is wholly wrong. There was no political entity called Sri Lanka prior to 1972. All birth certificates, passports etc issued before 1972 would have said Ceylon or something equivalent.--obi2canibetalk contr 21:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Not Agreed.It makes no point in having two different articles for the same thing. The political entity of Sri Lanka can claim its roots to 1815, as the the island became physically a single political entity/administrative territory in 1815 and constitutionally in 1819/1820. The current "Ceylon" to "Sri Lanka" as it would provide the reader the best amount of information at present (not in the talk page). The article China leads to the PRC and not the Republic of China. Cossde (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC) No, you're wrong, the China article doesn't lead to the People's Republic of China article, it's the opposite - the People's Republic of China article redirects to China.--obi2canibetalk contr 21:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC) That is because they are one and the same. Cossde (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC) According to the disambiguation page for Ceylon, the name "Ceylon" is, itself, a British creation. The disambiguation page says, "Ceylon is the former English name given to Sri Lanka, by the British, under their occupation of the island nation in South Asia." While it's true that Sri Lanka did not exist as a political entity until later, the island itself has been Sri Lanka since at least colonial times (all of this is referenced in other WP articles about Sri Lanka; I can provide examples if anyone questions it). Before the island was inhabited by Europeans, it was divided into seven kingdoms (specifics of which would, of course, be rather impractical in the lead section of this article and also anachronistic). If you disagree with redirecting to Sri Lanka, what would you propose instead? (Keep in mind, however, that the Sri Lanka article does not refer to the political entity, but to the island itself.) To say that a redirect to Sri Lanka is not appropriate essentially means that you're saying the Sri Lanka article itself is in need of major, fundamental reconstruction. If that's the case, then so be it (I'm neutral in this matter, just trying to mediate), but there would have to be a lot of serious discussion on the Sri Lanka talk page before that can happen, and we'd probably need to enlist the help of some copy-editors. A possible third option: it seems like a long way around, but would it possibly be appropriate to create a piped link to the Sri Lanka article that points specifically to the section entitled "Sri Lanka under the British rule" (a link like "Ceylon")? At the top of that section, we could add a see also link that goes to the British Ceylon article. It seems complicated - and, in fact, it is, but if this were a simple matter, we likely wouldn't be here - but it might be the best option for doing a neutral link. What are your opinions? Sleddog116 (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC) This doesn't seem complicated to me. It isn't about whether the name is British or Sinhalese, because redirects should never be political (in point of fact, the origin of "Ceylon" is Arabic, from when the island was under Mughal rule). The purpose of a redirect is to get the reader to the information they are looking for by the quickest route, and a reader who types in "Ceylon" is not going to the looking for information about what we now call "Sri Lanka" (or else that is what they would type in). --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC) The dispute is over whether the biographies of various people should say they were born in "Ceylon" or "British Ceylon". I gather they were all born during the British colonial period. "British Ceylon" looks very odd to me in that context (see K. P. Ratnam for an example. I'd say "Ceylon", with a pipe if you like to the article on British-period Ceylon. PiCo (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC) If the piped link went to the dab page, that might obviate the need for a link with a | in it. The fact that there's a dispute about it might just indicate that we have our titling wrong. --FormerIP (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Id say leave the current pipe as it is since it leads to Sri Lanka, which states "Known until 1972 as Ceylon" in the first line of intro and the history section provides added information. Please keep in mind that Ceylon was used during British rule and post British rule as well. Cossde (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC) This is the crux of the issue - Ceylon may mean different things depending on the context. Simply redirecting the article to Sri Lanka ignores the four articles with "Ceylon" in their titles and gives the wrong impression to unfamiliar readers. The Ceylon article should either redirect to the dab page or preferably the Ceylon article should itself be the dab page. Ceylon with a piped link to British Ceylon was my first compromise offer (rejected by Cossde). Around 30 other BLPs give the place of birth as British Ceylon suggesting that it's not that odd. This includes three prime ministers and three presidents (including the first PM of independent of Dominion of Ceylon and the current president of Sri Lanka). The British Ceylon article is a perfectly good article and shouldn't be bypassed.--obi2canibetalk contr 16:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Hi everyone - I've been reading through the discussion, and it doesn't seem like we will reach agreement here. How about taking this to an RfC? You can use my example RfC structure at User:Mr. Stradivarius/Templates/Boilerplate RfC if you want. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the suggestion, I'll keep it in mind. Could a clerk close this discussion please?--obi2canibetalk contr 14:57, 1 January 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.

Atheism

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

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

There is a disagreement on how to best capture and present the weight of RS specifically in the context of a definition in plain English. In my opinion our article is currently not reflecting the weight of the sources, and is employing language which seems open to a wider range of interpretation than seems justified by available sources. My position is that we need to move closer to:

Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems.

— "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica Concise. Merriam Webster. Retrieved 15 December 2011.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Unomi (talk · contribs)
• Dannyno (talk · contribs)
• Robin Lionheart (talk · contribs)
• Modocc (talk · contribs)
• JimWae (talk · contribs)
• ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs)
• Tryptofish (talk · contribs) 

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Atheism}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Lots of discussion on the talk-page spanning multiple sections:

• Talk:Atheism#Source_Review_-_Definitions.
• Talk:Atheism#juxtaposition_with_agnosticism_as_the_consensus_position

• How do you think we can help?

We need a mediator who is familiar with philosophy who can help us keep on track and help resolve potential confusion regarding terms of art.

un☯mi 02:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Atheism discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I am not sure if sources from Talk:Atheism#Sources_re_agnosticism_delineation should be copied here wholesale or whether we should consider them one at a time? un☯mi 03:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm replying here because I have been listed as an involved party, and I have been a long-time editor of the page, but I actually have not been involved at all in the discussion that this request is about. As a long-time editor of the page, I'm very well familiar with the reasons for the brightly lit notice at the top of Talk:Atheism. The talk page perennially gets walls of text about, well, how many atheists can dance on the head of a pin. Editors chronically agree that the definitions of atheism, and of how atheism resembles and differs from related topics such as agnosticism, just don't quite capture the perfect précis that individual editors desire, but editors seem never to arrive at consensus for anything better than what the page says now. Largely at Unomi's impetus, we have recently made some helpful brief additions to the article about the relationship with agnosticism. I think those additions have been good. I'm aware of, but have pretty much stayed away from, the wall of talk page text about whether or not to include something or other from EB. I don't much care, and I have come to find such conversations to be lengthy and unproductive time sinks. From a distance, it looks to me like Unomi is taking one position about the EB material, and several other editors say that they are not convinced by Unomi's arguments, and that's how we got here. I think one good solution might be for a few more brave souls to wade into the source material and provide some third+ opinions. Another might be for Unomi to accept that their arguments have not gained consensus, and move on. Whichever way that goes, I wish those involved good luck and happy editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is made sufficiently clear what the dispute is about. I think the first para of the article is unclear. Why are there broad, narrow and inclusive definitions? What is the difference between "broad" and "inclusive"? Please don't answer these questions - I am just pointing out that they are likely to go through the mind of the poor, confused reader.

The problem with appealing to definitions in tertiary sources is that, although they might be authoritative (not necessarily definitive, but authoritative) as to current usage, they may not capture subtle shifts in meaning that have occurred over time. The EB definition above, for example, seems to me to be correct now, but it might not be adequate in describing things as they were a century ago. --FormerIP (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, that thing about broad, narrow, etc., has been very much at the center of all that perennial talk. I understand how the poor, confused reader may feel, and I hope editors new to the issue will understand how the poor, confused editors feel. Gazillions of digital pixels have been spilled trying to find a better lead paragraph, to no avail. You'd be amazed to see how many even-worse versions can be generated. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the article could be said to be confusing because the myriad contradictory ways atheism is idiosyncratically constructed in the literature are also confusing. Wikipedia cannot resolve what is a problem in scholarship as well. I put that forward only partly in jest; there's a serious point there too. --Dannyno (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. We cannot do better than what the source material permits us to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've watched that page for years and have entered into the discussion on rewriting the lead in some of the seemingly monthly debates about it. The lead is in disagreement with all the other non-theist articles like agnostic and ignostic and the sources they use to define the terms contrasted with atheism. The one source that I consider the root cause of the lead's problem is the religioustolerance.org's essay on atheism. Their lead contradicts the lower section of the essay where agnostic is clearly defined. They openly admit that they capitalize Atheism because they consider it a religion.

Capitalization: The terms "Atheism" and "Atheist" are normally not capitalized -- except when they begin a sentence -- because they are not proper nouns. On this web site, they are capitalized. This is not ignorance or carelessness on our part. We have intentionally decided to deviate from the usual practice.
There are countless definitions of the term "religion." The one that we use is unusually inclusive:

"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview."

(A worldview is a set of basic, foundational beliefs concerning deity, humanity and the rest of the universe.) We include Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, Ethical Culture etc. as belief systems similar to religions, because:

They all contain a "belief about deity." Their belief is that they do not know whether a deity exists, or they have no knowledge of a deity, or they sincerely believe that no deity exist.

The authors of the essay are not noted scholars on religion and some of the sources they use are not WP:RS and they have an agenda to change the meaning of the word. For these three reasons I will, as I have before, suggest it be excluded as a reliable source and the lead written from better sources. Alatari (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Tryptofish that this debate is endless and I have little hope of seeing this settled. --Alatari (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• I also have watched the article for a long time but have seldom participated due to the absurd debates over definitions, and resolution would be appreciated. I agree that religioustolerance.org is not a suitable source for any kind of definition because that site has an agenda (possibly a very noble agenda, but nevertheless they are promoting something and are not claiming any scholarly expertise in the field). If reliable secondary sources cover the points made at religioustolerance, keep the points with new references; otherwise, remove them. A word like "atheism" is always going to attract controversy (where some regard it as a deadly insult, and others as a badge of honor), but it should be fairly easy to define the term providing only scholarly sources are used (and it may be necessary to note differences of opinion about the term's meaning, but only if covered in scholarly sources). Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I opened a discussion on religioustolerance.org at RSN here.

I included editors that I felt were long-time contributors to the article because I wanted to ensure that any outcome of this discussion could be held to have had wider input.

Much of the discussion seems to have been prolonged unnecessarily due to interpretation issues with "reject", "positive denial", "extralinguistic referents" and other terms of art which I hope can be refereed more successfully here. I don't think that 3o would have helped build lasting agreement. un☯mi 09:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I have always (since starting out as a contributor in 2005 I think)held that it is important to reflect the diversity of meanings "atheism" has. I would support a more in-depth, RS-supported, NPOV discussion of why this diversity exists. Comments above such as "it should be fairly easy to define the term" rather overlook the ink spilled in the literature by individual scholars arguing for their own understanding. Fact is, it isn't an easy term to define. Also, the discussion on the talk page is very fragmented. It can be hard to follow a line of argument. I would welcome Unomi giving a clear, concise, explanation of exactly what it is they are trying to do, and why. This is rather lacking at the moment, in my opinion, and I suspect it may be possible to agree on at least some of the problems even if we cannot agree how they could be fixed. --Dannyno (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I am happy to see that we have more editors involved now.

As I stated when I initially opened this request, I would like to see a better usage of plain English in especially our opening definition.

From my reading of sources, a contemporary 'plain english' definition could be:

"Atheism is the position that the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition does not exist, it can also refer to a general position that no gods exist."

From there we can go into more detail regarding arguments and the position of the innocents ( newborns etc. )

Quality tertiary sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica support this plain English reading, imo. There seems to be widespread confusion regarding the definition due to statements made by popular writers such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins - but they seem to be giving a novel reading to the word which has not seen much in the way of support in scholarly works. un☯mi 13:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Disbelief...", "Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs..." and "rejection of belief..." are similar constructs that can be more broadly interpreted than "the position that the god... does not exist". Some authors (and editors) such as Eller dispute that there is a difference between "not believe" (to be without belief) and "believe not" and argue for a strict conception such as the unambiguous position that deities do not exist. But, anyone can verify that there are in fact broader dictionary definitions for rejection, disbelief, denial and atheism; and the term "rejection" or any of these terms are by no means terms of art and each can be broadly or narrowly construed in accordance with their usage. Thus, to interpret the Britannica in such a narrow way only, is not only unverifiable, it would be the equivalent of stating "Atheism is the denial of gods or God" when a particular source says "Atheism is the disbelief in or denial of gods or God", thus leaving out the disbelief part. Dictionaries often give more than one definition too, precisely because they are not the same, and of course, the difference between "not believe" and "believe not" is essential to a nontheistic agnostic (or agnostic nontheist). Thus, its the rare argument that there is really no difference between these assertions, although it seems somewhat uncommon for agnostics to assert they "are without belief", but all self-identifying atheists certainly will. In addition, the most inclusive definition, which essentially identifies every nontheist as being an atheist, encompassed by the terms "absence" or "lack" is included in Martin's Encarta Encyclopedia piece[2],"Atheism, the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods."; the BBC website[3] (as merely an example of its prominence at the very least) "Atheism is the absence of belief in any Gods or spiritual beings."; and the Princeton University's WordNet database as can be seen on Onelook[4] "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Sure, the broadest definition is not a primary meaning as Martin is quick to point out, yet it is a minority position per wp:NPOV included in our article that should not be removed from the first paragraph, which defines the article scope, as proposed, nor does the Britannica text directly support the proposed text. --Modocc (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - To my eyes, there seems to be a rather fundamental question regarding how to differentiate the content of Atheism and New Atheism, the latter article specifically relating to the opinions of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al. There are some sources, like Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, which seem to rather clearly indicate that the latter are a group with shared beliefs regarding unknowable questions, or however one wants to define it - basically, an atheistic religion. However, the atheism of the New Atheists is not identical to atheism as a whole, which according to some sources even includes major religions like Buddhism, which do not believe in any sort of personal creator god per se. So I guess, maybe, the question is perhaps how the content should be divided between the two articles I first mentioned? John Carter (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• I find the first two sentences of the lead (Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.) a little user-unfriendly – it is not immediately apparent to the reader (or this reader, at any rate) how one is narrow and the other is broad. But on the whole, the lead does not do a bad job. The contrast to agnosticism is important and is prominently mentioned, as it should be. --JN466 06:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

• Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

This is about the Occupy Wall Street criticism section (first paragraph only). I wanted to write a paragraph about how OWS had been characterized by opponents. I wanted to use reliable, secondary sources which directly summarized such criticism. I began looking around, and I found some. They all said the same thing, in much the same words- whether they were conservative or liberal-leaning sources. I took those words and wrote a couple of sentences about how conservatives et al had characterized the Occupy protesters. Unfortunately for my ability to get it into the article, not only did all the sources say about the same thing, they said it in words which sounded hyperbolic and extreme. It would have been impossible to summarize accurately and faithfully what the sources said, without sounding the same way. However, this certainly didn't sound like normal encyclopedic language, and it certainly didn't make everyone look good. The entry was reverted, and heavily criticized. Most of the criticisms fell flat in the face of the sources, and the dispute culminated in a call for me to do all the work of re-arranging the sources so that each word of the summary would point directly to text from which it was taken. I considered it obvious what the sources were saying and that I had given a faithful or near-faithful summary (one can always improve). I had also included extensive quotations in the references. I feel that editors who criticize my summary should at least read the quotations provided. I also feel that Wikipedia editors have the leeway to summarize sources in their own words, so that not every word of the paragraph needs to be sourced as taken directly from the sources (though most of the controversial words did come directly from the sources). I offered to compromise by summarizing in a different way, by using attribution, or by using quotes. No one would take me up on this. In the end, I agreed to take out the most controversial word "ingrates," and asked for further objections. There were none after weeks. I inserted the paragraph, minus the offending word. It was reverted by Somedifferentstuff.

See this section of the talk page for full details, and this section for the paragraph we're working on and this for the paragraph as I most recently inserted it. There is current discussion on the talk page here.

See this section for quotations from the sources.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Jacksoncw (talk · contribs)
• Somedifferentstuff (talk · contribs)
• Becritical (talk · contribs)
• 98.92.184.135 (talk · contribs)
• Gandydancer (talk · contribs)
• 완젬스 (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• David Shankbone (talk · contribs)
• Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs) 

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Occupy Wall Street}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

• How do you think we can help?

Just give it a quick gander, and if you feel you can give some enlightenment do so. Otherwise give us a recommendation to go up the line of DR.

B^e——C_ritical 04:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

• Outside view I'm going to admit conservative bias from the start. I lean slightly to the right. That said, this revision seems to address the issues on the talk page and be acceptable in my opinion. WP:NPOV does not mean that there can be no negative information nor that criticism sections cannot be harsh. It means that the article has to be balanced and in the large view it has to be neutral. The article cannot give support nor opposition to the subject. I see nothing "unencyclopedic" with how these two paragraphs are written.--v/r - TP 18:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What 2 paragraphs are you referring to? The dispute is concerning the first paragraph only. The second sentence of the first paragraph states, "Conservatives have portrayed the OWS protesters as fearful of responsibility and envious of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work." This is attributed to one source, The Chronicle of Higher Education. How does this not violate Wikipedia's policy on weight? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you start by explaining how it does violate WP:Weight?--v/r - TP 20:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I should make it clear that the first two sentences are sourced at the end of the second sentence, but one source comes first at the end of the first sentence. Perhaps the first source referred to above was moved in an attempt to source individual words instead of to source the summary (don't remember). But all the sources after the second sentence of the first paragraph should be taken as the general support for both those sentences. I want to get away from any idea that I have to source individual words. B^e——C_ritical 18:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

So this, "OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work", is only backed by one source. Is that correct? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My solution? Scrap the Criticism section. Criticism sections are only ever wanted in articles by those with negative attitudes to the subject. That means they are inherently and unavoidably non-neutral POV. This breaches fundamental Wikipedia rules. Another problem is that as soon as we allow some criticism, the argument of "How much?" inevitably arises. So, no Criticism section. Then this dispute disappears. I don't mean this post as a joke. Criticism sections are the bane of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

First I want to say that I believe both BeCritical and Somedifferentstull are excellent editors. I have found that Sds is exceptional when it comes to careful of checking of the article to be certain that it remains clear of POV edits. BeCritical is exceptional when it comes to patience and fairness on the talk page and is mindful of avoiding POV in his edits, as well. I would have preferred using the words "Some conservatives... (etc.)" and I would also have preferred inserting the references after each critical word or phrase rather than expect the reader to hunt through the refs to be sure they were there. I believe that this matter could have been settled on the talk page if Sds were more willing to spend more time in discussion than is his/her habit. His/her reluctance to bother using the talk page has been a problem before. I'm sure that none of us enjoy the sometimes endless discussions, but it's the un-fun part of being an editor and we all need to do it. Gandydancer (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Gandydancer. You're right, this could have been, and could yet be, resolved by various changes to the text (quotes or whatever). But I don't feel I need to source every word, because I don't have to pick every word from a source, I can use my own words. People should say where I got the meaning wrong, and they should be willing to read the quotes I provided. HiLo48, I don't have a negative attitude to the subject, but I think criticism sections are good sometimes. Somedifferentstuff, no that general theme is supported by other sources as well if you look, but one good source is sufficient. Also it's supported not only by the source but by the Tea Party statement the source quotes: "As a widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group put it, demonstrators want "a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills." Anyway, I'm sure we could work something out if you choose to engage. More: [5] [6]. Really, honestly, the section is well sourced. I'm sure it could use improvement, but seriously... B^e——C_ritical 06:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm a clerk here at this noticeboard, and I'm not involved in this dispute. First of all, let me say that I think that material describing the reaction of conservatives and Tea Party absolutely does belong in the article. However, I think there are two issues with using BeCritical's material as it stands. The first is that the quoting, attribution and neutrality could be improved. For example, take the text "Conservatives and Tea Party activists say OWS is a shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob of unemployed left-wing zealots engaged in class warfare". While qualified with "Conservatives and Tea Party activists", the description "shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob of unemployed left-wing zealots" is presented in Wikipedia's voice, which I don't think is very desirable. In my opinion, this could be better done either by using more neutral language or by using quotations. I would favour something like 'Conservatives and Tea Party activists have criticised the movement, and have described members as variously "shiftless", "indolent", "messy", and "anti-Semitic". Some critics have used stronger language still; Author X referred to them as a "drug-addled mob of unemployed left-wing zealots"'. To BeCritical - I'm sure that this wording can also be improved, and of course any wording will depend on what the individual sources say (which I have not checked), but this could be a direction that you might want to consider.

The second issue that I saw was the larger structure of the article. On skimming through it, it struck me immediately that while there is a "criticism" section, there is no "support" section. Instead, there is a large "reaction" section detailing reaction from various sectors of society. In the interests of balancing the article to be structurally neutral, I think this should be changed. It would be hard to have a large "support" section and a large "criticism" section, as many views are somewhere in between - for example, from the first sentence we have "National polls from October to December 2011 were mixed", and I'm not sure which one we would put this in. I think it would be a better idea to weave the material in the criticism section into the other existing "reaction" subsections. You could maybe put the material about Conservatives and Tea Party activists in the "media reaction" section or a new "reaction from political activists" subsection, and material from politicians in the "political response" section. I'm sure it can all go somewhere, at any rate. On a slightly related note, the "reaction" section has become very large, and is taking up a sizeable chunk of the article. Have you considered splitting it? We could make a new article called something like Reaction to the Occupy Wall Street protest, which I think would benefit both the parent article and this dispute. What would everyone say to this? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Stradivarius, I'm working on it and may need a few days. Your suggestions for the text are good. I'm not sure exactly how they will work, because we're not using primary sources but secondary ones who are describing the reaction rather than quoting from it... so IOW, I'm not saying what the tea party says but rather how the source describes what the tea party says. But I'll work with it and see what I can come up with that will present the sources more directly, which I think is the gist of what you're saying. B^e——C_ritical 02:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good suggestions. It seems that at one time we did have these extremely critical reactions in the media section, but for the first few weeks many editors were making fairly drastic edits and shifting information around - it was hard to keep up with all the changes! It has been my experience that editing criticism into this article has been difficult - and we've had plenty of complaints that we've painted too rosy a picture of the movement because of that. But actually, criticisms have just not been available for us to use. Most notable personalities that made statements were very positive about the movement. Most of the media personalities were as well. Politicians, other than the Republican presidential candidates, have remained silent, perhaps because they know darn well that their constituents are mad as hell about the very things that the movement is protesting. About the only thing we've had to work with are the Fox News (type) comments, which have all been of the "lazy, dirty, hippies" sort. We were using direct quotes at one time - I don't remember what objections there were to that... I do remember that we have been damned if we did include them, and damned if we didn't. I've always supported their inclusion and would have included Hannity's and Coulter's as well.

As for splitting of the reactions, I agree that that would be a good plan. Gandydancer (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Where are Hannity's and Coulter's reactions? I've had a hard time actually finding RS which repeat them. Doesn't seem to get through the editorial discretion of RS. B^e——C_ritical 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Progressivism: 2.6 United States: List of progressive Congress members

• Progressivism#United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Editor 'TFD' (The Four Deuces) with a history of NPOV complaints continues an edit-war to remove three politicians I added over a year ago to the listing titled "Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included..."

I initially added Maxine waters, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama to this existing, un-cited list, thinking that the progressive self-identification of these individuals was common knowledge, as the rest of the names on the list were already un-cited. The initial removal happened during a flurry of edits that TFD did against several of my articles at the time, showing that he simply searched for my edits and removed all of them from every article.

after a couple edit wars, I brought it to the talk page, continually asking why TFD was only removing the three names I added to the list. He stated it was because they weren't cited. I repeatedly asked why he didn't remove the other uncited names from the list, and again reverted my edits. Every time I have checked the page over the past few months, I have seen that TFD has again removed the three names I added to the list, but left the other un-cited names on the list.

Today, I provided fully cited references from the NY Times and from transcriptions of debates, where the people I was trying to add to the list *self-identified* themselves as progressives. TFD now states that they really aren't progressives regardless of what they were recorded on tape saying about *themselves*.

TFD's profile shows a history of issues regarding left-leaning political advocacy on WP. For some reason, it appears he doesn't want Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Maxine Waters on the list of notable progressives in Congress (current and former) for political reasons. Perhaps because the label 'progressive' has had an increasing level of public negativity in recent years, but I can only guess. My point here is there has to be a reason he is only removing these three fully-cited names, but leaves the uncited ones in the list. Any suggested solutions of "removing the list entirely" is not addressing the issue, so it is not the right way to go on this.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• The_Four_Deuces (talk · contribs)
• 216.114.194.20 (talk · contribs)

See TFD's history of sanctions.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Progressivism: 2.6 United States: List of progressive Congress members}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

talk page, third opinions

• How do you think we can help?

identify if the removal from the list of these three cited names, while leaving the rest of the uncited names intact is acceptable. Identify if TFD is continuing a history of NPOV issues that may warrant escalation.

216.114.194.20 (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Progressivism: 2.6 United States: List of progressive Congress members discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Progressivism#United_States_section_-_list_of_Progressives_in_Congress--216.114.194.20 (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As the article correctly points out, there is a Congressional Progressive Caucus, and the more conservative democrats are in the Blue Dog Coalition. In between are the New Democrats, the group to which Clinton belonged. Obama has never belonged to any group. While individuals may be associated with the views of any of these groups without being members, Clinton and Obama are more likely to be associated with the center of the party. In any case, isolated comments by them that they are progressive are insufficient sources that they are associated with the progressive wing. The inclusion of Waters, while accurate, is questionable since she is one of the lesser known representatives, although she made news because of an ethics investigation which is ongoing. TFD (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As was discussed in the Talk page, this is NOT a list of active members of the Progressive caucus. There is another page for that. This is a list of "notable current and former progressives in the US Senate". Just because a politician isn't active in the progressive caucus doesn't mean they aren't progressive. Nancy Pelosi, and early founding member of the Progressive Caucus is a good example of this - she left when she pursued Democratic party leadership. I enjoy hamburgers, but I don't belong to a hamburger fanpage. Waters is not a "minor" member. She was a founder of the Progressive caucus, and is a high-ranking, influential, and well-known long-term Congresswoman. That comment about Waters is going down the road of hair-splitting --216.114.194.20 (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a mediator/clerk here at DRN. Just off the top of my head, and without much research, here's what I think:

• If 216 feels that TFD is singling out his or her edits for examination, 216 should read the policy on Wikihounding and take the action recommended there, first giving careful consideration to the third paragraph of that section. Such considerations are, however, conduct disputes not within the remit of this noticeboard.
• We judge edits, not editors, so except for Wikihounding, an editor's motivations in making edits is largely irrelevant.
• TFD's objection to and removal of unsourced material was proper. Per the verifiability policy, the best practice is to {{fact}}-tag unsourced material and allow a reasonable period of time for it to be removed, but it is acceptable to just go ahead and remove it. Similarly, the fact that TFD makes that objection to some material in an article and not to other material was also acceptable (though, again, it may or may not be evidence of Wikihounding). We're all volunteers here and while the best practice might be to deal with all unsourced material in an article, there's no policy or rule that requires anyone to do so.
• The list is not a list of members of any particular caucus and the article is about progressivism, not about a particular caucus. The objection that they were not members of the Progressive Caucus is unavailing.
• A person's self-identification about his or her beliefs is usually relevant, so long as there is no question about its authenticity (see, in general, WP:SELFPUB). Because beliefs can be mere posturing or can change, such self-identifications are not immune from being challenged, but such challenges must come in the form of other reliable sources which directly contradict the self-identification and, in that instance, the remedy is not to remove the sourced self-identification but to add the challenge or, as one editor once put it to me, to teach the contradiction. Having said that, however, I do think that there is a legitimate question here: Sources must unambiguously support the assertion made in the article. This is a list of "Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress". In the context of this article and of the paragraph in which the list appears, I feel that "progressive members" must be read together. That is, in my opinion, this is not a list of notable members who happen to be progressives, but is instead a list of members generally identified as, and notable for being, progressives. In that light, mere self-identification is not sufficient to support the idea that these individuals are generally identified as, and notable for being, progressives. Though it would have been better to have {{fact}}-tagged them and left them in the list, their removal was, in my opinion, acceptable.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

One can read about Obama's 2009 statement (cited by the IP) where a progressive asks if he has moved to the center and he replies "I am somebody who is no doubt progressive", which was reported in The Progressive.[7] There is no record that he every called himself progressive at any other time. It seems to be too flimsy to say that he is a progressive rather than in the center of the party. Google "obama "progressive democrats"" and all the stories are about tension between Obama and the progressives.[8] TFD (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Honor killing naming discussion

• Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Honor killing of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Honor killing of Hatun Sürücü (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Honor killing of Fadime Sahindal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Honor killing of Samaira Nazir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Honor killing of Ghazala Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

User:Plot Spoiler moved these six articles from "Killing of" to "Honor killing of". User:Kevin McE moved them back and User:Plot Spoiler reverted his move. He then requested article be listed as a DYK. User:Kevin McE evidently saw this and thought it improper, reverted it and did a move request after Plot Spoiler reverted it. I saw his move request regarding moving Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh back to Killing of Sadia Sheikh appeared at Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Article alerts‎. I went to the talk page and expressed my ambivalence about doing this for the one article at the page. I was concerned because other women/feminism articles had been used as defacto Muslim bashing articles and I had gotten death threats from a sock puppet on one of them for disputing this behavior. Another editor discusses this at my talk page. Given this history, it seemed natural for me to leave a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. User:Plotspoiler complained I was canvassing and administrator User:Jayjg reverted my announcement calling it "blatant" and later mocked my explanations for its relevance here and here; in the latter case he mocked my saying we might have to bring the dispute to this noticeboard. Later I discovered that six articles had been changed from killing to honor killing by User:Plotspoiler and that four of them explicitly mentioned this involved Muslims. I proposed here that given the controversy of these six moves, proper Move Request policy be followed and said again that I though posting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam would be proper. Both User:PlotSpoiler and User:Jayjg ignored my proposal to follow proper procedure. And User:Jayjg replied here: "Hard to believe these retroactive and absurdly weak excuses still continue. Carol, you got off easy; please accept your good fortune and move on." I believe he was inferring I was lucky he didn't sanction me for canvassing!

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Kevin McE (talk · contribs)
• Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Improper renaming of six articles}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

per the above, much discussion at Talk:Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh (only discussion on the page)

• How do you think we can help?

First, given these are controversial moves, should User:PlotSpoiler revert his changes and go to Wikipedia:Requested_moves and do a multiple listing of all six articles so the wider community can comment on each article's talk page? (Note: some are more notable than others in general; some have more refs than others labeling them "honor killings.") Second, since I believe bias colors both editors labeling of "canvassing" - especially after it was discovered this involved six articles, four explicitly about Muslims - I'd like a neutral opinion on whether mentioning this Move Request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam is canvassing. WP:Canvass explicitly says appropriate notification can be made on: The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion. I think this is just as relevant to this wikiproject as to Wikiproject Feminism where I first saw the notice and did finally put a posting.

CarolMooreDC 20:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Honor killing naming discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

First of all, many of the points addressed have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand. Her accusations of "Muslim bashing" are unfounded and a severe lack of WP:AGF. Secondly, the article, Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh, has not one mention of Islam so it was clearly inappropriate for her to canvas for comment at WP:Islam, regardless of the content of the other honor killing articles (which she only checked retroactively).

At the time when I originally renamed these articles, over a week ago, there was no dispute and these articles had been mostly dormant. I renamed the articles as such, with the honor killing title, because that it was what makes all of these articles notable. The individuals aren't themselves notable but as recognized honor killings they are. In some articles "Murder of..." is used and in others "Killing of..." At the same time though, sometimes more specific terminology is used if that's what makes the event notable, such the Lynching of Jesse Washington. In this case, the determination that it was an honor killing is what makes this event notable, rather than it simply being a murder or killing. Honor killing has become the accepted term for the homicide of a member of a family or social group by other members due to the belief of the perpetrators that the victim has brought dishonor upon the family or community. It need not be viewed as a euphemism -- in fact, the term is not even mentioned once in the honor killing article.

Ultimately, I am prepared for a fair discussion of how these articles should be titled but carolmoore shouldn't be slandering me as being part of some Muslim-bashing campaign. A lot of this just seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, especially given that Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh passed all DYK criteria. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If all the articles are about Muslims, and the editor makes multiple possibly controversial changes without community discussion, and the editor edits regularly in aspects related to the topic, one can't help but wonder. Additionally your claiming the six articles were not notable until you make them so by adding "honor" to killing sounds like a strangely WP:POV/WP:OR argument. Perhaps some of these articles should in fact be AfD'd. Also, I don't think that whoever did the DYK review knew you'd changed the names of all six articles. And it was the speedy DYK after the name change that brought that one change to the attention of other editors in the first place, followed by the other five. In any case, all I'm asking for is a proper Request Move review of all six articles which would no long make the name changes open to suspicions of a quiet POV campaign. And the right of members of Wikiproject Islam to know that the Request for Move discussion is happening. CarolMooreDC 21:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again, not all the articles are necessarily about Muslims and the Sadia Sheikh article does not once speak of Muslims or Islam so it has nothing to do with WP:Islam unless youare saying that only Muslims are responsible for honor killings, which isn't the case (Sikhs, Hindus, etc.). Therefore, it is not the right of WP:Islam members to be canvassed for participation in the article by you. And the DYK had nothing to do with those other articles -- just Sadia Sheikh. Stop obfuscating the issue and watch your borderline personal attacks by insinuating this is some secret anti-Muslim campaign. The only question at hand is whether "honor killing" should be retained in the title or not. Drop all your other nonsense. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have little or no interest in the issue of whether the RM was mentioned at WP:Islam or not (I would not see neutral mention of a matter of interest as canvassing, but anyway), but am disappointed that Plot Spoiler repeats his/her POV that the description "need not be viewed as a euphemism" when clear evidence that many RSs consider it to be such has been presented and not replied to. Which dispute do people actually have an interest in resolving here? Kevin McE (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully a neutral editor can opine on whether articles that don't mention Muslims (though WP:RS might) can not be mentioned at Wikiproject Islam.

Re Kevin's discussion of the actual addition of "honor," I don't have a problem with issues about appropriateness of word being brought in. Just believe it needs to be done on six different unique articles with different WP:RS and different levels of notability. User:Plot Spoiler wrote he wants whatever is decided at Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh to rule the other articles. If he has changed his mind and is willing to revert back to the original names and then do a proper multiple name change request, then people can get into a variety of such issues on the talk page of each article. Then we would be done here. CarolMooreDC 01:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(Outside editor opinion) CarolMooreDC admits that she went to WikiProject Islam to solicit opinions to stop a move (Sadia Sheikh) that she thought could be "used as defacto Muslim bashing". She presented no reliable sources at the time connecting the portrayals of that death to "Muslim bashing" that would justify contacting WikiProject Islam as part of normal move procedure. Therefore, this was a case of malicious canvassing. If the Sadia Sheikh move was formally a multiple move request that involved honor killings of/by Muslims, then it might have been appropriate to contact WikiProject Islam. Shrigley (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree. CarolMooreDC was correct in taking the issue to WikiProject Islam. The honor killing of Sadia Sheikh has Islamic ramifications even if those ramifications are not now in the article. The multiple article naming issue is something the WikiProject Islam people would want to know about. Carol is not guilty of malicious canvassing. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• It strikes me that the dispute is over a cultural issue and subjective judgement over whether these killings were 'proper' or not. Naming articles in such a fashion are, IMHO, in breach of WP:NPOV and WP:EDITORIAL. By prefacing the article title with "Honor", we are acceding to a bias to the "orthodoxy" of the killings in the eyes of the muslim code and against the general moralistc code, such as "Murder of". Wording in favour of one or other would be wrong. Instead of "Honor killing of" or "Killing of", we could adopt a more standard and neutral wording used in numerous WP articles. I would propose that we simply and objectively use "Death of" – no value judgement is thereby stated or implied. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • If the only reason that the killing is notable is because it is an "honor killing", and if the WP:RS use that terminology - as they seem to do on the articles concerned - then it might be more editorial for Wikipedia to use some other word for it. However, the dispute is really about the propriety of contacting WikiProject Islam to influence a move discussion on an article that doesn't involve Islam or Muslims (as Sadia Sheikh doesn't), as part of some grand noble scheme to improve Muslim public relations. Wikipedia:Canvassing makes it clear that such messages are an abuse of Wikipedia. Shrigley (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"if the WP:RS use that terminology - as they seem to do on the articles concerned" but they only use the term in inverted commas, that is, in a manner whereby they are effectively saying "this is claimed to be a matter of honour but there seems nothing inherently honourable about it". We cannot show such nuances in an article title, so we should use what is unequivocably true: they were killings. Kevin McE (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • OK, so would you say that the canvassing is a primary issue or secondary one? I thought all assembled wanted a resolution on what title would be most appropriate? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
      • That's just Carol's ex post facto excuse for canvassing the WP:ISLAM board. She had no idea that the articles had been renamed when she first canvassed the board, and insisted she wanted dispute resolution for the canvassing issue. Later she discovered the article renamings, and then pretended that was what it had been about all along. As you can see, though, her story doesn't quite hang together, which is why you were confused as to what it's really about. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The initiator of this discussion (Carol) asks two things: One, "Should User:PlotSpoiler revert his changes and go to Wikipedia:Requested_moves and do a multiple listing of all six articles"? and two, for "a neutral opinion on whether mentioning this Move Request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam is canvassing." As Jayjg says, #1 seems to be less an actual request for dispute resolution than a rhetorical flourish connecting disparate Muslim and non-Muslim killings in order to retroactively justify her improper canvassing of Muslims. The actual discussion about the title is still happening at Talk:Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh#Requested move. Shrigley (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• I've cross-posted this case to WP:NPOVN and WT:AT asking for more comments. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see two related disputes here: the content dispute about the naming of the articles, and the conduct dispute about Carol's alleged canvassing. I think we should keep the content dispute to the requested move discussion - as it says at the top of this page, this noticeboard is not a place to take disputes already being discussed at another venue, and I don't think much will be gained by discussing the actual article naming here. I echo Kevin McE's sentiment that there has been evidence brought up there that hasn't been replied to, and I encourage editors to comment on the content issue there without getting distracted by the allegations of canvassing - we can deal with those here instead.

So, let me see if I can tease apart the different issues related to these allegations. In the original article, currently titled Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh, there is no mention of Islam, and honour killings themselves are not inherently connected to religion, per our article Honor killing. So there is no direct connection of the article to Islam. However, honour killings are often discussed in connection with Islam - note the mentions of the Qu'ran in the previous link - and as Sadia Sheikh's family were from Pakistan, it seems reasonable to deduce that they were Muslim. (Although, per the honor killing article, Sadia Sheikh's case may have had more to do with Pakistani culture and little or nothing to do with Islam.) So, I think it is fair to say that the article is indirectly related to Islam.

Now, in WP:CANVASS it says notifying WikiProjects that are directly relevant is acceptable, but it doesn't say anything about WikiProjects that are indirectly relevant. It says that vote-stacking is definitely unacceptable, but what exactly constitutes vote-stacking is open to interpretation. My view is that the notifying of WikiProject Islam fell in a grey area, and that different editors will see it in different lights. Because of this, it was probably a mistake on Carol's part to post the initial notification without asking other participants in the requested move first. However, I see the action as having been made in good faith, and I don't agree with Shrigley's view above that it was "malicious canvassing", or with Jayjg saying that Carol was "caught", etc. although I think Jayjg was probably right to remove the notification. However, now that the focus of the discussion has broadened to other articles that use "honor killing of" in the title, and because honor killings are often discussed in relation to Islam, I think that now the discussion is relevant to WikiProject Islam, so I would support another notification being made there on these grounds. I can see that this dispute has been quite bitter for all involved, but I don't think that any further action is really appropriate here, so I encourage everyone to leave this incident behind and to get on with improving the encylopaedia. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The multiple name changes withoutpassing it by the community is the bigger and more important issue to me. That is what this should focus on and has not as of yet What the actual name should be is the third issue and I'm sorry I didn't list it. However, it still can be discussed and possibly settled here Talk:Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh.

Mr. Stradivarius did a good summary of the canvassing issue. I did not notice whether the article explicitly mentioned Muslims. If I had had a more polite response from a more neutral editor, I might have seen the error of my ways. (Or else I might have looked at existing sources for the article to see if several made a big deal of the fact they were Muslims in a way that might be relevant to the article.) Once I noticed the multiple article name changes, and that all of individuals evidently were Muslim, it became clear it was a relevant place to post a notice. CarolMooreDC 15:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the page moves, Plot Spoiler's move at Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh wasn't a problem, as he was simply reverting Kevin McE's move. However, at the other 5 articles he reverted Kevin McE's revert, when the proper course of action would have been to simply list those articles at the requested move discussion at Talk:Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh. I also think this was done in good faith, though, and I see what they were getting at with their rationale of "Moving back to previous title until parallel discussion at Talk:Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh is resolved". I think next time it would be better for Plot Spoiler to list the discussion at requested moves rather than reverting someone's page move revert, but again, I don't think there's anything that requires further action here. Let's see if the current requested discussion reaches a consensus and take things from there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Kevin McE did not revert any of the titles here. They started at title A; Plot Spoiler moved them to title B; Kevin McE moved them to title C. (See the histories, as [9].) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. My apologies to everyone - I totally misread this, and I really should have checked more thoroughly before making my post. So actually there was no problem at all. I was confused because I was looking at Honor killing of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin, which moved from "Murder of" to "Honor killing of" to "Killing of" to "Honor killing of" - but looking at it again, that's not a problem either. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 20:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• We should only have "Killing of" or "Death of" in our article titles. Honor killing should not be given an air of acceptance in Wikipedia's voice. Reliable sources often put the honor of honor killing in scare quotes to signify its unacceptable quality in Western culture. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That is definitely the other side of the coin which only occurred to me earlier today. That's why we need community input! CarolMooreDC 19:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So is it "safe" for me to post the updated/clarified notice below to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam or will I get "in trouble" with an Admin??

Requested move on Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh: This is the only topic on Talk:Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh. Proposal is to change the title back to to Killing of Sadia Sheikh. Note the following articles also were changed recently to "honor" killing: Honor killing of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin, Honor killing of Hatun Sürücü, Honor killing of Fadime Sahindal, Honor killing of Samaira Nazir, Honor killing of Ghazala Khan. (signed)

I have gotten support for doing so from several editors, here and elsewhere. CarolMooreDC 00:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

So is it "safe" for me to post...Whilst it is not ordinarily problematic to notify on relevant noticeboards, I'm not sure in this particular case. It seems obvious that certain cultures subscribe strongly to the concept of "honour killing", but it is not a concept generally accepted in the Western world, posting any such notification there could be construed as vote-stacking in that message is posted "to users selected based on their known opinions". I would suggest perhaps posting to WP:VP or {{cent}} as a better option. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... while I would support it, I can't speak for other editors, so it is probably safer not to. Instead I suggest notifying the WikiProjects who have tagged the articles, as no-one can reasonably contest the fact that they are directly relevant. It should already show up on their article alerts, but you may get a better response by leaving a message on the projects' talk pages. Ultimately, it's up to you how safe you want to play it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for advice. Though as discussed on the article talk page, Wikiproject Islam might have BOTH strong supporters and opposers of the proposal. So actually some excellent insights might be generated. FYI, after 5 years it hadn't occurred to me that the listing of Wikiprojects on an article talk page was an indication of best place to post a notice. So much to learn, so little time. Anyway... Put it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. If no response at all, perhaps will try Wikiproject Pakistan which is currently also listed in the article. CarolMooreDC 17:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to the WP:Consensus violation issue

Ok, now that I've admitted to my stupidity on canvassing, can we get back to my other main issue? The abuse of WP:Consensus by User:Plot Spoiler reverting without discussion User:Kevin McE's reverts of name changes to six articles? There is now an even split among various users brought in from the community about moving names BACK to the original. But that debate should be about changing it to a NEW title - and there's clearly no consensus to do that. So it is more important than ever that we deal with this original violation. Discussion at: Talk:Honor_killing_of_Sadia_Sheikh#Consensus_policy_and_BRD_demand_reverts_to_originals. CarolMooreDC 16:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarity, Kevin McE didn't revert. As I've pointed out at that discussion, he actually imposed new names on them. Five of the articles were originally at entirely different titles; User:Plot Spoiler reverted to his own, but not to the original. User:Plot Spoiler's reversion of the 6th restored the original title. The dispute overview above is mistaken as to what's happened. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct on this one article. I got confused because User:Plot Spoiler wanted to apply the decision made at Sadia Sheikh to Honor killing of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin, Honor killing of Hatun Sürücü, Honor killing of Fadime Sahindal, Honor killing of Samaira Nazir, Honor killing of Ghazala Khan. I guess I should just raise the issue of moving them back each of those talk pages. Sigh... CarolMooreDC 17:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I am correct in all of the articles. Kevin McE did not "revert" Plot Spoiler. He moved every article to an entirely new title. I don't particularly care which title these articles wind up at, but I am concerned that you are mischaracterizing Plot Spoiler's actions here -- he did not revert a revert. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, after checking the edit histories again, I can see that Moonriddengirl is right about all the articles. My original comment on them above was based on a sloppy misreading. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The principle remains the same. User:Plot Spoiler still should have reverted to the original name - whatever it was - since User:Kevin McE had a problem with his change to "honor killing." This is a good example of why when people start changing titles, it should revert to the original while discussions are going on. Especially when they do five or six at a time, which makes things very confusing. The onus remains on User:Plot Spoiler to do the right thing. CarolMooreDC 04:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Northern Football League (Australia)

• Northern Football League (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

There is a content dispute on this page that has got to the point of a violation of WP:HEAR, and has already resulted in one block for a violation of WP:3RR. It involves whether or not the Parkside Football Club's premiership in 2009 was a proper premiership or not, and involves a clash of verifiable evidence combined with attempts at WP:OR on the interpretation of the league's by laws governing promotion and relegation of teams from higher or lower divisions. It's a very complex issue involving the by laws of the competition concerned and a lack of verifiable evidence for the claims being made by one editor in particular.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Footy Freak7 (talk · contribs)
• 60.240.231.203 (talk · contribs)
• 121.214.59.64 (talk · contribs)
• A Living God (talk · contribs)
• Jevansen (talk · contribs)

It should be noted that an SPI was done on the 60 IP and he has a sock account in Hornberger1. Or vice versa maybe. The 60 IP has been baiting Footy Freak7 on both this entry's discussion and subsequently the article's talk page with leading statements. This tactic could also be described as an act of gaming the system.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Northern Football League (Australia)}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

This matter has been discussed on the talk page, but it has become clear to me that IP 60 just won't listen anymore. He insists that his verifiable evidence is true and correct and won't accept that the by laws are an issue.

• How do you think we can help?

Basically we need more eyes on this under WP rules. There is a clash of verifiable evidence, and if more people can (if appropriate) point out to IP 60 that he must provide more verifiable evidence and independent at that to support his interpretation of the by laws he might just back off and accept the situation as it stands. It may also be prudent to look at the issue of baiting and gaming and try to settle on the correct wording to the footnote that exists on main article page.

Footy Freak7 (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Northern Football League (Australia) discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

There is no clash of verifiable evidence. I have evidence that Parkside won the division 3 premiership in 2009.
http://www.sportingpulse.com/club_info.cgi?c=1-3913-48184-0-0&sID=48046&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=10032783
Elsewhere, Parkside were able to overcome a one goal half-time deficit to win the inaugural Division 3 premiership. Having been the favourite going into the game, Parkside continued their excellent 2009 form and ran out 16 point winners, 12.9 (81) to Hurstbridge's 8.17 (65).
http://nfl.org.au/images/records/2011%20NFL%20Annual%20Report.pdf
http://nfl.org.au/History/league-premiers.html
http://nfl.org.au/Football-Division-2-3/finally.html
http://diamond-valley-leader.whereilive.com.au/sport/story/nfl-third-division-gets-go-ahead/
The make-up of the grades will remain the same, with no promotion for inaugural Division 3 premier Parkside.

Footy Freak argues that the NFL by-laws requires the premiers of 3rd division to be promoted in into 2nd division the following year. As Parkside was not promoted it couldn't have been an official premiership.
http://nfl.org.au/images/downloads/2011bylaws/by%20laws%2024%2002%2010%20new%20copy.doc

• 5.3 Promotion/Relegation
  • (a) Subject to clauses 5.1 and 5.2 above, a club shall be entitled to participate in the division in which it participated in the previous season PROVIDED THAT the club whose A Grade team were premiers in Division 2 in the previous season shall be promoted to Division 1 and the club whose A Grade team finished bottom in Division 1, shall be relegated to Division 2. The same shall apply between Division 2 and Division 3.
  • (b) The Board may otherwise promote, relegate or refuse to promote any club in the event that:
    • (i) the club cannot field a full complement of teams for the forthcoming season;
    • (ii) playing facilities of the club are not of a sufficient standard for the division in which the team is to compete in the next season;
    • (iii) there are any other circumstances which, in the opinion of the Board, require a club to be promoted, relegated or refused promotion, including those clubs that have not met their financial commitments to the NFL.

His argument is wrong because while section 5.3(a) does say the club shall be promoted 5.3 (b)(iii) say that a club may be refuse promotion for any circumstances which the NFL board deems necessary. Therefore the NFL by-laws do not support his agrument as NFL by-laws clearly allow for a club to win a premiership and not get promoted. The only verifable source that we have are the League's offical history, the local newspaper and the club itself and they all say Parkside won the division 3 premiership in 2009.60.240.231.203 (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

IP 60 refuses to provide evidence that 5.3 (b)(iii) was actually applied. Until he does so, it wasn't for all intents and purposes applied, and neither was any other aspect of 5.3(b). He must prove that it was. As long as he can't prove that it was, it wasn't - and we have the clash of evidence I have always stated. That Parkside should have been promoted to Division 2 in 2010 under section 5.3(a) and were not. That verifiable evidence comes from the very link that IP 60 provided - the by laws of the NFL. Just saying 5.3(b)(iii) was applied is not enough. He must prove that it was and with verifiable evidence independent of the subject matter - or provide a proper citation of the 2009 version of the by laws (the date on the linked version of the by laws is early 2010) in which it has been alleged that there was a temporary rule change allowing for Parkside to stay in Division 3 despite winning the premiership. It should be noted that 5.3(b) has never been applied in the history of the multiple division competition - except for the once. In 1987 when Watsonia won the Division 2 premiership but were not promoted. On that occasion 5.3(b)(i) was applied as Watsonia were battling for numbers and in fact almost folded outright at one point. It should also be noted that because the by laws didn't allow the bottom team of Division 1 to stay in Division 1 there was a bye in Division 1 in 1988.

I think I've said all I need to say here. Footy Freak7 (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It is your opinion that Parkside winning the premiership violates the NFL by-laws therefore the onus is on you to prove that it was a violation of the by-laws. You have not done so because the by-laws clearly allow for a club to win a flag and not get promoted.60.240.231.203 (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have 3 source that claim Parkside won the division 3 premiership. Unless you can provide evidence that their was a breach of the NFL by-laws you have no grounds to oppose my edits. Saying the by-laws haven't been applied in certain way in the past in no way proves that they couldn't have applied so in this case. The NFL by-laws allows for a club win a premiership and not get promoted. Parkside won the premiership and was not promoted. On the evidence you have provided their has been no breack of the NFL by-laws.60.240.231.203 (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about. He won't listen. He claims that the provision exists within the by laws for Parkside not to be promoted, and he is yet to prove that this provision was actually used. His claim at present is WP:OR and he has no back up. My claim is backed up 100 percent by the by laws and history of the competition which is easily sourced through newspaper content both online and offline. A casual read of the by laws under 5.3(a) shows clearly that Parkside should have been promoted to Division 2. At no stage in the history of the competition has 5.3(b)(iii) been applied. IP 60 must provide evidence that it was - in specifics including the specific reason why it was applied. Until then, there is no evidence that any part of 5.3(b) was applied so 5.3(a) stands as is. Critical information is missing and that is what IP 60 refuses to provide.

I think we can now see the basis of the dispute and I ask again for assistance to help IP 60 see what the issue is. I personally believe that this IP is a tetentious editor but as I am yet to fully grasp the proper application of the ID of such a user - given that in reverting I admit to possibly being guilty of edit warring - I am unable to take that further at present. That's another reason why help is needed. Numbers. It's a shame that it has come to this and Moondyne (who is NOT involved in this dispute) did the right thing locking the NFL page from editing for a month with my last edit in place. Accuracy under Wikipedia rules is important, and I do not believe that IP 60's edits are verifiable due to the clash of evidence that he claims doesn't exist. I hope I have proven to the casual reader that it does - and don't be surprised if IP 60 tries again to press his point on the next edit without adding anything new. If he does as I predict it will prove my point and I won't need to add anything (unlike on this occasion where some further clarification was required). Footy Freak7 (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If you guys are going to treat this place as a continuation of the Northern Football League talk page (first argument was a copy and paste), then there wasn't really much point coming here. I think you both need to wait for a mediator or clerk to enter into this discussion and go from there. Jevansen (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't my intention, Jevansen, but I admit to being sucked in by IP 60 if accused of such. Footy Freak7 (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am a mediator/clerk here at DRN. It is not uncommon here at Wikipedia, especially in "fannish" areas such as (but not limited to) sports and entertainment, for articles to be created and discussion to go on for a long time on principles which are utterly different from, and often contrary to, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is also not uncommon for disputes in such articles to eventually boil over into other areas, such as dispute resolution, and for the dispute to then be settled in a way which may be unexpected to the participants. In this case, the fact that the NFL identifies Parkside both on its website and in its 2011 annual report as the 2009 premiership holder is clearly an adequate reliable source to include that information in the article. An assertion in the article that its premiership is open to question in some degree or manner can also be included in the article, but only if a reliable source can be found to directly support that assertion by expressly saying that it is questionable. To take bylaw provisions and use them as an argument to make that assertion here at Wikipedia is clearly prohibited synthesis, as prohibited by the original research policy. Since that assertion is improper, attempting to bring it into the article in the manner attempted at Northern_Football_League_(Australia)#Footnote by mentioning the bylaw (actually only part of the bylaw) and the fact that Parkside was not promoted is equally prohibited synthesis and is also a violation of the WP:INDISCRIMINATE and, especially, the WP:NOTSOAPBOX subparts of the What Wikipedia is Not policy. Unless a reliable source can be provided for the assertion that Parkside's 2009 premiership was somehow not a full premiership, all suggestion of it must be excluded from the article under Wikipedia policy. Parkside's premiership should be included in the Premiership results box and the Northern_Football_League_(Australia)#Footnote must be deleted. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Respell used for foreign names

• Patryk Małecki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kazimierz Moskal (footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

User:84.10.140.247 is adding unreferenced approximately spelling of Polish names using Template:Respell which is designed to be used to show the pronunciation of English words or names. We can read in tempalte documentation that "The respelling key covers only English pronunciation, and should not be used for foreign names or words which have not been assimilated into English".

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• 84.10.140.247 (talk · contribs)
• Oleola (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Template:Respell used for foreign names}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I informed User:84.10.140.247 that his edits are unreferenced and Template:Respell is designed to be used to show the pronunciation of English words or names.

• How do you think we can help?

Should this pronunciation be kept or not?

Oleola (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Respell used for foreign names discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Hi Oleola, and thanks for posting here. I agree with you about {{respell}} - we should only use that for English names. I can see why the IP editor would like help with pronunciation using something other than the IPA, but it appears that we don't have any provision for doing this. I assume that this is because the result would not be an accurate reflection of the Polish sounds. I think the best way to solve this problem would be to find a Polish speaker to record some audio files for us, but I can appreciate that would take effort to organize. Whether we can get audio files or not, the {{respell}} template shouldn't go in the articles here as it would go against the manual of style. I'll leave a note on the talk page of both articles, and remove the respell template. If the IP reverts again, then we can take it to WP:AN3. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Tikun Olam (blog)

• Tikun Olam (blog) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

I am trying to make an edit regarding the reliability of Richard Silverstein, who is often cited in the mainstream media, as a journalist. The blogger Aussie Dave from Israellycool initiated a sting operation to reveal Silverstein as someone who will take any anti-Israel information he receives and publish it, no matter the reliability, by "outing" himself with a fake Facebook account. Silverstein took the bait and never vetted the source. For someone who has acclaimed himself as the "WikiLeaks" of Israel, this is a huge misstep and worthy of mentioning on his page regarding his own veracity. User:Malik Shabazz reverted the edit, saying that a primary source is not acceptable. So I found a secondary source from a blog that cites the original, but to User:Malik Shabazz this is also not acceptable. I understand that a news article is preferable, but things like this will never be reported by the mainstream media, as it would be deemed "not important enough". I don't think the 3O understood this. Thus, I am asking for guidance and dispute resolution. The link to the relevant article is http://www.israellycool.com/2011/12/29/richard-silverstein-exposed/.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)
• DevilInPgh (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have tried discussing on the talk page, but User:Malik Shabazz will not accept investigative blog posts. I have also tried 3O.

• How do you think we can help?

Guidance for finding a reliable source that is acceptable to all parties, as the edit is important, or ruling on the veracity of Israellycool's reliability.

DevilInPgh (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Tikun Olam (blog) discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Hi DevilInPgh, and thanks for posting here. I'm afraid that Wikipedia has high standards for its sourcing, and that both Malik Shabazz and Dmitrij D. Czarkoff are correct in saying that in general, blogs cannot be used as references for Wikipedia articles. I very much doubt that you will receive a different answer than this from any experienced editor. If content cannot be sourced to a reliable source, then it should not be in Wikipedia. Sorry, but the policies and guidelines are quite clear on this. For futher reading you might want to take a look at WP:BLOGS and WP:USERGENERATED. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that something with documentary evidence must have the holy stamp of the mainstream media? Then maybe I should start editing Tikun Olam (blog) and removing any links originating from that blog or any other blog, considering I don't consider Tikun Olam (blog) to be a reliable source. Thanks for the suggestion. DevilInPgh (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

DevilInOgh, I suggest you read our policy on reliable sourcing, which explains the high standards for sourcing we hold. Blogs are only accepted as reliable if they are written by a professional journalist or writer and the blog is under editorial control of the newspaper the writer works for, as explained here. In any other case, a blog cannot be used as a reliable source. If you have a concern with another article's sourcing, take it up on the article's talk page - that should have no bearing on this discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

For articles about a blog, or for articles which mention blogs, then there is an exception - a blog can be used to verify simple factual material about itself. (Note that this doesn't extend to verifying opinions - have a look at the policy on primary sources for details.) So, yes, if you find articles that use blogs as sources, and the blogs are not written by experts or being used as primary sources, then by all means remove the sources and the content that it was supposed to be verifying. Or even better, replace the blog source with a reliable source. By doing these things, you would be increasing the reliability of Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

p.s. for the content area you are editing in, books and articles in academic journals may be better sources than the mainstream media. Of course, it depends on the individual sources - this is one of those areas in which editor judgement is required. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Doyle

• Ryan Doyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

A (reputable) user user who does not share my opinions about what constitutes reliable sources in the article in question has completely and absolutely refused to discuss any particulars of her concerns, not only quoting no policy clauses nor any mention of the context of the subject matter, but refusing to even discuss the matter on the discussion page in any form. I have spent tedious hours examining the many policies she's referred me to, revising my work, and addressing her points with increasing civility and clarity. This has been met with all but name-calling insult on top of nothing productive. She responds to structural patterns that absolutely raise questions, but have no base in light of excessive addressing of those potential issues. She shows all but no sign she has, nor has any intention of, becoming familiar with the subject matter.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Squish7 (talk · contribs)
• Cindamuse (talk · contribs)

She acts habitually with actions that I'm sure benefit the encyclopedia more often than not; e.g. she aids me in becoming a better editor by directing me to policy files that do/may apply. Her skill and attention to detail are meticulous, but she has shown no ability to process particular exceptions to intrinsic structural patterns that flag, but do not confirm, problem areas.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Ryan Doyle}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I've spent exhaustive time studying her concerns and addressing her points with precise attention to policy clauses, responding from an elite understanding and weighing of the context of the article and the sources she questions. She's addressed none of these particulars on the discussion page, and on her talk page, has collapsed to stating broad, insulting, surreal claims such as that I haven't even examined her references. She increasingly attacks my honesty and integrity, with less and less reference to anything relevant to the issue. I realize the totality of my claim here seems astoundingly unlikely, especially in light of her experience, but if you take into account all the information over the past month, it speaks for itself.

• How do you think we can help?

I would appreciate your suggestion on the most direct and efficient path to resolution. It may be difficult for me to go through a long series of intermediate steps, as I've done absolutely everything to resolve the issue peacefully. I can't imagine how anything but a ruling would solve the situation, but I am open to suggestions.

Squish7 (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Doyle discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

• Note: the linkrot issue has been addressed. All refs now use {{cite}} templates. Cheers, benzband (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the link rot remains. For further information, see Wikipedia:Link rot. We work to address linkrot by providing the exact title, author, publisher, and date of the source. If the link goes bad, this added information can help a future Wikipedian, either editor or reader, locate a new source for the original text, either online or a print copy. Feel free to contact me if you have questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I took the time to learn proper citing via your example when I first wrote the article. There are good reasons I wasn't thorough with my latest revision. 1. The way I'm utilizing sources is tricky, and I wanted the issue of whether or not they should even exist be solved before I went polishing. 2. I'm fatigued. I've spent hours, and hours, and hours adhering to your wishes, tediously reading files, revising, rewording, to no avail. I'm just plain tired. I didn't think it was an issue that needed immediate attention. Squish7 (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm a clerk at this noticeboard, and I haven't been involved with this dispute before. First off, I found the way this request was worded a little vague, so allow me to ask a question. Am I right in saying that this dispute has occurred because the article uses mostly primary sources, whereas Cindamuse would like to see it written with mostly secondary sources? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've utilized a wide, even spectrum of sources, everything down to Doyle's official webpage to completely independent news sources. Many of the sources re-inforce huge portions of the article, so much that I would have to have a dozen references at the end of each sentence to display how thoroughly Doyle's notability is. I gave tedious attention to laying down an exhaustive foundation, because I knew these issues (reliability of sources) would be raised. Doyle studied Media at Hope University, and professionally utilizes video publication as his main output to the world. Because he utilizes YouTube for the main bulk of his videos (a technicality, as they are linked to and embedded on a variety of other publishers), this flags the possibility I'm just throwing some random Joe's vlog videos up on Wikipedia. It's so absurd a possibility that I've probably spent a full-time work week into proving the reliability of his videos factually. Also note that many of these videos are produced by other parties. He just seems to accumulate a lot of them. He shot a 30-second Red Bull commercial, for instance, that is only on YouTube through his personal page. (Please note that identical videos on YouTube aren't permitted; if a video applies or involves multiple parties, only one copy can be featured.)

Cindy has accepted the infinitely minimal foundation (about ten sentences covering basic facts), yet objects as I move outward with treating Doyle's videos as strict self-publications. I've spent half of last month digesting the files she's referred me to, and can now back up my opinions with particulars. She refuses to address any specific clauses, or provide any references to the sources I've used. I am open to that the article may need revising, but no one has even attempted to attack the red tape I've laid out.

Please see "DISPUTE: Start Here" for more reference on the Doyle discussion page. Squish7 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You can find more information on the article's talk page, as well as my own and that of Squish7. Essentially, I came across the article as initially created, cleaned it up, and offered the creator a barnstar for encouragement, along with some guidance. User:Chzz and User:Peridon additionally offered assistance. Squish7 essentially disregarded the information, asserting notability through primary sources. There have been basic issues with cleanup and compliance with the MOS. We don't require that all sources are secondary, however, notability cannot be established through primary sources. Squish7 disagrees, asserting that the subject is an authority and as such, self-published sources, including personal videos, blogs, and his own website are sufficient as citations. I have encouraged him to make an inquiry at the reliable sources noticeboard, to no avail. Squish7 simply lacks a thorough understanding of the reliable sources guidelines, rationalizing that qualifiers used in various guidelines, such as "generally" essentially allow for loopholes (my term), while additionally claiming allowances to ignore all rules. WP:SPS states that, "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." The inclusion of the term "largely" offers another qualifier to which Squish7 uses to disregard the guideline altogether. In WP:SELFPUB, Squish7, interprets the content to allow self-published sources. The guidelines state, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field..." Squish7 interprets this to allow for the use of self-published sources, believing that the passage does not refer to the sources being allowed about the sources themselves, but rather the subject of the article, whatever or whoever that subject may be. Essentially, Squish7 has been misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions. He continued reverting cleanup and making threats of reports and whatnot. I've continually suggested that he simply contact the WP:RSN for further assistance, but he has failed to do so. I have continued to explain the various guidelines, while providing direct links for further information. He has insisted in proof and justification in legal terms that he is wrong. I can only point him to the policies and guidelines. Essentially, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. In my opinion, there is a clear competence issue. I have no dispute with this user. Squish7 has a dispute with the guidelines and has transferred his frustration onto me. I have suggested that he may benefit from seeking out a mentor through the adopt-a-user program. Hopefully, he'll consider it. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 22:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Doyle is a definitive "reliable source" per the condition that an expert constitutes one. The expertise I have given exhaustive proof of. Major statements from strongly objective sources (e.g. "Ryan Doyle is a world-renowed parkour athlete") give Doyle credibility for stating things that an expert would state, via more subjective publications (his website, etc.) If an established expert publishes a work, that work has serious weight as reliable, verifiable material. When I refer to passages governing questionable use, I'm usually attempting to reinforce what's already established. It's a secondary backing (i.e. that a lot of my use would strongly be covered under this rule; his philosophy largely constitutes information about himself, supporting the obvious that an expert in a subject should be able to speak of their own ideas of their area of expertise.)

My opinion of the source of Cindy's objection is her experience as a professional writer. She can't parse the idea of "publishing" via video networking. It's a completely new, non-textual medium, superior in many ways to thousands of years of text-only publications. Youths most utilize this medium, so it's rarely used for professional works. Doyle's college-level study of media give him even more weight to being able to utilize video networking professionally. Even further, Doyle deals with a discipline that is almost entirely youth-based (i.e. teens, 20s, etc.) He has infinite motive to utilize video networking the way he does. This is unorthodox to Cindy, so she alludes to passages that govern the issue, considering words like "largely" to blacklist the entire planetary medium of video networking from being utilized in any way in the largest online encyclopedia in the world. I believe this particular case to be the way she would argue for any reputable expert utilizing video networking as a professional means of output. Squish7 (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC) (revised)

Squish7, I appreciate what you're saying, but you need to understand that on Wikipedia we really like articles to be sourced to secondary sources, as they are generally better than primary sources in terms of neutrality and in proving that things are notable. You are welcome to use primary sources for citing simple facts, but an entire article constructed from primary sources is a problem. Looking through Google News and Google Books, I can't see many references that mention Doyle more than in passing. It may be that there is simply not enough secondary source material out there to create more than a very short article. I'm thinking that maybe the best solution here would be to create a new List of parkour athletes and redirect the article to Doyle's entry in it. Let me know what you both think of this suggestion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, this is the first time anybody has even graced explaining policy in context with the topic. That Ryan Doyle doesn't appear in Google News & Books, and other articles do, gives me a direct, useful measuring tool. I requested a particular review of the article the moment I created it, inquiring how well I did balancing sources. I've been redirected infinitely to the very guideilnes I carefully observed while writing it, inducing how I did from what has and hasn't been removed.

Off the bat, I was given negativity about the sources I've used (i.e. "we don't trust organizers like Red Bull"), and yet the stub article heavily referencing Red Bull remained completely intact. Combined with Cindy's praise, my only conclusion is that the context, the whole picture, is a very special and important factor that I utilized correctly. From there, she gave me more vague negatives, failing to address context, removing my work, referring to guidelines I digested so thoroughly I gave exhaustive explanations of my reasoning. All went unanswered. There answer isn't in all those specific clauses, because they don't solidly address the balance and whole picture, and they certainly don't comment on Ryan Doyle particularly.

I still disagree that I have too few secondary sources to warrant the length article that exists, or at least, I'm open to input. Still, nobody has addressed the balance of my sources. I reference five objective sources: American Parkour, parkour.com, Marvel comics, UWIRE / San Diego State University interview, and the Cayman Compass (a printed newspaper). Semi-objective sources (big organizations which have featured him or in which he's involved) include MTV, Red Bull, and the WFPF.

These eight sources lap over eachother significantly, such that his notability is referenced almost as much as more in-depth things, like his opinions/philosophies about parkour. If eight sources are enough to establish his basic ability, then 5 or 6 sources plus his personal sites which may especially be used for information about himself, such as his ideas, should be enough, I feel, to warrant the length of the article that's currently up. Please note Cindy has pruned down my references. I originally used 26 particulars for a mere 10 sentences. I understand the need for brevity, but the point is, I established an extra thorough foundation by heavily supporting those 10 sentences. I think that's enough to put forth that the videos I reference would be supported by those sources if they were to analyze them. His self-publication videos will not appear as "books" (in Google Books) because they are video-based. The freely open internet is such a good publication means, that his self-published works should have more weight than if he published more officially (i.e. he has no reason to go through standard publishers.) Squish7 (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

• 9/11 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Wholesale deletions of relevant, reliably-sourced material from the article.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs)
• Ghostofnemo (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=9/11 conspiracy theories}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

In the past we have had long, long discussions on the article talk page: [10] including Rfcs: [11] and here: [12] and at the NPOV noticeboard here: [13]. Generally I give up, his deletions stand, and I stop editing as it seems to go nowhere and the deletions just continue. This editor has apparently been sanctioned in the past for deleting other editors contributions to this article: [14]

• How do you think we can help?

Convince this editor to change his editing style. He doesn't seem to understand that if the title of the article is "9/11 conspiracy theories", the purpose of the article is to explain that topic in a neutral and factual way, not debunk it, or balance it (there is already a "9/11 attacks" article that gives the official version of events), or try to keep out information that he or she finds objectionable. Here are diffs of this editor's questionable deletions on January 3, 2012: [15] [16] [17] [18] (editor's comment on this last one seems to clearly illustrate the editor's mindset)

Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Does Wikipedian "neutrality" indirectly provide mainstream legitimacy? I stumbled upon this dispute and have never been involved in the particular article writing, nor do I really intend to start. My question though is does allowing a supposedly "fair and balanced", non-neutral write-up on the subject actually give the subject more validity than it actually has in reality. By allowing this article to write the "facts" about the conspiracy without allowing the debunking of these facts could lead the casual reader [or researching child] to believe that the debunking isn't in the article because the "facts" haven't been debunked. For example, just me doing a quick read of the "Suspected insider trading" section, I finished thinking: HOLY SHIT, how do you explain that away?. Then I started to think about it and thought, ok, maybe the buyers of Puts were actually al-Qaeda members or funders. Most of the big brokerage firms have clients all over the world, including in the countries where the hijackers came from, so it's not at all hard to see how terrorists or terrorist funders might open an account and then trade on an event they know to be coming.

The point is if this article tries to explain 9/11 conspiracy theories in a "neutral way" without the debunking included, is it truly neutral? Or does the absence of the debunking actually give it a bias towards suggesting the conspiracy is real? A self perpetuating loop can then exist where people researching the topic for whatever reason are actually swayed by the style of write-up, and the seed of doubt is planted, whether valid or not. (This was my exact experience reading the insider trading section of the conspiracy - had I not seen the other explanation on my own, the only one I'd be left with is the seed planted by the article - that in turn can allow an individual to give undue weight to the whole conspiracy in general).

I would also relate the above to other widely pushed conspiracy theories. Such as the moon landing being faked or Holocaust hoax theories. Just jumping to Wikipedia's entries on both subjects, they are not written in the supposedly "neutral" way espoused here. They actually have the debunking included, so people can make their own call which is real, and not be persuaded by the absence of material to balance the article otherwise. Norbytherobot (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)