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
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV	Resolved	Avi8tor (t)	20 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	7 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	7 days, 14 hours
Norse Deity pages	Closed	Dots321 (t)	13 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours
List of South Korean girl groups	Closed	98Tigerius (t)	13 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 21 hours
Benevolent dictatorship	In Progress	Banedon (t)	12 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours	Banedon (t)	13 hours
Talk:Taylor Swift	Closed	Gsgdd (t)	12 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 days, 14 hours
Kylie Minogue	Closed	PHShanghai (t)	9 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 21 hours
African diaspora	Closed	Kyogul (t)	6 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 14 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 01:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Resource-based economy

• Resource-based economy (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 dispute only concerns the section titled 'Alternative use' on Resource-based economy. A paragraph based on citations from verifiable, reliable sources has been repeatedly deleted.

• This is a [| diff] showing the paragraph.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk · contribs)
• OpenFuture (talk · contribs)
• Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs)
• Bobrayner (talk · contribs)
• Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs)

From looking at the talk page, OpenFuture and Earl King Jr. seem to have been involved with the article since at least 26 February 2012 and 12 March 2012‎, respectively. From the first day of their involvement in the article to date, the only major edits these two editors provided have been deletions/ reversions of edits. The deleted/ reverted edits were based on citations from verifiable, reliable sources. Their actions always reverted the article back to its skeletal, bare-bones, un-encyclopedic form.

Starting on 12 May 2012,‎ I began the process of providing several additional verifiable, reliable sources, and began to cite from these sources. Essentially all these citings have been deleted/ reverted by the two users above, always reverting the article back to its skeletal, bare-bones, un-encyclopedic form.

• 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=Resource-based economy}} --~~~~ 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 tried to resolve this dispute many times on the talk page of Resource-based economy. Each time, the substance of my comments have been ignored (the two editors mentioned above have not responded to the substance of my arguments explaining that the paragraph above [defining the alternative use of RBE] is neutral, and that the paragraph is fully supported by the set of sources referenced at the end of the paragraph). Instead, the editors frequently voiced their personal opinions (not based on WP policies, rules, regulations or guidelines), or repeatedly used the talk page of the article as a forum for general discussion of the article's subject, instead of discussing specific, concrete, substantive issues directly related to improving the encyclopedic content of the article.

(Please note that some parts of the conversations on the talk page focused on issues related to the fact that I translated two verifiable, reliable foreign-language sources and used the translations (in addition to several verifiable, reliable English-language sources) to support my edits. You can probably ignore the substance of these particular portions of the conversations because over the last 2 days, with the help of editor CambridgeBayWeather, we seem to have resolved the issue of the translations, with the final result apparently being that the foreign-language sources can be used in citations and quotations to support my edits.)

Here are some talk-page diffs:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

• How do you think we can help?

Assess the merits of my edit. Determine (or recommend) which part(s), if any, of my suggested edits (the paragraph above providing an alternative definition of RBE) are not supported by the set of sources. If my suggested edits are inadequate to describe the alternative usage of RBE, suggest a proper alternative definition of RBE, based strictly on citations from the sources (referenced at the end of my suggested paragraph): The New York Times, The Huffington Post, The Palm Beach Post, The Orlando Sentinel, TheMarker, Globes (which are all verifiable, reliable secondary sources) and The Venus Project (a primary source). (Or, of course, any additional verifiable, reliable sources that describe the Technocracy Movement's, the Venus Project's and the Zeitgeist Movement's alternative usage of the term 'RBE', such as the six TV interviews listed on the Peter Joseph web site, etc.)

Thank you.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Resource-based economy discussion

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

IjonTichyIjonTichy has no sources that support his changes. He adds a massive amount of sources, none which define Resource-based economy as he defines it. At best it is therefore WP:Synthesis.

We are also at least four editors that agree on a "best last version" that we want to use as the basis for improving the article, and we have asked IjonTichyIjonTichy to explain what he thinks is wrong with that version so we can discuss how to improve it, but IjonTichyIjonTichy refuses to engage in constructive debate, and even admits this on the talk page. The result was an edit war, but the page is currently protected to stop his repeated edits against consensus, so that is currently under control. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(I added bobrayner and Night of The Big Wind as involved, and notified them, as they also have reverted IjonTichyIjonTichy's changes back to a "last good version", and hence also reasonably are involved in this). --OpenFuture (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well put by User:OpenFuture: almost certainly WP:SYNTHESIS; 8 references for the last sentence, 2 references for the first sentence in the proposed section and everything else in the proposed section unsourced.Curb Chain (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

My involvement with the article is due to an earlier editwar at the article. I rewrote the article to a short version giving more honour to the original meaning of Resource Based Economy (an economy built on production and export of raw materials like ore and oil) instead of the Resource Based Economy theory from mr. Fresco/Venus Project/Zeitgeist Movement. As a compromise I have balanced both evenly. Reason for that is that the economy based explanation is far older and widespread, both on the internet rather poorly sourced. The ideology seems to be a tiny local project, capable of generating a enormous amount of publicity. Even with the balancing act, I regard the economy based explanation as severely undervalued in the article. The ideology I regard as severely overvalued. So when complainant added a total of 1,402 bytes (about 45%, previous size of the article was 3,114 bytes) to the article, all added to the ideology section, I removed that as giving undue weight to the ideology. And I still stand for that. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC) after that, I took a break from the article

Complainant seems to be extremely interested in having been editing heavely on several RBE-ideology related pages. Is it possible for the complainant to explain his involvement in the Zeitgeist Movement (and related subjects), because of a possible Conflict of Interest? Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest. I developed the Zeitgeist Movement article from a skeletal, un-encyclopedic version into something closer to an encyclopedic article. (It is not perfect but it is a huge improvement over the original.) In my edits, I included many citations and quotations from reliable sources providing relatively extensive criticism of many aspects of RBE (and TZM). IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Page has been protected for 72 hours because of edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I placed the protection, and any admin here is free to modify or remove without additional notification. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, the protection was clearly the right thing to do. I am not going to name names at this point, but if an editor is edit warring, he/she needs to figure out a better way to resolve disputes. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is ab excellent place to start learning. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The editor in question could start with answering the questions posed to him. Like "What is wrong with the current version". He still hasn't answered that. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OpenFuture has been spamming my user talk page. I've removed his numerous comments but he keeps on spamming. What can be done to stop his Ad hominem attacks? Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This is untrue, and irrelevant for this dispute resolution. As it says above: "Please keep discussions here calm, concise, and on topic.". --OpenFuture (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OpenFuture continues to spam my user talk page. Can someone stop him please? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No, he is asking you to stop your personal attacks. [12] Instead of doing so, you start censoring your talkpage from the inconvenient truth. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It is also an outright lie, as you can see from the timestamps. I have in no way continued to do anything at his talk page after my comment above. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Time stamp of my first request to stop spamming is 16:46, 28 May

Time stamp of [| most-recent spamming] is 17:25, 28 May

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I am a volunteer clerk/mediator here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for discussing disputes about article content, nor disputes about user conduct. If you are in a dispute about what is in the article, discuss what is in the article, not what other editors are doing or have done. If your dispute is only about user conduct, let us know and we will close this and point you to the right place to resolve that kind of dispute. If you think you have both kinds of dispute, put the editor conduct dispute on hold and work on the article conduct dispute.

I will have more to say on the actual article content dispute after I have studied the issue more. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are three proposals for inclusion as the 'Alternative use' section of Resource-based economy. (Of course the references would need to be re-positioned to the end of sentences (etc.) to make the paragraph easier to read, including the bank of references at the end of the paragraph, and the spaces between references would need to be removed, etc.) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Proposal no. 1: The paragraph I proposed above in this DRN request.

---

Proposal no. 2: A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean a holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet. The Technocracy movement (TTM), the Venus project (TVP) and the Zeitgeist movement (TZM) use this alternative definition of RBE to mean a classless, moneyless, and stateless global system in which money, debt, credit, exchange, barter, wage labor (or any other system of servitude), private property and the profit motive would serve no purpose and all human needs such as food, housing, goods, services, etc. would be available to everyone and everything is supplied. In an RBE, resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development. The premise upon which this global socio-economic system is based is the belief of TTM, TVP and TZM that the intelligent application of highly advanced science and technology can enable an Earth that is abundant with plentiful resources, enabling a high standard of living for all of the Earth's inhabitants, and thus TTM, TVP and TZM believe that our current practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. It is toward this RBE idea that TTM, TVP and TZM work to educate and inform people. TTM, TVP and TZM believe that in RBE can create a sustainable future where humanity is not united by religious or political ideology, but by the scientific method, venerated as the savior that can develop a system of human equality, thriving from the cooperation and balance of technology and nature.

---

Proposal no. 3: A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean a holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet. The Technocracy movement (TTM), the Venus project (TVP) and the Zeitgeist movement (TZM) use this alternative definition of RBE to mean a moneyless, classless and stateless global system in which wage labor (or any other system of servitude), private property and the profit motive would serve no purpose and all human needs such as food, housing, goods, services, etc. would be available to everyone and everything is supplied. In an RBE, resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development. The premise upon which RBE is based is the belief of TTM, TVP and TZM that the intelligent application of highly advanced science and technology can enable an Earth that is abundant with plentiful resources, enabling a high standard of living for all of the Earth's inhabitants.

---

Proposal no. 4: A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean a holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet. The Technocracy movement (TTM), the Venus project (TVP) and the Zeitgeist movement (TZM) use this alternative definition of RBE to mean a moneyless, classless and stateless global system in which wage labor (or any other system of servitude), private property and the profit motive would serve no purpose and all human needs such as food, housing, goods, services, etc. would be available to everyone. In an RBE, resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development.

---

---

---

This looks like a WP:COATRACK to me. The idea that there are economies that are largely based upon extraction of natural resources and others that are resource-poor is bog-standard economics theory. Linking a bunch of different political and economic theories to it with "A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean" is classic coatracking that can just as easily be done with other basic economic concepts like labor, debt, investment, etc. The fact that the particular coats chosen are somewhat fringe (why not list what RBE "can also mean" to Republicans or Marxists?) makes it even worse. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There's only one that needs to be mentioned, because only one can be shown to have notability, and that's the meaning that TVP/TZM uses. Having it be larger than the main section is indeed, IMO coat-racking. I think we all agree that it should be mentioned, just not how much and what it would say. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Guy, if Republicans or Marxists, or any other group, also had their own definition of RBE, and the mainstream media covered these definitions in several verifiable, reliable sources (print and broadcast), would it not be reasonable to, say, create something like a disambiguation page on WP, with links to each of the definitions?

I propose to fully, completely, un-ambiguously separate the TTM/TVP/TZM definition of RBE from that of mainstream economics. T/T/T have very low opinion of mainstream economics; in fact they believe it is a complete fraud. In numerous video lectures and other presentations, T/T/T have voiced severe criticism of mainstream economics. The T/T/T definition of RBE has absolutely nothing to do with mainstream economics. The two concepts of RBE are divorced from each other and alienated from each other because of their irreconcilable differences, and they must be un-ambiguously separated. Any attempt to place the two fundamentally estranged, incompatible definitions on the same page is bound to failure. Even if somehow we succeed in placing these two different definitions on the same page in the short term, the effort is highly likely to fail overall in the longer term, necessitating additional DRN's (like this one) and likely going all the way to binding arbitration. I propose we solve this problem once and for all.

I propose creating a disambiguation page that looks perhaps something like this:

Resource-based economy may refer to:

* Resource-based economy, the economy of a country whose GDP to a large extent comes from natural resources

* Resource-based economy, a global system proposed by several alternative-views movements

If a reader selects the second link, they'll be taken to a page containing something like, say, one of the proposals above (no. 1, 2, 3 or 4) for the alternative definition of RBE.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is not enough things to say about the TVP meaning of RBE to warrant it's own article, and I don't really see how it solves anything. It definitely doesn't solve this dispute. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To my opinion, the second sentence should read: * Resource-based economy, a proposed global system proposed by several fringe movements Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The TTM article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Energy. TVP is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views. TZM is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views and WikiProject Rational Skepticism. That's why I propose alternative views (or rational skepticism). IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You lost me. I don't follow what you are talking about here. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to your and Night's comments regarding the second line of the proposed disambiguation page. I'm proposing the second line of the proposed disambiguation page read something like this:

* Resource-based economy, a global system proposed by several alternative-views movements

Or this:

* Resource-based economy, a global system proposed by several rational-skepticism movements

Or this:

* Resource-based economy, a global system proposed by several non-mainstream movements

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling it "rational-skepticism" is directly delusional. "Non-mainstream" could work, possibly. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Good. If you are OK with "non-mainstream", I'm OK with it too. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I just see one editor passionately wanting his version into the article and several other who like to see the article neutral. This start to look like POV-pushing. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

IjonTichyIjonTichy has no sources that support his changes. He adds a massive amount of sources, none which define Resource-based economy as he defines it. At best it is therefore WP:Synthesis. I think it is massive p.o.v. pushing also. That section, the best last version was fine and got the job done. Having that section with 10 citations to one sentence that do not really explain anything but give more revolving information is pointless and seems advertising. Accusing the other editor of spamming a talk page is down right wrong and seems way over the top uncivil and now used for garnering sympathy here. Forget the idea of saying several of these fringe groups want world wide R.B.E. - The Technocracy groups doesn't. None of these groups are connected to each other. Venus Project does not like Zeitgeist and vice versa. Lumping them together as the same thing is not proper. IjonTichyIjonTichy seems to be trying to wear everyone down. The spare last best version leads to all the groups mentioned. Right now that can stay. Some work went into making it pretty good. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The current skeletal, substance-free, un-encyclopedic version of the alternative-definition section in the article still defines TTM's, TVP's and TZM's definition of RBE as "an economic theory in which things such as goods, services and information are free." Which, as I explained earlier (on the article's talk page) in several comments that were ignored (please see the diffs above), is a meaningless, empty statement that could also describe a prison camp, a jail, a gulag, concentration camps, and other places of detention or confinement. Or military service. Or an orphanage.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This shows the problem with allowing a WP:COATRACK. It appears that the other editors have tried to accommodate the POV pushing by allowing a small coatrack with a vest or two hanging on it. The results is a complaint about not allowing the full coatrack and the entire collection of coats. I say get rid of the coatrack altogether. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No. None of the things you listed above are economic theories. The claim that a gulag is "an economic theory in which things such as goods, services and information are free" is beyond absurd. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone considered a hatnote like "For the moneyless economy advocated by [group], see that group's article"? —Tamfang (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with this proposal. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The main problem with that is that The Venus Project contains zero information on the topic. Trying to improve that article proved fruitless before, maybe it could work now. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What about the two other utopian articles that begin with "The"? —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone considered a hatnote like "For the moneyless economy advocated by [group], see that group's article"? That is treating people like children that need to be led along. Bad idea. Right now the article is fairly good. All the groups mentioned in that section have links that go to their own articles if people click them. Its overkill to help people or lead people that way. A Prison camp, a jail, a gulag, concentration camps, and other places of detention or confinement military service, orphanage??, being a logical part of the discussion??, comparing that to what we are talking about? No. IjonTichyIjonTichy is not making constructive argguments, has no support for his or hers changes on the article, is bashing fellow editors about spam and vandalizing. Best course is to give a time out to IjonTichyIjonTichy|IjonTichyIjonTichy, maybe ask him not to edit the article for a while since zero people support what he is doing and he is not listening to feedback on his edits, just doing the same types of over kill information things based on o.r. p.o.v. syn. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me take each of your arguments in order.

First, hatnotes are not "treating people like children." They are a legitimate part of Wikipedia's disambiguation system. You can dispute whether a hatnote is needed in this particular case, but questioning the basic concept of hatnotes will not get you far.

Second, whether the current article is fairly good is a matter of opinion. In my opinion it is not. It gives too much WP:WEIGHT to the fringe theories. I think a hatnote is a better choice.

Third, the prison/jail/gulag argument was a legitimate argument. It wasn't a convincing argument, but it makes a fair point -- that the fringe theories that IjonTichyIjonTichy wants to coatrack are not well described by just saying things are free. Some things (food, shelter) are free in a prison, but hat's not what the fringe theories are talking about. That is why the hatnote is a good idea; it leads the interested reader to the actual articles on those fring theories where they can be properly described.

Fourth, "has no support for his or hers changes" is exactly correct. IjonTichyIjonTichy has to deal with the fact that the consensus is against him. That being said, he is doing the right thing here; proposing alternatives and trying to gather support for them. It would be wrong to not examine and fairly evaluate the alternatives he suggests.

Lastly, as for telling IjonTichyIjonTichy to stop editing the article, that's not going to happen. He has just as much right to edit as you or I do. Of course we all have to follow such key policies as WP:CONSENSUS, but we do not gang up and exclude someone just because they have a minority opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah o.k. points taken, but, the guy IjonTichyIjonTichy is edit warring and accusing others of vandalizing, censoring and spamming. That is why the hatnote is a good idea; it leads the interested reader to the actual articles on those fring theories where they can be properly described. I don't think its a good idea because if people have any interest they can click on the main three articles in Resource-based economics, all of which explain things in detail about the three subjects. I am also just trying to help IjonTichyIjonTichy here because I am afraid he is going to be blocked or prohibited from editing this article in question at some point. That is the only reason I only suggested he take a break since his editing tactics have been rejected on the talk page of the article. So please mister User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon lay off. I did not come here to gang up on anyone. Also it is a well known fact that Wikipedia does gang up on people and that editing teams control many articles. I do not think that is the case on this article in question. Assume good faith here Mr. Guy Macon as I do not like this interaction accusation style. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon is making valid arguments and he is right. And I apologize for accusing OpenFuture of vandalizing, censoring and spamming. I can see now that these accusations were baseless and unwarranted, and OpenFuture has every right to be upset and angry at me. I was a less experienced editor at the time that I made the accusations. (I am a little bit more experienced now after collaborating with so many great editors over the last 7 days in improving The Zeitgeist Movement, but I am still not anywhere as experienced as any of the editors involved in this DRN).

I have not edited the article since it was unlocked, and I have no intention of doing so without following key policies such as WP:CONSENSUS, because I have full confidence that Guy Macon, OpenFuture, Tamfang, Arthurfragoso and other interested editors would continue to do a good job in improving the article (of course, if the consensus is that an improvement is needed). Regards and best wishes, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oy, everybody cool down! Nobody is ganging up on anyone, and nobody is telling people to stop editing, and nobody needs to lay off anything!

We're just saying that it would be good if IjonTichyIjonTichy discussed his controversial changes first.

For the hatnote, it has to go to The Venus Project is implemented, and that means that article has to be improved first. We can maybe "Gang up" on the article? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree fully. This is a good idea/ action-plan. 12:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: remove all mention of the alternative use of the term. There is really no good reason to have an 'alternative use' section. For example, an increasing number of Zeitgeist movement members are moving away from using the term RBE, including some of the main spokespersons for the movement. In several recent lectures, presentations or conversations over the last few months, Peter Joseph stated he is moving away from the term 'resource based economy' and instead using terms such as 'a new global system' etc. Please see my most recent edit of The Zeitgeist Movement. You'll notice that my edit does not mention the term 'resource-based economy', nor its abbreviation, RBE. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason TZM is moving away from it is because they have split with The Venus Project and want to distance themselves form their terminology. It's all very childish. TVP still uses the term, unfortunately. But it does make the case for a hatnote solution stronger. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As a unabashed pro Zeitgeist editor IjonTichyIjonTichy that just reverted The Zeitgeist Movement article against all consensus and I do mean all consensus, I think you are not improving the article and some intervention about your editing the article should be made since as a type of spokes person for the so called movement you are only interested in special interest group edits and have ruined the objectivity and neutrality of the article over and over by returning information that is against consensus. Sorry but that is the pattern which is holding holding and holding and no amount of reasoned consensus on the talk page seems to dissuade you from edit warring your own Zeitgeist party line view of things. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I do not believe that WP:DRN can help you with this issue. It appears to be a WP:RFCU WP:RFC/U issue. Unless someone can give me a reason to believe that keeping this open longer will help, I am going to mark it unresolved and close it. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean WP:RFC/U? —Tamfang (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for catching that. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Either completely remove all mention of the alternative use of the term RBE (because an increasing number of Zeitgeist movement members are moving away from using the term RBE, as discussed above), or significantly expand the alternative use to correctly describe TTM's, TVP's or TZM's usage of the term. The current description is incorrect. The most important aspect of TTM, TVP and TZM is this: "A holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet.". This phrase must be included, because this is the most important core idea, the most important fundamental principle of TTM, TVP and TZM. This core idea implies that, for example, Tom Harrison "owns" all the resources on the planet, making him an enormously wealthy person. The only condition is that he share this wealth equitably with everyone else on the planet, making everybody else on the planet also wealthy. Any WP editor may choose to laugh at this idea, to ridicule it, to think it is delusional nonsense, to think it is promotional, or to think it is empty rhetoric, utopianism, communism or socialism. Editors' thoughts, feelings, POV and opinions are valid and important. I respect, recognize and acknowledge editors' thoughts, feelings, POV and opinions. But this is the most important aspect of TTM, TZM and TVP, and it must be included, or the 'alternative use' section must be removed completely. This aspect of the 3 organizations is the basis of everything TTM, TVP and TZM stand upon. Everything else about TTM, TVP and TZM follows from this idea, is based upon this idea and builds upon this idea.

From The Huffington Post: "... the world's resources would be considered as the equal inheritance of all the world's peoples ..."

From The Venus Project: "... a holistic socio-economic system in which ... all resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few ..."

From the Palm Beach Post: "... In this world, we all are equal because the planet's resources belong to everyone, not a select few ..."

This is the most important aspect of TTM, TVP and TZM because, in their view, once everyone on the planet "owns" everything on the planet equitably, there would be no need for money, class, or different countries/ states. That's why in my suggested edits (Proposals no. 1--4 above), I first provide the most important aspect of TTM, TVP and TZM, followed by the following, based on verifiable citations from our set of reliable sources: "This system would be a moneyless, classless, and stateless global system in which money, debt, credit, exchange, barter, wage labor, private property and the profit motive would be eliminated. Human needs would be supplied for everyone. Resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through the technological potential of sustainable development." [I added the explanation "economic development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" only later, to satisfy Zazaban's request for clarification. This clarification is probably not needed, since readers can find it in the article on sustainable development ].

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a question: is it a coincidence that this page now also show a dispute of you on Zeitgeit Movement (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#The Zeitgeist Movement) or is there a pattern? Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a major pattern of personal opinion lobbying going on by IjonTichyIjonTichy. Look at the talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement. He is not using Zeitgeist information even for his edits but rather his personal opinions of which are extremely strong. At first I thought he was just a member of that group trying to get their information out but now I don't think so. Another editor postualated that IjonTichyIjonTichy the editor is a vandal a while ago (Open Future) on the talk page of the Zeitgeist Movment article. He may not be a classic vandal but I think some topic ban is appropriate if he can just not get it after reams of discourse that his opinions can not be used to neutrally edit the article. I hope that does not sound harsh or attacking but, if he reverts all the time against consensus, what else is there to do? Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's do a quick poll. Place your name without comment under one of the following, and optionally, add a brief comment explaining your vote in the comment section. -Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

How should the alternative meanings be mentioned?

HAT NOTE

• Tamfang (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• OpenFuture (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

NO MENTION AT ALL

• Tamfang (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC) ^{Vote withdrawn.}

IN THE TEXT, LINK ONLY

IN THE TEXT, EXPANDED

• OpenFuture (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OTHER (SEE COMMENT)

COMMENTS

• I Don't much like "In the text, link only", but I like it a lot better than I like "In the text, expanded". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'm assume "expanded" means something like what it says at the moment, which I'm OK with. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• I am ok with what it says at the moment also. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
• I am perfectly okay with the present text Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, some members of TZM still use the term RBE out of habit and momentum and convenience. But the movement as a whole is moving away from using this nebulous, meaningless, vague, misleading and unclear term, especially after the separation from The Venus Project: Venus claims ownership rights to the term. Peter Joseph and other key spokespersons of TZM have not used the term RBE in many months, including in the most recent (and all-important, in the view of TZM) Z-Day in February. The term RBE does not help WP readers seeking info on TZM -- in fact it is confusing to our readers and misleads our readers. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Sir, I really do not think you understand this topic and have personalized things too much with your opinions instead of the facts from the group itself. Zeitgeist completely endorses the concept of a resource based economic system in the here and now according to their official information pages http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq5 You can not use your personal opinions of that concept to source or not source the article Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• The movement's Q&A page has not been updated since the split with Venus. Peter Joseph and other key spokespersons of TZM have not used the term RBE in many months, including in the most recent Z-day, recent TED-x talks, lectures, seminars, etc. This includes, for example, the TheMarker article and TheMarker TV interview, both of which are reliable secondary sources published in January 2012; and the TED-x lectures in Feb. and March. of 2012 (links to both of these primary sources are available at our article titled Peter Joseph) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The simple fact of the matter is that, in spite of IjonTichyIjonTichy's efforts to synthesise his version of what TZM stands for from multiple sources, we have no clear idea what their objectives are. Unless and until they can explain in simple language, rather than nebulous buzzwords, what they are tying to do, we have no business trying to do it for them. Frankly, whether they have dropped one vacuous phrase or not is neither here nor there. The TZM article isn't a platform for TZM, it is an article about TZM, and if it can't explain to a general readership what TZM's politics are,without resorting to endless cherry-picking through sources to try to divine them it shouldn't be doing it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry Andy, but either I do not understand your comment, or you have a profound misunderstanding of what WP is about. What do you mean by "do it for them"? We are here to serve the interests of our readers. The readers of our TZM article are expecting to obtain a fairly/ reasonably detailed, bias-free picture of the ideas (and criticism) of TZM. As Bbb23 said on the recent TZM DRN, ".... I learned more about the movement from the HP (Huffington Post) article than I did reading the WP article ...." (end quote from Bbb23). Instead of wasting everybody's time repeatedly over the last two years with your constant whining and complaining about the article, why don't you simply do what Bbb23 did, read the HP source and use it, alone, to develop the main body of the TZM article? Or, better yet, in addition to HP, read our other reliable secondary sources, such as the NYT, Palm Beach Post, VC Reporter, and use them to enhance your verifiable citations from the Huff Post. Furthermore, you can also read TheMarker, Globes, TheMarker TV interview, and 5 RT TV interviews. Once you read (any small subset of, or all of) these sources with an open mind (instead of closing your mind due to your deep hatred of TZM, evident in your vicious comments from 2010), you may find out, as Bbb23 had found out, that each and every one of these resources did an excellent job "explain(ing) in simple language, rather than nebulous buzzwords, what they (TZM) are tying to do" (quoting your own words). Then perhaps you will be able to prove to yourself that all my edits, without exception, were based on direct verifiable citations from these reliable secondary sources, and not on synthesis, as you ignorantly claim. Upon reading these reliable secondary sources, TZM's ideas and objectives would likely be amply clear to you, and maybe you will actually make an effort to serve the needs of our readers, and not your own bloated ego, and provide your own verifiable citations from these sources to contribute to building the body of the TZM article, instead of wasting everybody's time over the last 2 years with your endless complaints. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • "Instead of wasting everybody's time repeatedly over the last two years with your constant whining and complaining about the article..." What? My first input regarding the article was made in March this year [13]. Or can you provide a link to these supposed "vicious comments from 2010"? And why do you think I have 'a deep hatred' of TZM? I'd never heard of it until I came across the Wikipedia article, and the endless attempts by supporters of the 'movement' to spin the page their way, and fill it with illiterate bullshit and meaningless waffle like this: [14]. Learn to write... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of rugby league and rugby union

• Comparison of rugby league and rugby union (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 (Aircorn) first came upon the general topic of the dispute after Gnevin posted at the Rugby union Wikiproject looking for help in dealing with a quote being in the lead. He also posted the same notification at the Rugby league Wikiproject. After some discussion the quote was moved out of the lead. There was still some disagreement about how the quote should be used or if it even belongs in the article. After both myself and Gnevin were unsuccessfully in trying to remove it, Gnevin found a similar quote and added it next to the original one. Gibson Flying V removed this quote and that has lead to a protracted discussion as to why one quote is valid but the other not. The original quote is pro-league, while the second one was pro-union. The diffs presented here are just a fraction of the reverting that has occurred over this issue. These two recent reverts [15] [16] (on slightly different issues) have convinced me to look for outside help.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Aircorn (talk · contribs)
• Gibson Flying V (talk · contribs)
• Gnevin (talk · contribs)

Mattlore (talk · contribs) commented initially, but has not made any further comments. Two users also responded at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Comparison of rugby league and rugby union over a related issue. That concern was the quote being in the lead, which appears to have been resolved now. I will notify Mattlore, but at this stage I have not notified the two users from the NPOV noticeboard. Let me know if that should be done.

• 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=Comparison of rugby league and rugby union}} --~~~~ 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:Comparison of rugby league and rugby union#Moving on and User talk:Gibson Flying V#Comparison of rugby league and rugby union are where the bulk of the discussion has occurred, but you might also like to read Talk:Comparison of rugby league and rugby union#Quote in the intro for a bit more background.

• How do you think we can help?

We need more people with a neutral perspective (i.e. not in favour of one sport over another) to look over the dispute concerning the quotes and help us decide what the most nuetral way to present them is. The options are no quotes, both quotes or to just have one of the quotes. They could also be incorporated into the text of the article. The talk page discussions detail our particular preferences. Advice on any other issues would be a bonus and if possible it would be good to provide a way forward if other similar issues arise. Thank you to anyone who is willing to look into this.

AIRcorn (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of rugby league and rugby union discussion

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

Hello everyone, and thanks for bringing this dispute here. I'm a semi-regular mediator/clerk here at DRN, and I thought I'd try and lend a helping hand with this problem. This is quite an interesting dispute as the three editors involved are all regulars at Wikipedia, so we are all familiar with the policies and guidelines, and we have all probably been in a dispute or two before. An upshot of our collective experience is that naturally we all know the neutral point of view policy and have had the opportunity to put it into practice many times. Something seems to be going wrong somewhere in this article, however, as we are all claiming that our edits are neutral, but we are disagreeing about each other's interpretations of what being neutral actually means. So, before we look at any specific content issues, I would just like to throw out a suggestion for a guiding principle of neutrality as it applies to this article. Now, this is only a suggestion, and you are all free to disagree with it - that is absolutely fine. I would like us to discuss it first, though, as I think that once we have agreed about this general idea it will be a lot easier to find a resolution for the specific content issues that we have been having problems with.

My suggestion is simple: I think that, in this article, we should treat rugby league and rugby union as having equal worth. That is to say, we shouldn't imply in any way that one of them is better than the other. Now, one sport may be faster than the other, and one may be more tactical, and mentioning that is no problem, as long as we can back it up with facts and statistics rather than leave it as assertion and opinion. The problems arise when we start to use these differences in the character of each sport to imply a subjective judgement of good or bad about either of them. Now, as far as I know (which is admittedly not very far), there is no way of objectively judging which sport is "better" than the other, and I make this suggestion because I think it would be best not to try. However, I would be interested to hear what you all think of this. If you think I have tripped up in my reasoning somewhere, then please let me know - that would be a great way to kick-start the debate. (Of course, it's ok to agree with me as well. ;) I'll be looking forward to hearing your opinions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not sure I agree with your reading of the situation. While I'm not a RL man myself I don't consider it to be of less worth than union. Also while I personally feel union is more enjoyable to watch than league I know that that is my opinion, just as I know that it's my opinion that blue is the best colour or it's better to be warm than cold. I am aware of my baggage and I try not let it effect my editing of RL ,colours or what ever else. I've only attempted to tidy this article and remove some pieces of the blatant NPOV.

My reading of the situation is we have 1 user to is blatantly pushing the POV that RL is a superior game and using what ever they can find on the internet as stick to beat union.

I think what we need is an agreement that sources outside of wiki can be biased too and that just because it's printed in a newspaper or the internet doesn't mean we should use it a reference Gnevin (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To be fair I think you both are agreeing really. Treating league and union as equal is the reasonable approach, any other way would be a POV. Even comments around which is faster and which is more tactical is debatable, both can be played at different speeds and both require tactics. If this approach, as suggested by Mr. Stradivarius, is used then I think you end up with the result advocated for by Gnevin; the quote doesn't have a place, and certaintly not in the intro. I don't think you need an overarching "determination" on the validility of sources or anything along those lines to reach this point.

For the record, I am part of the rugby league wikiproject and prefer that sport over the other.

Also, just to make it black and white (because it had me very confused for a while) User Gibson Flying V was known as User Jeff79 at the start of this dispute. Mattlore (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I should have mentioned the Jeff79 = Gibson Flying V fact earlier. As far as I know this board does not necessarily deal with user conduct, but this may be a path we have to go down. I thought this might be a less drama filled alternative and after consensus was agreed (admittedly grudgingly) at the NPOV noticeboard, I hoped it might prove successful here too. As far as the article goes I echo Mattlore in saying that Gnevin and Mr. Stradivarius are on the same page, one that I agree with too. If we can keep opinions out of the article altogether it would make it much easier to manage. AIRcorn (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Misread Mr. Stradivarius' comments looks like we are all on the same page Gnevin (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Naturally I too agree with you, Mr Strativarius. While for most experienced editors it goes without saying, I think it's good for Gnevin and Aircorn to read what you said about avoiding subjective judgement of good or bad. Perhaps you said it because you noticed their use of colourful language such as "pro/anti-league/union"; "which is the better game"; "favour one code over the other"; "say a lot harsher things"; "show RL in a good light"; "horrible quotes"; "a pissing contest"; etc. It's also clear they're having trouble assuming good faith and have become a bit emotional about me personally, attempting to paint me as the villain with dramatic stuff like "fighting tooth and nail against consensus"; "your other slanted edits"; "Your [sic] adopting an entirely hypocritical approach"; "The charges you level"; "blatantly pushing the POV that RL is a superior game"; etc. One thing I'm particularly curious about is what Aircorn is suggesting above when he said regarding my user name: "As far as I know this board does not necessarily deal with user conduct, but this may be a path we have to go down." As (apparently) one of the "400 most active Wikipedians" I'll typically be undertaking more than one little project at a time. That I changed my user name during discussions about this article is purely coincidental. I don't think anyone would begrudge a user the right to change a 5-year-old ID that was comprised of their real name and year of birth, would they? Anyway, I'm pleased that Aircorn has brought more people into this, although I think it will bear as little fruit for him as his last attempt. I'm afraid we do need to get specific though, because the crux of it is this: Gnevin and Aircorn are on a mission to have the dreaded New York Times quote (and possibly other well-sourced content) not merely shifted, but removed from the article altogether. To help them achieve this, they've created some nice big chunks of text between the pair of them on various talk pages to make it appear as though there's a real debate going on (a tactic I'm sure you've seen before). I've done my best to refuse joining the party as most of this "debate" has centred around their intriguing view that a quote from a player who was at the time recently paid to leave rugby league and play rugby union is just as valuable and deserves equal prominence as a quote from a New York Times journalist (who I will go out on a limb and say is completely neutral and disinterested). They appear to be hoping that when the player's quote is rightly removed the baby will get thrown out with the bathwater. The article was an unreferenced perma-stub made up of various anonymous IPs' POVs until I came along and started adding referenced content. When I was choosing sources, I set an especially high standard and used, amongst others, a sports science textbook and a reputable American newspaper. I decided that British/Australian/New Zealand newspapers would be unsuitable as even they are too close to the subject. Recently, I attempted to add the use of an article (about rugby union) from a Canadian newspaper, which I thought was another shining example neutrality, but was knee-jerk reverted without discussion. By comparison, when I removed the quote box containing the player's words, I then said on the talk page that it would be fine to use if properly contextualised. An option so far not taken up, apparently in favour of simply expelling all independent sources. Personally, I'd prefer to represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Great, it looks like we are all agreeing about the basic need for neutrality in the article. Now, I notice that there have been a fair few personal remarks made about editors in the discussions so far. There has been nothing terribly bad, and I have definitely seen much worse in my experiences mediating. However, it is vital to remember that any remark which focuses on the contributor and not on the content runs the risk of escalating this dispute, and to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction we all need to stop making these kind of remarks, right now. I suggest that for the duration of this dispute, you all make a conscious effort to avoid mentioning the other editors in your posts at all. In the vast majority of situations it is possible to rephrase comments that mention editors into comments that only talk about content. To take an entirely hypothetical example, it is ok to say that a certain passage in the article makes one sport seem "better" than the other; it is not ok to say, or even merely to imply, that the editor who wrote this passage is biased.

  So, on to the content at hand. I think for now, we had better check that we all agree about the basic properties of the New York Times quote. This should be a simple process of observation, but I've learned that you can never be too careful with these things, so I want to make sure that we all agree about this before we move on to more delicate matters. I would summarize the quote as follows:

1. The source it appears in, the New York Times, is top-quality.
2. Ian Thomsen is a respected sports journalist, and this was also true in 1995 when he wrote the article.
3. Thomsen does not have any conflict of interest regarding rugby league or rugby union.
4. The quote is Thomsen's own subjective opinion.
5. The quote portrays rugby league as a better sport than rugby union.

Would you all say that this is a fair characterization? If you have any objections, or any other points you think I have missed, feel free to outline them below. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed your list to a numbered list , hope you don't mind Gnevin (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Would agree with all of the above . I think the key point is 4 it's an opinion
2. I also think it's worth noting that the source is hopelessly outdated . RU has changed in so many ways since that quote was wrote including many affects of becoming professional Gnevin (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Full quote from the source is Thirteen-man rugby league has shown itself to be a faster, more open game of better athletes than the other code. Rugby union is trying to negotiate its own escape from amateurism, with some officials admitting that the game is too slow, the laws too convoluted to attract a larger TV following; nonetheless, compared to the popularity of rugby union's World Cup in South Africa last June, the rival version this month has disappointed. From a historical perspective 1995 was the year rugby became professional. Thomsen is basically comparing a professional sport to a sport still mostly made up of amateurs (or players that have only just turned professional). Seventeen years is a long time in sport after such a major change. Among other things the laws, which have been mentioned in the quote, have undergone changes since then. Comparing the Ashton quote using the same criteria you get:

1. The source it appears in, the The Independant, is top-quality.
2. Ashton is a respected sportsman, and this was still true in 2011 when he was quoted in the article.
3. Ashton has a conflict of interest regarding rugby league and rugby union, having played both.
4. The quote is Ashton's own subjective opinion.
5. The quote portrays rugby union as a better sport than rugby league.

If the only concern is the conflict of interest then there are other sports journalists out there that could be used. In the end there are strong opinions both ways when it comes to these sports and the only neutral way is to present both or neither. AIRcorn (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Mr Stativaruis' analysis. I apologise in advance if I'm jumping ahead here, but I would add regarding point 4 that while it is Thomsen's subjective opinion, it is not a subjective opinion in the same sense as artistic preference or favouring winter over summer. He is commenting on observable, measurable phenomena, and while he has not quantified these, others have. Sources in the article (plus the National Post one inexplicably removed) confirm his observation that rugby league is the faster of the two, making it closer to a fact than an opinion (I would also like to mention that faster does not necessarily equate to better, and it would be a subjective opinion in itself to assume that it does). That rugby league is "more open" can be attributed to the undisputed fact that it has 26 men on the field as opposed to rugby union's 30. In addition to what Aircorn says above about union's amateurism at the time, in the 'Gameplay' section of the article it is confirmed that rugby league is more physically demanding, lending support to the "better athletes" comment. Regarding rugby union being "too slow, the laws too convoluted to attract a larger TV following" you'll all have noticed that he actually assigns this view to "some (rugby union) officials". I've not found other sources for this, but I'm willing to trust in Thomsen's journalistic integrity and assume that this is something he did actually observe. Lending support to the television viewing figures aspect is the fact that Australia's late-night viewing record set by the 1991 rugby union world cup final was subsequently broken by the 1992 rugby league world cup final[17]. I would also add a 6th point or an addendum to the 5th: It portrays rugby league in 1995 in a better light than rugby union in 1995. The good thing about using the quote box as it appears now alongside the part of the 'History' section that deals with the 1990s is that it is "frozen in time" if you like. I don't think the Thomsen quote would be, or is intended to be, taken as contemporary or timeless.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The reference from the National Post mentioned in Gibsons Flying V's last two posts that was removed by myself and Gnevin is not inexplicable, an explanation is provided on the talk page[18]. We have both [19] [20] also invited him to discuss it there. Anyway two, three or more people having the same opinion does not make something a fact. No matter what way it is spun it is someones opinion on how the game was in 1995. I think it could possibly be worked into the text next to where it talks about the switch to professionalism, something like this. It is better editing style in any case. AIRcorn (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The lead of the article should not include any quotes, nor should it contain any judgmental material. The reason is that there is not enough room in the lead to give the appropriate context which is needed to help the reader interpret the judgements. On the other hand, the body of the article can and should contain judgements and opinions of important commentators on rugby. The WP:NPOV policy requires that all viewpoints be represented fairly in the article. Generally speaking, editors should put aside their own prejudices and try to make the article as unbiased and objective as possible. Quotes from notable commentators are appropriate for inclusion, however, the quotes should not be hand-selected by editors; instead, any quotes used should be quotes that were selected by secondary sources. In other words, a quote should be included only if a secondary source writing about rugby mentions the quote. --Noleander (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what Noleander said. :) As far as I am aware there is no requirement to stick to quotes that have been selected by secondary sources, but in cases like this where quotes are controversial I think this would be a very good way of keeping all the involved parties honest about what they include. There are a number of points in WP:QUOTE that I was going to bring up as well, but if we can agree to this then it probably won't be necessary to go through all of them. So, would you all be willing to give this principle a try? I'm not sure there are any secondary sources that quote either Ashton or Thomsen, but I bet that there are plenty of other juicy quotes listed in the secondary sources. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 06:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions about how to present these, or similar, quotes (box or intext). Personally if we are going with quotes I would like to keep them short According to such and such union is "much slower than league", while Chris Ashton says union has "much more of a tactical side". Also when you say selected by secondary sources do you mean a newspaper quoting someone as opposed to us quoting a newspaper? I ask because if that is the case then the Ashton one could pass as it is sourced by Hugh Godwin[21]. AIRcorn (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If the fate of the New York Times quote is to hinge on how controversial it is, I would ask that this question be looked at thoroughly. For reasons I've outlined above I remain to be convinced that the quote is (outside the talk pages of Wikipedia) controversial at all.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, when I said "controversial" I was specifically talking about that the fact that the quote has been disputed on the talk pages of Wikipedia. So it looks like your answer to my question above is a "no", then. :) For now, let's just bear that solution in mind should we get stuck later on, and move on to the next step. Now, we've agreed that we shouldn't treat rugby league or rugby union as subjectively better or worse than each other, and we have also agreed that the New York Times quote portrays rugby union rugby league as a better sport than rugby league rugby union. So the question now would seem to be how we reconcile these two facts. Here's what WP:QUOTE has to say about it:

1. "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided."
2. "As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it. Instead of using quoteboxes to highlight its notability, explain its importance before introducing the quote or in an introduction to the quote."
3. "Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose."

And here's how I see the quote faring in relation to these three points:

1. We definitely have to be careful here. We have agreed that the quote itself is not neutral (i.e. it favours rugby union), so if we do include it we need to make sure that we present it in a way that preserves the overall neutrality of the article.
2. As it is, the quote stands out prominently, and readers' eyes are drawn towards it. Because of this, WP:QUOTE implies that the prominence of the quote makes it seem as though Wikipedia endorses Thomsen's opinion. With nothing to counteract that prominence, this would indeed seem to create a neutrality problem. Also, the importance of the quote is not explained.
3. Though the quote is indirectly related to the text around it by being made in the historical context of the move to professionalism in 1995, this may not be immediately clear to readers unfamiliar with the subject. For instance, Thomsen is not mentioned in the text, and neither is the speed of the game or the quality of the athletes, both integral parts of the quote.

From this analysis, there do appear to be problems with the way the quote is used in the article, and it seems that something needs to be done to reduce the emphasis on the quote, whether that is by better putting it in context, or by introducing contrasting viewpoints. Gibson Flying V, would you agree with this analysis, and if not do you have any suggestions on how it can be improved? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

portrays rugby union as a better sport than rugby league have you mixed up your codes? Gnevin (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)?

Whoops, yes, I have, d'oh... fixed it now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

99.8% Agree :) While it's true we have agreed that the quote portrays mid-90s league in a better light than mid-90s union, we also agreed that the source of the quote is of exceptional neutrality and quality. This inherent neutrality (plus the fact that it is in no way contradicted by any other reliable source) is what makes it deserving of a quote box's prominence. I'd be very surprised if a reader would not want to see what a disinterested observer has to say on the matter (especially if it's a senior Sports Illustrated and New York Times sportswriter). I also don't beleive a quote's use has a neutrality problem if it's simply confirming what all significant views that have been published by reliable sources are about a topic. So, as for what to do to reduce the emphasis on the quote:

a) better putting it in context

Nothing is gained by incorporating the quote into the body text along the lines of "In 1995 Ian Thomsen, sportswriter of the New York Times wrote..." as this is what the quote box already communicates. It would certainly reduce its prominence, but for reasons I've already mentioned, I believe this also reduces the article's informativeness. I'd also like to remind everyone that consensus was already established for the quote appearing in a section lower down in the article. After I moved it to the 'History' section, the issue would have been dead and buried. However the quote was then moved to the 'Gameplay' section alongside a union-contracted player's quote, resulting in the 'controversy' we now have here.

b) introducing contrasting viewpoints

Naturally, I've got no problems with this. Can we all agree that these additional viewpoints' sources be held to a similar standard of neutrality and quality?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

When a quote is in a box, people will not necessarily read the quote along with the rest of the article. What is gained by incorporating it into the text is that the reader has to read it in context. We don't even need to quote it, it could just be paraphrased (which fits in with the general consensus here to use quotes quoted from secondary sources). The only reason to keep it in a quote box is to draw readers attention to it and there needs to be a good reason to do so. This is especially true in an article like this, where that quote could easily be interpretated as promoting one sport over another. I also think it is a stretch to suggest that the previous noticeboard established consensus for the quote to be used, but in any case the one person who said it should be used in a paragraph further down clarified that It should be introduced with something like "in the 1990s one commentator said...", which is not putting it into a quote box. AIRcorn (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Boxes or not? In this situation (I presume) there will be several quotes, say four: two from each "side". The MOS indicates that quote boxes should generally be avoided except for lengthy quotes. A quote box draws the readers' attention to the quote and gives it special prominence, which could be perceived as a way to favor one "side" over the other. A safe approach would be to keep all quotes short-ish and inline. If there is a quote that is long, and therefore must be in a box, parity requires that the other "side" also have a quote that is long-ish and in a box. That tit-for-tat formatting seems childish, I know, but it is a good compromise. Best would be to keep all quotes short and inline to avoid the box-counting. --Noleander (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a second quote from a Current Union player who has switched from League but Gibson Flying V kept removing it Gnevin (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I am neutral on this topic. I'm not a fan and know little about the sport. Having read the discussion above, and considering the original request for help (options are no quotes, both quotes or to just have one of the quotes), I would suggest having no quotes. For me, much of this discussion has been on how to present these quotes, rather than on whether to include them in the first place. The struggle with how to handle them stems primarily from the fact that they are non-neutral, rhetorical commentary, i.e., "just one man's opinion". Keep them out of the article altogether. Coastside (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If the quotes were from random persons on the street, then of course they are not important enough for the article. But if there is a major public controversy, and if the quotes are from notable analysts, journalists, athletes, or coaches, then the encylopedia is obligated to provide that information to readers. Without the quotes, the article is not providing a full picture. I agree that quotes should probably be omitted from the lead where they would generate more heat than light; but in the article body they can and should be presented in a neutral fashion. --Noleander (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a new suggestion on how we might compromise on this. How about including a new section on attitudes towards rugby union and rugby league? I think a survey of attitudes towards the two codes amongst fans, athletes, and sports writers would be very useful for a good understanding of the subject, and that it would also be a perfect place to put subjective opinions like Thomsen's. Think of it as a section to document the various stereotypes that have arisen around both of the sports. I note that a similar suggestion was made on the talk page, but that it wasn't pursued very far. I think this would be worth considering seriously, though, as it has the potential to resolve the deadlock here. On the talk page there was a concern that a good section title might be hard to find, and I admit that we may have to choose a fairly long title - perhaps something like "Attitudes toward the two codes". Still, even if we have to go with a long section title, I think it would be worth discussing. Do people think this would be a good idea? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I did float this, but looking back I don't think this is the best idea. It would be a POV nightmare, much like the "controversy" section or "pro and con list" can be in other articles. Also, most if not all, opinions on the two games can be slotted into appropriate sections, and this is generally a better way to structure articles. We could have Thomsen under history, maybe balanced by a mention of the global status of each game, and the Ashton quote under gameplay balanced with a quote from a league player who converted to union and then back again (Sailor springs to mind and I think Rogers said a few things after his switch back). Just take the parts where they say the differences and leave the "rugby league/union is much better" parts out. Ashton talks about the difference in tactics, while Rogers mentioned that he found union more complicated[22]. AIRcorn (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. So no one's willing to answer my question above then?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean can we all agree that these additional viewpoints' sources be held to a similar standard of neutrality and quality? The thing is that the impartiality and reliability of a source is not the only thing that determines neutrality. It is how that source is presented in the article. There is a general agreement here that in its current form the New York Times quote is not presented in a neutral way. AIRcorn (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

So that's one 'no' (but we already knew Aircorn is seeking a double standard). Anyone else?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean like the the Daily Telegraph? I would say it and the New York times are similar in terms of standard of neutrality and quality. So how about [23] ? Gnevin (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult to know if you're being serious or not. Or did you not read it through to the last line? That is a tongue-in-cheek peice written by an automotive classifieds website's deputy editor for a newspaper well known for its rugby league coverage. Amusing as it is, it's clearly not intended to be taken seriously. Any others?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Tongue is in cheek but the point stands. The telegraphy would be considered of a similar standard of neutrality and quality as the NYT but you have to take each article on his merits. Gnevin (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you willing to consider any of the alternative suggestions mentioned here? AIRcorn (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're on the right track with your reply to Mr Stradivarius on the 10th. But this mooted quote to provide balance to the history section remains to be seen. I only think it's fair that if a second one's to be included, it should have to jump through all the same hoops that the New York Times one has to. Quote boxes for the sake of representing proportionately all significant views that have been published by reliable sources: yes. Quote boxes for the sake of quote boxes: no. Although, as you mentioned, a suitable one regarding rugby union's superior global reach shouldn't be too hard to find.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A dual international perhaps? Gnevin (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Gnevin, I can appreciate you might be feeling frustrated with the process here, but this kind of pointed remark is not helpful. It is only going to make things more adversarial, and decrease the chance of you all being able to cooperate to find a resolution here. And Gibson Flying V, this goes for you too - "we already knew Aircorn is seeking a double standard" fits fully into the definition of "personal attack" as found at WP:NPA. I said it before up above, but I'll say it again - pointed remarks and personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia, especially not in a dispute resolution venue, and they need to stop right now. If you feel that you really can't get along with one another, then maybe you could consider taking a break from the article and removing it from your watchlist. The alternatives - WQA, RFC/U, and ANI - are not pretty. If you are willing to cooperate with each other, then I have a suggestion for how we can proceed. I think the next step should be to draft, on the talk page, some different versions of the history section. At least one of these should be without any quotes at all, and at least one should include the NYT quote, along with another quote to balance out the point of view of the NYT quote. You can add other combinations and permutations of quotes as you see fit. These quotes should be short and inline, as there seems to be a general consensus here, and in the manual of style, that short inline quotes are preferred to long quotes in quote boxes. It might be that you can find an agreement through the process of making these drafts, or if you can't find an agreement, you can use them as the basis for an RfC. Does this sound like a good plan to everyone? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to do that. Thanks for taking the time to look into this. AIRcorn (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm also happy to do this but I would argue it's already been done. We've had the article with 1 quote which is unbalanced , we've had it with no quote which is balanced but Gibson won't accept it , we've have 2 quotes in the quote box but Gibson also won't accept the quote. The only other option I can see is to put the quotes in-line but since Gibson rejects this quote outright I'm not very optimistic this is bare any more fruit Gnevin (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

How about we get rid of the 2 quotes and replace with 2 quotes from the same source ? [24] ''Rugby Union is a complex game with certain closed skills like scrummaging and line-out lifting and rugby league requires a higher level of fitness to compete at the highest level.? Gnevin (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Too be honest I am willing to work with anything. I think we have a consensus here that the current presentation is not right and plenty of ideas have been given on how to fix it. As far as the history section goes ideally I would like to move Thomsen inline, incorporating it in into the 1995 paragraph (it can replace the Shamaturism sentence as that is not really comparing the two sports). The previous, currently one sentence, paragraph can easily be expanded with data about the expansion of the two games worldwide. That would balance out that section adequately for me. I will work on a draft of just those two paragraphs sometime this weekend and present it to the talk page like Stradivarius has suggested. I have not thought too much about the Gameplay section yet, but as long as we keep any quotes from rugby league sources balanced by union ones I think it can be managed. I would prefer data to be presented where posible though. Surely there must be tests in sports journals measuring the V02 MAX, speed, strength etc of athletes from the two codes. Something a bit more scientific than this. AIRcorn (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I've adequately justified retaining the New York Times quote in a box and would prefer an additional quote box for the sake of providing "balance". As I said, it shouldn't be too difficult to find an acceptable one. And if it is too difficult, that would suggest that perhaps it is balanced the way it is.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Clash of the Codes was fantastic, leave it alone! ;) The quotes from the article on the amnrl website look good but I can't load the article at the moment for some reason. Heres a couple of others that may or may not be relevant: "The old adage goes that rugby union is a contact sport whereas rugby league is a collision sport." (from superskyrockets.hubpages.com/hub/Rugby-League-vs-Rugby-Union) and the RLWC is "Not in the same league as union's version in terms of national or global profile, admittedly, but still a huge challenge and a decent platform". Mattlore (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Gibson, I appreciate that you want to use a quote box, but on purely pragmatic terms, you are not going to be able to do this if there's no consensus for it. So far, four of the editors here - Aircorn, Gnevin, Noleander, and myself - have indicated a preference for inline quotes over quote boxes. The advice in the manual of style also seems to support this. If you're not willing to compromise in your position at all, then we don't have many options. We could hold an RFC on the issue, and ask an uninvolved admin to close it; or we could go to WQA or RFC/U to get feedback on the behaviour of the parties involved. If other uninvolved editors think that the consensus here is clear, then your continuing to argue this point might be seen as a violation of WP:IDHT. I hope we don't have to go this route, however, as it's never nice to have your actions discussed at a conduct dispute noticeboard. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Granai airstrike

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. Granai airstrike (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 editors disagree about whether the article should be placed in the category "massacres in Afghanistan." Others have been involved in this dispute previously. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Darouet (talk · contribs) Randy2063 (talk · contribs) Gregcaletta (talk · contribs) Iqinn (talk · contribs) Dlabtot (talk · contribs) Only Randy2063 and I are currently discussing this; others have in the past. 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 (except Iqinn, who was apparently banned). N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Granai airstrike}} --~~~~ 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? We have tried to discuss why we believe this event was or was not a massacre. Randy2063 has stated the event was not a massacre because it was an accident (intent is required). I have not commented on the intent of the military forces, but have stated that some Asian news sources have described it as a massacre. We have tried to discuss the definition of "massacre" and have reached an impasse. How do you think we can help? Perhaps you could help us develop clear criteria for accepting a definition of the word massacre. A mediator would also be helpful to keep the discussion on track, and help with communication problems between us both. Darouet (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Granai airstrike 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 a clerk/mediator here at the Wikipedia dispute resolution noticeboard. As a starting point, could I get all parties to read Talk:List of events named massacres (Section: Criteria for including events in this list)? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC) I think it is a silly dispute. The article presents the facts: the United States killed approximately 86 to 145 Afghan civilians, mostly women and children. I don't think many readers will have trouble figuring out whether a 'massacre' took place. Whether or not the article is placed in the category "massacres in Afghanistan" ... who cares? It won't change the facts, nor the conclusion people draw from those facts. Dlabtot (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Nothing in wikipedia should be able to change the facts, but if Randy2063 would like to remove the article from the category, I'd like him to discuss it with third parties. -Darouet (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC) By the way Guy Macon, thanks for providing the criteria for listing events as massacres. For my part I find them reasonable. -Darouet (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, it's a silly dispute. Real "massacres" are supposed to be deliberate. We already have a category called "Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)" for incidents like this one. But some people love the emotional power they think they get from the word "massacre". If there wasn't any emotional power, everyone would be happy with the other category. But the word "massacre" says a lot more. It clearly implies that the pilot wanted to kill civilians. Darouet (who initiated this dispute resolution) even said that he believes it was deliberate, although there's nothing to suggest such a thing. As we all should know, this simply isn't true. We have an article falsely claiming that a living person (albeit unknown at the present time) had committed a war crime. -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Do you have any arguments that might convince us to adopt your "deliberate" criteria rather than the criteria listed on Talk:List of events named massacres#Criteria for including events in this list? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Deliberate intent is a requirement in common English usage. We don't call the Titanic's sinking a massacre. We don't even use the word for the more obvious cases of negligence. As for the criteria listed in that talk page, this event fails those tests. That page even includes it in WikiProject Crime. This hasn't been ruled to be a crime. My reasoning is the same as that of the press. The mainstream press usually puts "massacre" in quotes on the occasions that they used it for this event. It is generally called a "massacre" by people who support the other side of the war, but they're not reliable sources. -- Randy2063 (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Are you saying, Randy, that you accept the criteria found by Guy Macon, with the stipulation that we also prove that the pilots or other military personnel intended to kill the women and children they killed? If you want to argue outside those criteria and include definitions as well, how will you convince me or others that "deliberate intent is a requirement in common English usage?" From my reading of the definition of massacre, indiscriminate killing is what is required. It is clear that the pilots intended to kill somebody, and the military has stated that they accidentally killed the wrong people. One major difference between the sinking of the Titanic and the airstrike at Granai is that the captain of the Titanic didn't aim at the iceberg with the intention of fighting an insurgency, and in the process accidentally wipe out a village (he never had intent to kill anyone). The U.S. military did intend to kill people, but as they state themselves that they failed to discriminate between civilians and combatants. Ultimately a clear set of criteria independent of our own personal definitions will be more helpful in resolving this. -Darouet (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Template:CueI'm also a clerk/mediator here on DRN, and I'd like to suggest something here: it seems to me that we're talking about proving this pilot's intent (or premeditation). At Wikipedia, that is not what we do. I realize this is a categorization dispute, but it seems to me that this would be the time to turn to outside sources. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC) I'm saying that I've looked at the examples and dispute that any of them apply here. The crew of that aircraft didn't aim at women and children. Just as the captain of the Titanic didn't intend to sink his ship, the pilots didn't intend to kill children. Before it can become a matter of proving they wanted to kill innocents, we have to see if anyone seriously believes they wanted to kill innocents. We have no RS that say it happened that way. Reporters use "massacre" in quotes because they can't say it themselves. We should go by proper journalistic standards. I know that's tough to do in this environment but Wikipedia likes to bill itself as striving for these standards. -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC) In Anglo-American law, I believe, one who intends an act is presumed to intend the likely results of that act. I'm just sayin'. —Tamfang (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Two cents from Greg I haven't been involved in this debate and haven't read all of the above but I'll give my two cent for anyone interested. The pragmatic side is that anyone interested in researching "massacres in Afghanistan" might be interested in this so it could be useful to them to include this in that category (I'm assuming that's what categories are useful for? I've never used them much myself). But other items in that category should be checked to see what the rule has been so far for inclusion to be consistent. I'm not sure what level of intent is required for a "massacre" and whether that level of intent was met in this incident, not could the reliable sources even be sure of that one. Policy is probably fairly clear that it needs to be described as a massacre by at least one reliable sources. The Times is cited in the article but there is a paywall so I can't verify. If it does describe the event as a "massacre" then that should make the decision easy. If we need to go to your "Asian" sources, then you can check those sources at the reliable sources noticeboard for the description of "massacre". Gregcaletta (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC) The Times story ("Whistleblowers on US ‘massacre’ fear CIA stalkers") uses the word "massacre" in two places. One is in their story title, which I've always been wary of because titles are often not written by the reporter. Regardless, as you can see here, the title puts the word in quotes, which means the newspaper isn't calling it an actual massacre. The other place they use the word is in this sentence: "It is said to concern the so-called “Granai massacre”, when American aircraft dropped 500lb and 1,000lb bombs on a suspected militant compound in Farah province on May 4 last year." Note, again, that they put the word in quotes. It is called a "massacre" by people who support the enemy (yes, Assange admits that he does). If Wikipedia wants to support that standard, it should say so. -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC) I'm glad that we're consulting the sources rather than debating intent, and I think we have a consensus to do that. From the Asian Tribune, "In Afghanistan, meanwhile, U.S. soldiers and unpiloted drones have killed thousands of civilians over the last few years, including nearly a hundred people at Granai alone and another forty seven civilians at a wedding party in Deh Bala. As of yet, no one has been punished for any of these massacres."[25] From CBS News: "Manning also found a video and an official report on American air strikes on the village of Granai in Afghanistan's Farah Province (also known as "the Granai massacre"). According to the Afghan government, 140 civilians, including women and a large number of children, died in those strikes."[26] From the Hindustan Times: "Meanwhile, the whistleblower magnet WikiLeaks.org is releasing its second blockbuster video (NYSE:BBI) of the season - footage of the May 4, 2009, massacre in the Afghan village of Granai, where heavy bombing killed at least 100 civilians, most of them children." [27] From the Washington Times: "On May 4, American bombers killed as many as 147 Afghan civilians, 93 of them children, in an air strike in western Afghanistan that locals call the Farah Massacre."[28] Reprint by the BBC Monitoring Europe: " 'Parliament should meet as soon as possible on the Afghanistan issue, because an exit strategy is necessary for the withdrawal of Italy's troops from a conflict which leaves no glimpse of an end.' In the view of Claudio Fava, the coordinator of the national secretariat of Left, Ecology, Freedom (Italian: Sinistra Ecologia Liberta), 'the Farah massacre is a massacre foretold.' " (Sorry, I don't have a weblink. "Text of report by Italian leading privately-owned centre-right daily Corriere della Sera website, on 9 October") Reprint by The Australian: "Mr Assange claims surveillance has intensified as he and his colleagues prepare to put out their Afghan film. It is said to concern the so-called Granai massacre, when US aircraft dropped bombs on a suspected militant compound in Farah province on May 4 last year. Several children were among the dead." [29] (Originally from the Times) I think these reliable sources clearly demonstrate that many people, including but not always the writers for these papers themselves, call the event a massacre. And I strongly object to the idea that anyone who calls this a massacre "supports the enemy," whatever that means, exactly. -Darouet (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC) May I suggest deferring the question of proving they wanted to kill innocents until someone provides a logical argument for using intent as a criteria instead of the Criteria Wikipedia uses now? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Darouet: All of those are either opinion pieces (including from extremists) or they're quoting an extremist. Guy: What's Wikipedia using now other than RS? Right now, it appears that your only rule is that some RS is quoting someone (even a propagandist), and then that's enough. How far does that rule go? If someone who supports the Taliban calls President Obama a murderer, does that mean we can put him in a category for murderers? I don't see how. Or do your standards only slip if the military is being libeled? Perhaps you should change the name of the category to "Things that anyone calls a massacre." You can't even call this one an alleged massacre. -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Randy, the criteria upon which we agreed state that inclusion "is based solely on evidence in multiple reliable sources that a name including the word 'massacre' is one of the accepted names for that event." As examples, the criteria use these: "The killing of the students was described by local media as the 'High School massacre.'" "When the army's operation was debated in the National Assembly, the Prime Minister angrily attacked the widespread anti-government protests for calling Operation Clearout 'the Newtown massacre.'" As you can see from the second example, the Prime Minister does not believe the event is a massacre, but it is called so by "widespread anti-government protests" and reported by a reliable source. Clearly, the term extremist is a relative one (though I would never be so presumptuous, I could imagine that some might even mistakenly think you were an "extremist"), and isn't a fair way of evaluating sources. All of the sources above are established, even venerable ones, and in only one case are they even quoting somebody. In that case, the BBC (or Corriere della Sera) is quoting someone from the "Left, Ecology, Freedom" party. They're on the left; they're not "extremists." -Darouet (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Comment - The criteria for categorization is simply whether WP:Reliable sources describe the airstrike as a massacre. We do not look at intent. When the sources are mixed (some call it a massacre, many do not) we have to use some judgement. Categories have a stronger requirement for sourcing than lists or than text within an article. The reason categories have strong requirements is because there is no way for an entry in a category to be accompanied by an explanation or footnote to give the reader context or nuance. Contrast with Lists, where an entry in a List can be accompanied by supplemental information to give context and nuance. Since only a few sources describe Granai as a masscre, and many do not describe it as a massacre, it probably should not be in the Category. However, there is a compromise solution: include the Granai airstrike article in the List of massacres in Afghanistan and include the list in Category:Massacres in Afghanistan. That way, readers browsing the categories will see the List article, and see Granai within that List. Indeed, this compromise is already in place: Granai is in the List, and the List is in the Category. So, the only action that should be taken now is to remove Granai airstrike from the Cateogry. --Noleander (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC) BTW, some Google stats on how commonly the airstrike is called a massacre: "granai airstrike -massacre" is 43K ghits; "granai massacre" is 77K ghits. That means 43/77 or over half of all references in Google do not include the word massacre. --Noleander (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC) And, just to clarify: I agree 100% that the "massacre" sources & material should be included in the article itself. My comments above are limited to the issue of whether it belongs in the Category, where no context or nuance can be provided to the reader. --Noleander (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure if using different criteria than those discussed above is better (it may well be appropriate). I think it is clear that the descriptions by sources listed above meet the criteria for inclusion into a list for massacres (actually those criteria are not especially stringent). The criteria proposed by Noleander are also those used for naming articles, and are perhaps too stringent as criteria for inclusion in categories (though I'm willing to admit I might be wrong, as I actually don't know). For instance, placing an article like the Granai Airstrike in a massacre category is not equivalent to placing it in a war crimes categories, which strongly implies that the perpetrators were war criminals (and that is a major BLP problem). From the perspective of news sources, a search using the news database "LexisNexis" for "Granai massacre" yields 6 non-duplicate articles (The Australian, The Sunday Times London, CBS News, Antiwar.com, 2 from Pacific Free Press), Whereas "Granai airstrike" yields 5 (Tulsa World, Hindustan Times, Weekend Australian, New York Times, and International Herald Tribune); none of those include the term massacre. A similar search for "Farah massacre" yields two articles (BBC Monitoring Europe and Washington Times), Whereas "Farah airstrike" yields 6 (Sunday Times, Pajhwok Afghan News, New York Times, the Frontrunner, Washington Post, International Herald Tribune); none of those include the term massacre. For any horrific event (we all can agree this was one), there will be plenty of news sources describing it. In this case all would be obliged to write about the airstrike. But even if many came to consider the event a massacre (and many do in this case), not all sources, in describing the event, would also call the event a massacre. That 34/77k google hits do describe the airstrike as a massacre might or might not qualify it to be the title of the page on Wikipedia (that was discussed on the talk pages). However I would think that it especially would qualify it to belong in the massacre category. -Darouet (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, those are some good points. This Categorization is not a black & white issue: it is a borderline case. I posted a query on the WP:Categorization talk page, asking for others to provide more input. This reminds me of a situation I saw a couple of years ago, where the consensus was to remove (!) several notable persons from List of atheists when the persons said "I don't believe in God"; because the requirement for those lists is that the person must say "I am an atheist". And those were Lists, where a footnote explaining context/nuance was available. --Noleander (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC) You can call me an extremist all day. ("Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.") I might even say that half the Guantanamo lawyers support war crimes, but I don't go around tagging their articles with the war criminal category. (That was an exaggeration; it's probably only about one out of ten.) Perhaps real massacres aren't taken as seriously as they should be. I see what you're thinking about massacre and war crime being different, but I think they're too close. You must have some of the same feelings or you would have been satisfied with the "civilian casualties" category. That may be the main problem. Maybe you think this is some kind of a moral stamp of disapproval that doesn't require legal review. But I think it requires something more. The press must think the same thing when they use quotes around the word. I'll see what Guy says about whether it would be appropriate to call President Obama a murderer based solely on what an enemy of the U.S. says. I don't think counting google hits works that way. The way Google works, not every hit is going to actually use the word. See Google bomb. -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Arbitrary section break You want to know what Guy says? Guy says that Wikipedia's criteria for whether to call Granai a massacre is at Talk:List of events named massacres#Criteria for including events in this list. Each of you has three choices. You can attempt to get Wikipedia's criteria changed (Go to Talk:List of events named massacres if you wish to try) You can accept Wikipedia's criteria and edit the page accordingly, or you can refuse to accept Wikipedia's criteria and end up warned and, if you persist, blocked. This issue is settled. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Well, I'm sorry if I hit some kind of a sore spot. I'll keep what you said in mind for whenever I return to more frequent editing. -- Randy2063 (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Well, I think for my part that I'll edit the page according to those criteria. Thanks for helping us locate them and for your patience with us. -Darouet (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC) The statement "I'll see what Guy says about whether it would be appropriate to call President Obama a murderer based solely on what an enemy of the U.S. says." did annoy me, and I apologize if I reacted too strongly. I think it does bring up an important issue though. When that was written, nobody expected anyone to pop up and say that it was an accurate paraphrase of their position. I know the feeling well - sometimes I think that if I write a really clever zinger like that everyone will see it and immediately see that I am right on the issue. In reality, it causes the opposition to dig in their heels and impedes any attempt to come to an agreement. One thing that may help is for all parties to agree to go through a process where each of you states a paraphrase / depiction of each others position and then discuss and rewrite until both sides agree that the other side has accurately portrayed their position. To do this, you need to decide to not play any games like telling them that they must believe X because they believe Y or in any other way refusing to accept what they say about their own position. This process takes an annoyingly long time, but how can you ever reach agreement if you are fighting a strawman? Having said that, I am inclined to close this as being resolved. Does anyone disagree, and if so, what can DRN do to help resolve the remaining issues? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I think there are two big differences between including a massacre in the List of events named massacres and including in a category such as Category:Massacres in Afghanistan. First, the list is restricted to events that have "massacre" in the name (vs simply are massacres); and second, Lists always can be more liberal about what they include, because they can contain footnotes etc. So the criteria for List of events named massacres may provide some good guidance, but they do not precisely apply to a categorization issue. For instance, an event may be considered a massacre by all sources; yet still not belong in the List of events named massacres because its common name does not include that word. Conversely, an event may be in a List of massacres because it is borderline/marginal (according to the sources) massacre, yet it may be omitted from the corresponding category because that borderline information cannot be expressed in a Category (but can be in a list). But, if the parties are willing to accept the more restrictive (avoiding the categorization) for this particular dispute, that is fine with me. --Noleander (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC) For example, a few events that are in a massacre category, but would not belong in that List are: Cananea strike, Yekatit 12, and Negro Rebellion. --Noleander (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Many of the items in the massacre category suffer from the same problem. I have gripes but I didn't want to stick around this long. The main sticking point for me is that this is a significantly lower standard than that used by the Times in the reference. They only put the word "massacre" in quotes. I don't think the BBC or the NYT used the word at all. BTW, Guy: That wasn't simply a stinger. I really wanted an answer to that question. But in retrospect, I suppose the standard of "murderer" was set by a different group of editors. This will be a much bigger problem if the pilots' names are ever leaked, and it becomes a definite BLP issue. -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I find Noleander's argument to be compelling, and I retract my formerly stated opinion; I am now convinced that we cannot blindly apply the criteria from a list to a category. So, where can we find an objective set of criteria for inclusion/exclusion in the category? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not aware of any specific WP policy on massacre categories. The generic guidance from WP:Categorization says "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." I think for this particular dispute, that generic guidance suggests that the category should be avoided. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Technically, both the Cananea strike and the Yekatit 12, which are categorized as massacres, would fit the criteria put forward by the list. The "Cananea strike" is also known as the "Cananea massacre," and the "Yekatit 12" event includes the "Graziani Massacre." I don't know if other sources besides that given also refer to Cananea as a massacre, though for the Yekatit article, the source provided is scholarly. The advantage of the list criteria provided previously is that they don't rely on our arguing about whether something really is a massacre or not, and instead compel us to demonstrate that, according to reliable sources, an event is considered a massacre by many people in some way. I understand that we can't place footnotes on a categorization, but please forgive me for pointing out that there will almost always be "two sides to every massacre:" massacres are by nature controversial. We have well demonstrated that the event we are discussing here, the Granai airstrike, is also known as the "Granai massacre." If categorization is to be uncontroversial, is some greater level of controversy than that inherent in any massacre decided by the presence of a dispute on the talk pages? Or the identification of a controversy in reliable sources (scholars from Armenia and Turkey debate the Armenian genocide endlessly, whatever you'll make of that. I doubt there's substantial debate outside Turkey). I'm sorry to give you all a hard time, but for reasons that have already been reviewed above, if the indiscriminate destruction of a village full of women and children is called a massacre both by locals and by many reliable sources, but cannot be categorized as a massacre, then the category of massacre may simply be an inoperable one. And that can be OK, actually, because there are lists, this is an encyclopedia, and in the end we have to work out a reasonable framework for classification. But I would suggest that the presence of many "massacre" categories means that Wikipedia has not yet determined the massacre category to be intractable. That could change. Lastly, relating to the issue of footnotes, I really don't think that most readers who read this page, and see the massacre category, will be confused as to why it is so classified. -Darouet (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Reliable sources say that critics of the U.S. side of the war are calling it a "massacre." Democracy Now isn't exactly NPOV. I don't doubt that ignorant local villagers would be calling it a "massacre." They were probably told that the pilots had been targeting the women and children. That's an even lower standard than I'd been crediting this argument with. It might be easier to just change the name of the category, and get rid of the "civilian casualties" cat altogether. But then it would be hard to find an NPOV name that's still judgmental enough for you. -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Although I am no longer convinced that the list criteria apply to categories, if we do apply it, Talk:List of events named massacres#Criteria for including events in this list specifically allows non-NPOV but reliable sources. Look at the fourth item in the table of examples. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC) You're saying that NPOV doesn't apply to categories. I think that page is wrong. If they're right, then you need to change this at WP:NPOV so that everyone knows about it. You can't have one set of rules for things called "massacres" and another set of rules for everything else. -- Randy2063 (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC) You are doing it again. You wrote "You're saying that..." followed by something I did not say. This behavior is inappropriate. Don't do it again. I don't think that WP:NPOV says what you think it does. If you look at the history of Talk:List of events named massacres you will see that a lot of thought by a number of editors went into the wording chosen. In particular, read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Naming. As for your theory that we cannot call something what its opposition calls it, It is found nowhere in WP:NPOV or any other Wikipedia policy. As far as I can tell, the only people who call a certain series of events in WWII a "holocaust" are strongly opposed to killing millions of Jews. Yet we still use that label. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Neutral third opinion: "The Granai airstrike, sometimes called the Granai massacre,[reliable source] refers to the killing of approximately 86 to 145 Afghan civilians" - This is a clear cut case. It belongs in the category. It's in Afghanistan, we have reliable sources calling it a massacre. It's a done deal. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Guy, you most certainly did say it "specifically allows non-NPOV but reliable sources." I was just rephrasing it. If my rephrase was wrong then you should have explained what was different. The reliable sources, in this case, aren't calling it a massacre. They're saying that it's been called a massacre by critics of the U.S. side of the war. But I'm not going to waste a weekend arguing over this. Clearly, the "civilian casualties" category isn't inflammatory enough, and this kind of stuff will pop up again and again regardless. -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC) The difference between "NPOV doesn't apply to categories" and "Talk:List of events named massacres specifically allows non-NPOV but reliable sources." Is that the first assumes without evidence that WP:NPOV forbids the use of non-NPOV but reliable sources for this purpose (or perhaps you are claiming that WP:NPOV forbids the use of non-NPOV but reliable sources for any purpose.) This assertion is not backed up by anything in WP:NPOV BTW, it is not my responsibility to monitor your posts and correct the places where you put words in my mouth. It is your responsibility to refrain from doing so. If you are incapable of paraphrasing without setting up a strawman, don't paraphrase at all. And you certainly should not defend your misstating of other editor's positions. And, given your misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, I suggest that in the future you quote (not paraphrase) the exact wording of the portion of WP:NPOV that you believe supports your position. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC) As I understood it, non-NPOV sources can be used if attributed. This is, after all, what the Times did when they put "massacre" in quotes. I just didn't think that counted for a category. I'm sorry if you didn't like my rephrasing. If you'll recall, you had suggested, "One thing that may help is for all parties to agree to go through a process where each of you states a paraphrase / depiction of each others position and then discuss and rewrite until both sides agree that the other side has accurately portrayed their position." Obviously, you didn't think I did this very well. And for that, I'm sorry. IAC, as I indicated earlier, I'm done with this one. You can have it. -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Please excuse my absence. Is this issue settled? One point I'd make about the discussion above is that the sources previously cited are not a priori in violation of NPOV. I would not expect the Hindustan Times to agree with spokespersons for the American military every time a village was bombed; there is no reason to automatically believe that would be the "neutral" attitude, even if one were an American editor (and I am). Categories for massacres are by nature controversial, and perhaps we should not have them. But if we do choose to have them, based upon the number of newspapers and columnists who have addressed the airstrike at Granai, it seems as though that event belongs in the massacre category. I am not even convinced, at present, that its name should have been changed. -Darouet (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 14, 2012 at 20:16 (UTC) Reason: Participants seem to be saying that this is done and there have been no new comments in 3 days. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:16, 14 June 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.

Assam#Etymology

• Assam#Etymology (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?

The current dispute is about the section Assam#Etymology. Specifically, it is about whether the name "Assam" can be traced to 13th century Shan invaders. A general consensus does exist that the name can be traced to them, but which User:Bhaskarbhagawati is resisting. A third opinion was requested, (for the discussion, look here: Talk:Assam#Etymology_of_Assam). At the end of the section two alternative texts are given: Talk:Assam#Alternate_Text_1 (User:Bhaskarbhagawati) and Talk:Assam#Alternate_text_2 (User:Chaipau). User:H_tan_H_epi_tas responded to the Third Opinion request. User:Chaipau has accepted the verdict, but User:Bhaskarbhagawati has responded by questioning the status of User:H_tan_H_epi_tas.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Chaipau (talk · contribs)
• Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs)
• H_tan_H_epi_tas (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=Assam#Etymology}} --~~~~ 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?

At first, attempts at discussion with User:Bhaskarbhagawati were unsuccessful. Messages left at his talk pages were blanked (see here). Comments on the talk pages were also deleted (see here). Then a Third Opinion request was made, which has led to an ad hominem attack on the Third Opinion responder.

• How do you think we can help?
  1. General guidelines what the next step should be.
  2. Examine Talk:Assam#Alternate_Text_1 and Talk:Assam#Alternate_text_2 and judge which text is acceptable for Wikipedia.

Chaipau (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Assam#Etymology discussion

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

• Maybe the original page section should be protected in some way to avoid further complications until an agreement is reached. As the Third Opinion provider, I make clear that I have never talked to either editor before and never had read the article in question before. I am not a resident or a national of the area either. I provided my unbiased opinion based on the alternate texts provided by the editors and the discussion in "talk". I read the arguments again tonight, and I still adhere by my original position that The Alternate text 2 suggested by User:Chaipau is better written, more clear, more rounded and with better and more critical use of references. In addition, User:Chaipau made a compromise already and accepted my suggestion that it should be pointed out to the readers that some uncertainty still remains regarding the etymology. So the Alternate Text 2 clearly states that "Though association of the name with the Shan invaders is widely accepted[12] the precise origin of the name is not clear.". I think this is a fair approach to the etymology issue. In addition, I noticed that User:bbhagawati is indeed of the habit to blanking his "talk" page, where I had left a warning for him, because he accused me of being a fraudster.

--H tan H epi tas (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• User:BhaskarBhagawati asked for a reference, and I have provided a scan of three pages of the book "Aspects of Early Assamese Literature". They are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AKakati1953_early_aspects_assamese_pp1%2C2.pdf

--Chaipau (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Though I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN, I do not care to intervene at this time into the substance of this dispute, but would like to make a couple of procedural comments: First, it should be borne in mind that opinions issued through the Third Opinion Project are in no way binding and are entirely advisory, for reasons I describe in detail here. Second, except in a very few instances it is perfectly acceptable for a user to blank his or her own talk page, including most kinds of warnings. Doing so is considered to be an acknowledgment, however, that the user has read and understood everything that they remove. See WP:REMOVED for a list of what cannot be removed and a complete discussion of the matter. Third, on the other hand, it is considered a violation of the rules to remove or modify other users' comments on any talk page other than your own, with a considerable list of exceptions which can be found at WP:TPO; having said that, it should be noted that this noticeboard is not a place to discuss or complain about conduct violations such as that. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that the examples of personal talk page blanking (and the absence of any reply) was given as an example of what transpired during the effort to discuss the issue and come to a compromise. Though I have given an example of User:Bhaskarbhagawati deleting my replies to his comment, I am not asking for an arbitration on this, even though I know this is a serious violation of Wikipedia rules. I shall be satisfied with some binding decision on the text, since right now Assam#Etymology looks like a bloody battlefield, as does the rest of the article. The sooner we can move on, the better. --Chaipau (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, another procedural note: There is no mechanism or procedure in Wikipedia by which to make binding decisions on content. All content in Wikipedia is included or excluded via consensus and even once a consensus matter is decided, pro or con, consensus can change. The closest Wikipedia comes to a mechanism to make a binding content decision is to invite the wider Wikipedia community to a discussion via a request for comments, but the purpose of even that is to try to come to consensus about an content matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The contentious statement is The academic consensus is that current name "Assam" is based on the English word Assam[15]. I would like to think that Wikipedia procedural rules can pass a binding decision on a nonsensical statement like "Assam is based on Assam". The quote User:Bhagawati has provided in the reference claims "Assamese is based on the English word Assam", which is true, but which does not claim what User:Bhaskarbhagawati is claiming that "Assam is based on the English word Assam". Elsewhere I have given quotes from a number of standard references (I can explain further, if needed) where it is accepted that the name is associated with the Shan (Ahom) invaders. Please note that the phrase "academic consensus" was originally used in this context: "The academic consensus is that the current name is associated with the Ahom rulers who reigned for nearly six hundred years, as evidenced from Satyendra Nath Sarma's quote from Banikanta Kakati", which User:Bhaskarbhagawati co-opts for the opposing view with a dubious reference, here. Originally, the academic consensus was shown to have been demonstrated when Satyendranath Sharma accepted Banikanta Kakati's position. This User:Bhagawati has edited away. --Chaipau (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• I know that Third Opinion is not binding. Just wrote a summary here about where I stand, since my username is involved, to help other contributors forming an opinion. Also, I wanted to point out that disputing editors should try to show at least some good faith towards a third opinion, or else this procedural mechanism gets completely redundant and futile.

--H tan H epi tas (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• I, like TransporterMan, am a volunteer clerk/mediator here at WP:DRN. I would like to expand on one point; earlier, the word "arbitration" came up. Here on DRN, we offer mediation, not arbitration. The key difference is that DRN was purposely designed to have no power to make anyone do anything. All we can do is to help you to resolve your dispute, or, failing that, guide you as to where to go next. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you TransporterMan and Guy Macon. We tried to negotiate one-on-one, then invited a third opinion and now we are widening the discussion so that a resolution can become possible. We shall await a decision here, and if needed shall go to the next level, according to the advice we receive here. Chaipau (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks User:Guy Macon for communication, though i am already following the discussion here and not wanted to interfere while procedures are being explained. Now, i like to put my view which is already discussed in Talk:Assam but i like to mention the same here too that i said "Assam is an English word used by British to refer a piece of land in North East India and same word is never used locally before and never referred to any tribe but land". For which i have provided the views of Scholars which mentioned both in main article and talk page. But further i like to add following links of national newspapers and websites which directed towards news item regarding proposal of name change of state of Assam due to its foreign linkage. Here are links, this Link is already there in main article for some time referring to said developments and this i like add few more: Link, Link, Link, Link

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati's claim, that "Assam is an English word used by British to refer a piece of land in North East India and same word is never used locally before and never referred to any tribe but land" is false. Assam and its equivalents were used to refer to both the Ahom community as well as the kingdom. Banikanta Kakati has said here: "Though the Shan invaders called themselves "Tai", they came to be referred to as Āsam, Āsām and Ācam by the indigenous people of the province. Early Assamese chronicles used all these variant forms to mean the new Shan invaders." This is accepted by Satyendranath Sharma, Amalendu Guha and others. Chaipau (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit lost as far as the actual dispute here is concerned. I just don't feel confident that my opinion would be correct - it is too far out of my area of expertise. Looks like your RfC had the same problem. Is there any chance that the two of you could work out a compromise? I am thinking something along the line of "source A says X, source B says Y" with each of you providing your best sources. I can see that you both really care about making the article better, and clearly this dispute is working against that. Look in your heart and ask yourself how far you are willing to bend toward the other position. Maybe we can get you to meet in the middle. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can begin by examining the unambiguous statements made by Banikanta Kakati. User:Bhaskarbhagawati's position number (1) that "Assam is based on Assam" is refuted by Kakati's "The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century." User:Bhaskarbhagawati's position (2) that the name is not related to the Ahom's is refuted by Kakati's statement "Though the Shan invaders called themselves "Tai", they came to be referred to as Āsam, Āsām and Ācam by the indigenous people of the province. Early Assamese chronicles used all these variant forms to mean the new Shan invaders." Please read section 2, "Origin of 'Assam'" in the scan I have provided below (it is a multi-page PDF file).

File:Kakati1953 early aspects assamese pp1,2.pdf

The links that User:BhaskarBhagawati has provided in his note in fact refutes his own position number (1). From his first link, this is a quote: "The word Assam was coined during the colonial period. Historically, it was Asom, but during British rule Assam Tea became so famous as a brand that colonial rulers did not attempt to correct the state's name," said Priyam Goswami, head of Gauhati University's History department. All the links User:Bhaskarbhagawati has provided are newspaper links and they are silent on his assertion number (2).

Chaipau (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is a matter of controversy in State itself, so its obviously difficult for others to form a opinion. As matter is controversial in nature, i have already suggested earlier and doing again that it should mentioned POV's of different Scholars and Specialists (not own) with proper sourcing. Hope it concludes the discussion.

Thanks for opinion !

bbhagawati (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems Compromise and Scholarly POV's (as advised by mediator) won't work here.

Anyway regarding my position according to the disputing user that number (1) that "Assam is based on Assam" (actually its current name Assam is based on English word Assam) refuted by Kakati's "The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century."' We can easily see in the quote of said author that current name is English word which is inspired by native name Asam. Though native name was connected to medieval tribe but current name was used by British referring to piece of land (not tribe). Please note we are here discussing about only current name i.e Assam. And when i said based on English word without referring to its origin, i tried to say that particular word is English one.

And regarding my position (according to same user) (2) that the name is not related to the Ahom's is refuted by Kakati's statement "Though the Shan invaders called themselves "Tai", they came to be referred to as Āsam, Āsām and Ācam by the indigenous people of the province. Early Assamese chronicles used all these variant forms to mean the new Shan invaders." And asking for reading section 2 provided by him, "Origin of 'Assam'" scan copy. We are here discussing about current name only not about other names. So while preceding mentioned names maybe connected to a tribe but current name which possibly inspired from native name (its a another issue yet to discussed in details) is used only to refer to a large piece of land not some tribe by British. So meaning of current name Assam will be "an state in North east India" but preceding mentioned names (which we are not concerned here) are related to a medieval tribe possibly. so its meaning and references has huge differences. Current word is related to land only for which said word was coined. The upload page which disputing user refers to is itself mentioned "Assam" as an Anglicize word. I like to give an example, the name "America" is taken from "Amerigo Vespucci", but word America does not refer to said person but only the source word "Amerigo". This example is directly not applicable here because unlike America the inspiring word of English word "Assam" is not yet ascertained. On support of my claim i like to forward some views of greatest Scholars State has ever produced:

Banikanta Kakati says -

The word Assamese is an English one,built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam.

Satyendranath Sarma says:-

Assamese is the easternmost Indo-Aryan language of India, spoken by nearly eight millions of people inhabiting mostly the Brahmaputra valley of Assam. The word Assamese is an English formation built on the same principle as Simhalese or Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam by which the British rulers referred to the tract covered by the Brahmaputra valley and its adjoining areas. But the people call their country Asama and their language Asamiya.

Due to fact that State government propose to parliament of the country for name change of State for its foreign links. Experts from State government also includes the Ex president of highest literacy body of State. Links are provided above in my previous posts. So i like to remind again that my claim is that current name "Assam" is an "English" word used by British to refer to a piece of land in "North East India" not a tribe. And this dispute is about current name not about any other names. Thats all i like to say.

There is an old saying that its easy to wake up a sleeping person but no so easy when pretending.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Every place-name used in English is trivially an English word – Russia(n) and Brazil(ian) and Egypt(ian) are English words – so why go out of our way to say that Assam, which appears in the English Wikipedia, is an English word? The phrase "based on the English word Assam" implies that the invaders imported the name from England and said, "This place needs a name; what words aren't we using already? Ah, Assam, a fine English word that doesn't mean anything yet, we can call it that." Why not be you satisfied with a compromise such as "Asam (or Ahom or Ačam) was (or is) the name of a tribe, adopted in English in the form Assam and applied to the territory"? —Tamfang (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Every place-name used in English is trivially an English word – Russia(n) and Brazil(ian) and Egypt(ian) are English words – so why go out of our way to say that Assam, which appears in the English Wikipedia, is an English word? It is not always true Because Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Pakistan are not English words though appearing in English Wikipedia. The phrase "based on the English word Assam" implies that the invaders imported the name from England i have given quotes from Scholars above which says Assamese is based on English word Assam, is that means either of two are imports from invading country ? This place needs a name; what words aren't we using already? Ah, Assam, a fine English word that doesn't mean anything yet, we can call it that. I have already discussed that every language is dynamic and keep on adding new words to its stock with interaction of new things like word "Affluenza" is an new word which means A blend of 'affluence' and 'influenza'. A social disease resulting from extreme materialism and excessive consumerism: earning more money and consuming more, which can lead to overwork, debt, waste, stress, anxiety, etc. and do the word "Burquini" which means Blend of 'burqa' and 'bikini'. A swimsuit worn by Muslim women which covers the whole body i.e. the arms to the wrist, the legs to the ankle, with a hood to cover the hair and neck. Both this words are English now. This two doesn't meant anything before but now it does. Even this words have some influence of existing words but meaning had a big difference.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if we accept the nonsensical "Assam is based on Assam" and take it to mean that Assam was what the English named the region, it would still be untrue. The British themselves spelled the name "Asam" (with a single s) initially, before they settled on the modern form "Assam" ("Muhammadan historians wrote Āshām, and in the early dates of British rule it was spelt with a single s", Edward Gait, (1906) "History of Assam", Calcutta, p240) The correct position should be "Assam is based on Asam". And rightfully, in a section "Etymology of Assam" we have to consider all forms of the name that preceded it. User:Bhaskarbhagawati's position that "We are here discussing about current name only not about other names" makes no sense.

Edward Gait was a British colonial officer and his 1906 work is the first modern compilation of Assam's history, which is now considered a standard. He has himself suggested that other forms of the name existed before the British ("Muhammadan historians wrote Āshām"). We seem to be spending too much energy on sorting out the Englishness of "Assam".

Chaipau (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if we accept the nonsensical "Assam is based on Assam" and take it to mean that Assam was what the English named the region, it would still be untrue. The British themselves spelled the name "Asam" (with a single s) initially, before they settled on the modern form "Assam" Disputing user himself stated here that British has picked it as Asam and coined the modern word Assam. Which is exactly my point that British coined the current new name Assam referring to land not tribe though maybe inspired by some earlier name. The correct position should be "Assam is based on Asam". I have already said that word that inspired Assam is another matter of discussion. We are here concerned about word Assam i.e coined by whom and referring to what ? And rightfully, in a section "Etymology of Assam" we have to consider all forms of the name that preceded it. Its not because i have not questioned about any other previous words except the current one.

Peace !

bbhagawati (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The current evidence suggests that the Dutch were the first to use the form Assam, much before the British. (Wahid Saleh, "What's in a name?", The Assam Tribune) Nevertheless, we can accommodate your insistence that we name it English in the following text I provide below (to follow the references, please look at here: Talk:Assam#Alternate_text_3).

Currently there exists no academic consensus on the precise etymology of "Assam". In the classical period and up to the 12th century the region east of the Karatoya river, largely congruent to present-day Assam, was called Kamarupa, and alternatively, Pragjyotisha.[19] In the medieval times the Mughals used Asham, and during British colonialism, the English used Asam and then Assam.[20] Though association of the name with the 13th century Shan invaders is widely accepted[21] the precise origin of the name is not clear. It was suggested by some that the Sanskrit word Asama ("unequalled", "peerless", etc) was the root, which has been rejected by Gait[22] as well as Kakati.[23] and it is now accepted that it is a later Sanskritization of a native name.[24] Among possible origins are Tai (A-Cham)[25] and Bodo (Ha-Sam).[26]

The text above associates the form Assam strongly with the English as User:Bhaskarbhagawati has suggested, but it is silent on who used the name first (was it the English or the Dutch?). I hope this is a compromise. The first sentence was the recommendation from the third opinion phase of this resolution process. Chaipau (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing about local use but it seems new discussion started here regarding first European use. Though it is out of context i like to add that its British who first used the word because :-

• Scholars says so. (Most important)
• British felt their presence in Bengal trade from early 1600s whereas map above was drawn as late as 1662.
• Dutch are known for picking English words. English loanwords are common in Dutch.

My version for Etymology of Assam

Assam was known as Pragjyotisha in Mahabharata, Puranas and in other Sanskrit scriptures. It is known as Kamarupa in first millennium A.D to Early Second millennium after a Kingdom which ruled Assam for 800 years.

In medieval times Eastern part of Assam is known after a Shan tribe as Acham and later replaced by Sanskrit Asama meaning Uneven, Peerless or unequaled. Current name Assam is an English word used by British to refer Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas. The British province after 1838 and the Indian state after 1947 came to be known as Assam.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I would desist from going into the many side issues. But I see that your text in general agrees with mine. I do not think you have made your case that Assam is an English name, and since it is in dispute, I have suggested a compromise text which identifies "Assam" as a name used by the English, but which is silent on who used it first. I don't think we should try to sort out that dispute. So I invite you to accept the compromise text: "and during British colonialism, the English used Asam and then Assam" Chaipau (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Instead of indulging in nonconstructive practices like curtailing established facts and scholarly views, its better few more lines are added challenging those views with references. Even section can be divided concentrating on two different views along with three existing or more quotes from specialists. Freedom of expression on both sides can be a real compromise. This discussion maybe closed now.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• No established facts have been curtailed in the text above. A literal reading of "English word Assam" from Banikanta Kakati's 1941 work would be wrong, because he has modified that phrase to "the anglicised form 'Assam'" in his 1953 work. I have also shown evidence that "Assam" was used by the Dutch in circa 1670. So, the claim that the English used the form "Assam" first is itself in dispute. This and other issues should be brought out in the main article Etymology of Assam, with the Assam#Etymology remaining uncluttered.

• If there are no further objections, I shall transfer the text to the etymology section.

Chaipau (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

How Anglicization forms new English words is already discussed in Assam talk page. Regarding transfer of texts, it is not required as everything is already mentioned in said section with full citations. Signing off from this discussion.

Thanking all for cooperation !

bbhagawati (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

* User:Bhaskarbhagawati's current objections are not clear. As far as I can tell, I have addressed his concerns and made changes to the text to satisfy him and now we are back on square one. I ask for advice from mediators of this noticeboard on how to proceed. Chaipau (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

BP

• BP (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 noticing bias on the BP article. There is only one other editor active on the page and we do not see things the same way. He sees my edits as POV pushing and continues to undo them. I see his editing as POV pushing and obviously pro-BP. He is having a hard time refraining from sharing his displeasure with me, which makes discussion a dead-end venture.

Here is the discussion: [[30]] Here is the edit in question: [[31]]

I took the problem to [POV noticeboard] and received only one reply, which was in complete agreement with my stance. But this did nothing to help the situation.

There is an edit war going on as he has reverted my edit 3 times, and I have done the same (not in a 24 hour period though).

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Rangoon11 (talk · contribs)
• Petrarchan47 (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.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=BP}} --~~~~ 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?

Discussion and POV noticeboard

• How do you think we can help?

Please give suggestions for where to go from here. We may need some administrators to take a look and see which editor is POV pushing, and perhaps to ban them from editing the page, to me it looks like the other editor is working on behalf of BP to make their Wikipedia article favorable. Also, help with the edit in question would be great.

petrarchan47^Tc 01:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

BP discussion

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

Here are 2 discussions regarding other edits which look like POV pushing to me [removal of BP oil spill financial aftermath] and [removal of the fact that BP's oil spill was the largest accidental oil spill in marine history]. petrarchan47^Tc 02:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think an administrator's input could help. It looks to me that the points sought to be included are relevant and appropriate to this article. There seem to be only two editors involved and the opposition to the edit seems emotional and out of perspective.Coaster92 (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We aren't administrators here, but we are volunteer mediators. The goal here is to reach agreement. Right now I am waiting until both parties have posted their arguments. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Following Petrarchan47's comment above in which they state that 'to me it looks like the other editor is working on behalf of BP to make their Wikipedia article favorable. Also, help with the edit in question would be great.', and in view of their repeated attempts to impose changes to the lead of this article, despite having been reverted for very good reasons and a discussion being ongoing on the article talk page, I am unwilling to enter into any further discussion with them.

I have made over 130 edits to the BP article. Anyone is free to compare the state of the article when I started working on it and the position today. My edits speak for themselves. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

For those who don't have the time to follow links to various discussions, I thought I would give a summary. Reading the intro to the BP article, the third paragraph stopped me in my tracks. It was one sentence mentioning that BP has had some environmental and political problems. That is well known, and flushed out in the body of the article. But in the same paragraph was a diatribe about BP's green energy investments. To me the structure of this paragraph seems to be a statement that is not favorable to BP followed by a rebuttal. I cannot see any other reason for these two ideas to be bunched together. To remedy what I saw as POV, I separated the 2 ideas, and added the most recent petrol investments I could find at the end to give a more rounded picture. From the body of the article: "BP's investment in green technologies peaked at 4% of its exploratory budget, but they have since closed their alternative energy headquarters in London. As such they invest more than other oil companies..." to give some idea of just how out of balance is the 3rd paragraph of the intro.

This edit has been undone 4 times now, and I have been told to "go get a blog" based on this edit. As you can see from the discussion, I was labeled a POV pusher based on my editing after this and my earlier edits, which consisted of updating the "Solar" section. BP ended its Solar programme at the beginning of the year and posted their reasoning on their website, saying it was no longer profitable. I updated the article with this information, making statements past-tense. The article still had a section about Solar in the present tense, with a picture of Solar panels. Rangoon11 immediately deleted BP's stated reason for ending it's Solar programme but did not explain why he did so. I added it back. I also removed the image of solar panels as it gave a false impression. This edit was not disputed.

Based on these edits, Rangoon had this to say: " Your edits to this article to date are very concerning as they all appear to be motivated by a desire to push a certain POV rather than to actually develop the article. Breaking out the sentence 'BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence' into a one line paragraph is about as classic an example of POV pushing as I can imagine, designed purely to emphasise a negative aspect of the company.

...I also find it interesting that you think that that sentence and the remainder of the paragraph are so unrelated that they should not even be in the same paragraph, but then wish yourself to make a highly POV linkage between the amount that BP invests in renewables and in oil and gas through the use of the words 'By comparison'. I fully expect that you will fail to see the hypocrisy of this but I personally find it offensive.''"

In my opinion, to not break out the sentence (and yes, it should be flushed out a bit, i imagine it used to be a fuller argument but has been whittled down over time) is to hide the sentence, and to mute the facts. To follow it with BP's 4% investments in Green Energy is pure POV and more specifically "greenwashing".

Rangoon11 rebuttal above is alarming as well. The number of edits one has made to an article does not in any way give that editor ownership or privilege. But this editor does appear to have an attitude of ownership over this article. He is also working somewhat closely with a BP employee who is giving editing advice - I add this for your information but I am not claiming that this is a problem. I don't see it as such yet, but it is interesting how friendly Rangoon11 is with the BP employee compared with his attitude towards me.

"My edits speak for themselves" "I have made over 130 edits to the page" This gives me pause based on certain edits. One of the most noteworthy facts about the BP oil spill is that is was the largest in US history, and the largest accidental marine oil spill ever. This is a well known and easily verified fact. Yet Rangoon11 saw fit to erase this statement from the BP oil spill section of the article. I brought this up on the talk page asking why. His response was to insinuate he was unaware of any sources verifying this, and asked me for proof. My understanding of Wikipedia is that the editor, before removal of statements, should do their own research to find verification. I cannot believe Rangoon11 is being honest about his motives being NPOV, and that he saw fit to remove this bit from the oil spill section because, if I am reading his statement correctly, he hadn't been able to find supporting refs. I gave him 3 refs and he did not respond.

Another edit in question was the removal of a large section detailing the aftermath of the oil spill as it relates to BP's stock, etc. This was a big part of the history of the spill. I have been told that before removing sections from a Wikipedia article, editors are to bring the section to the talk page to discuss. His reasoning for the removal included it being "out of date" - but he told me "this article is about BP throughout its history and not merely the present day" when we were discussing me edits to the now defunct solar programme.

I hope someone can tell me how Wikipedia deals with companies that might be trying to edit Wikipedia articles to better their image. I have a hard time believing it's left up to individual editors who notice POV to deal with it on their own - as you can see it is not easy or effective. The snarky attacks are not fun either.petrarchan47^Tc 21:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the above violates the request to 'keep it brief'. Let me know if it's better to move this to my talk page, with a link. Thanks. petrarchan47^Tc 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, can I ask why you have actually come to this noticeboard at all when you are in parallel simply attempting to force your proposed change to the lead of this article (which is long standing and has been stable for a long period of time, and was the result of discussion)?

Rangoon, I have already stated my reasons for bringing this dispute to this noticeboard. The length of time that the paragraph has been in place is irrelevant. The paragraph either is or is not POV. Outside help is needed as you and I see things quite differently. petrarchan47^Tc 22:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is highly relevant. The existing lead is long standing and therefore has the weight of accumulated consensus. It was also the work of multiple editors in discussion. You are attempting to make a non standard and bizarre change, which would create a one line, in fact considerably less than a line on my screen, paragraph, right in the middle of the lead, which is designed purely to give heightened emphasis to negative aspects of the company's history. You have admitted as much yourself, when you say that you feel that the text is currently hidden.

Whilst discussion is underway on this proposed change which has been reverted by an established editor for very good reasons please refrain from your efforts to impose the change through edit warring. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never come across this type of grief or 'longstanding' (ie, "carved in stone") argument when making changes to the lead of any other article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are always a work in progress. I am not alone in seeing the paragraph and your attitude as problematic. You think your reasons for reverting my edits are good ones. I do not. Changes to articles are not based on whether the editors are ["elite editors"] or editors like me. That's what I love about Wikipedia. It is (supposed to be) "for the people, by the people" and edits are to be based on their NPOV - not on who did the edits or on how long the edits have gone unchallenged. I can see why no one would want to challenge edits on this article based on my experience thus far.petrarchan47^Tc 23:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes you have to date have around 140 article edits on WP, I have substantially over 100 times more. I have worked on the leads of I would guess hundreds of company articles and you appear to date to have worked on only that of BP. I do not expect a medal for this or even any thanks. However I do ask that you stand back and ask yourself, "why is Rangoon so anti this particular edit, and yet has not reverted 90% of my edits to the BP article?". My genuine, sincere goal is to make the BP article as good as possible and to make WP as good as possible. A half a line paragraph right in the middle of the lead would draw huge attention to that text, in much the same way as if the text were in bold or italics. Why make that sentence into a single paragraph rather than any of the other sentences? Why not adhere to the usual WP approach of having no more than four paragraphs in the lead? I can't see a good reason for it.

And I don't in any way believe that the current lead is perfect. For example it should in my view have more detail about BP's history. It currently has essentially none. However this particular change would not in my firm view be a step in the right direction.

I would like to add that I do recognise that you have an expertise on Deepwater which I personally lack, and is no doubt rare, and in that regard your recent edits to that section of the article are most welcome. The section was much in need of work. aRangoon11 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine the lead is important to you as it is the most-read part of any article by far. As for the single sentence, I stated above that I believe it was probably a larger section that was scrubbed down. And I believe it should be flushed out a bit as it's quite awkward right now, even as it stands with your reversion of my edit. Perhaps you would agree that it needs to be expanded before the change is made. I have no problem with that. I have seen many a lede on Wikipedia where a single sentence stood alone in the intro. Over time these things get worked out. The 4 paragraph intro is not a rule, but a recommendation. From [Wikipedia:LEAD] In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. The stand-alone sentence does violate this suggestion but that's easily remedied. The sentence should be expanded to reflect it's importance within the body of the article. The Green Energy part should be whittled down for the same reason. Take a look at the sections within the article to see what I mean.

I am glad you are willing to join the discussion. But, I cannot believe that your sincere goal is to improve the BP article if you would remove important information about the oil spill without doing an ounce of research. You can highlight the sentence and do a Google search in 1 second. Though I have 1/100th of your experience, I would never think to remove a statement from a Wikipedia article unless I had a good reason and had done some research first to back up my moves. You never answered me as to why you removed the oil spill information. I assume based on your statements it was to improve the article and Wikipedia? Obvious POV is obvious - one needs zero editing experience to recognize it.petrarchan47^Tc 00:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding that specific edit, I can see how it might have put that thought into your head. Please note however that the text 'and caused the biggest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry' was removed from the "Safety record", where I felt it had no relevance, and was purely duplicative of the very long section on Deepwater in the Environmental record section earlier in the article, which deals with the size of the spill. My edit summary of 'dealt with at length higher up' was perhaps unclear on the point, and I should have explained it on the Talk page when you queried it. However I was annoyed by what I felt to be your confrontational attitude in terms of repeatedly making your desired change to the lead despite having been reverted for good reason, and so instead was terse.

I do stand by that specific edit though, that wording is not needed in the safety record section.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The way it reads now, the Deepwater Explosion caused (only) the deaths of 11 people. That's it, no other consequences you can think of? It also caused the oil spill, which is hinted at with the redirect to the oil spill article. But that is whitewashing if you ask me, and not fair to those who come to seek information. The Deepwater explosion caused a pretty big oil spill and that fact should be added. As it stands now, this is a single sentence section. How can you defend that after all the grief over a single sentence in the lead? Further, I have seen a few examples in your edits of late that scrub data about the financial after effects of the oil spill. This is history and very relevant to this article. It was daily news for about 6 solid months. There is no reason to delete the info altogether. Unless we aren't here to build encyclopedic knowledge but rather to - for whatever reason - mold this Wikipedia article into something favorable for BP's image.

The spill is dealt with at length in the (excessively long) Deepwater section in the Environmental record section just a little higher up in the article. Repeating that information again in the Safety record section would be pure duplication. Some of the financial impact of the spill on BP should probably go in the History section. We need to be careful to avoid duplication and overlap however, and be aware that the amount of content on Deepwater in the article is already excessive and undue.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting back on track: Bias and Undue Weight in the BP Lead Section:

• The [Renewable energy] section is 1 of 26 sections in the BP article
• The section consists of 3 small paragraphs, the 3rd and largest one discusses BP's Solar programme which is no longer in operation
• Renewable energy is [no more than 4% of BP's budget]
• 5 sentences in the body of the article are dedicated to current renewable energy projects

Yet, in the 4 paragraph Lead, 1st paragraph last sentence: "[BP] also has major renewable energy activities, including in biofuels and wind power."

3rd paragraph of Lead: "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. < How is this related to --> ? > In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period." < ie, 4% >

The 3rd para has a single sentence : These are very rough estimates, mind you. But take a look at the page, it's blatantly obvious we have a problem here.

The intro is in clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines for [Wikipedia:LEAD]. This is what we're here to remedy. Discuss.petrarchan47^Tc 22:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead is there to provide an overview of the topic. That does not mean that the length of sentences in the lead or number of sentences should try to exactly mirror that of the article.

For me the lead most requires improvement through the addition of a brief summary of the company's history. We need to avoid the lead becoming too long however, it is already about right in terms of length.

The first and second paragraphs of the lead provide a good overview of the company's operations and the company's place within its industry. The third paragraph is where I would propose adding in some more historical info. As part of this I would be prepared to lose all of 'In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period'. Key points which in my view should really be in the lead are: the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and Iran connection, nationalisation and privatisation, and the acquisition of Amoco and ARCO.

This needs a bit of thought and work however.

The BP lead is by the standards of company articles in WP already pretty good though, and certainly better than peers such as Total S.A., or Chevron Corporation.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

To begin addressing some of the above issues, I made the following edits:

• Added citation needed tag on the "major" renewables claim in the first paragraph of the intro. I don't expect a 4% investment can be described as major, but I could be missing something. When using a descriptive term like "most people", Wikipedia guidelines say that a supporting ref must accompany the statement.
• Flushed out the "Deepwater Explosion" section, which recently was scrubbed by Rangoon11 of all but one sentence: "Killed 11 people". I took a few sentences directly from the intro to the main Deepwater Horizon explosion article so that it now reads: The explosion killed 11 workers and injured 16 others; another 99 people survived without serious physical injury. It caused the Deepwater Horizon to burn and sink, and started a massive offshore oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; this environmental disaster is now considered the second largest in U.S. history, behind the Dust Bowl. I assume this information has passed the test of POV and reliability since it comes from an established article.

Luckily there are [guidelines] to help us get the intro balanced out.petrarchan47^Tc 01:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon11 removed the word "major" from the renewables claim, along with the citation tag. Seems like a good move to me.

Rangoon11 also removed the last sentence from my addition to "Deepwater Horizon explosion" section, giving the reason that it was duplicated elsewhere in the article.

This is the sentence that was removed: "this environmental disaster is now considered the second largest in U.S. history, behind the Dust Bowl". This claim is NOT made anywhere else in this article. That is a lame excuse and was not even applied uniformly - that the explosion caused the oil spill is also a duplicate. To me this edit is POV pushing/cleansing/whitewashing with no valid argument to support it.petrarchan47^Tc 02:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Intro, from Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Lead: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article....In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. This includes specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, and titles. This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body."petrarchan47^Tc 02:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it is getting exceptionally tedious that, whilst this discussion is ongoing, you are going to the article and making edits which you know are disputed. What is even worse is that, once reverted, you are simply making the edits again. And again.

Secondly, the Safety record section is about SAFETY. We have an Environmental record section in the article, which has a *very* long (excessively, unduly, long) section on Deepwater. That is the place for discussion about the spill and its environmental impact. It is questionable whether Deepwater should be repeated in the Safety section at all, but if it is, this should be very brief and concern only the explosion and the related fatalities.

You have unhelpfully completely ignored most of the points which I just made above about the lead. Perhaps you could now reply to them.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears I ignored your suggestions, when actually you and I were writing at the same time, and when I hit "enter", I received and "edit conflict" notice as you had just entered your bit. I was not responding to you because I had not seen your contribution - look at the time stamps. You and I are both editing during this dispute, shall we both put all edits on hold and discuss them here first? That sounds good to me.

Secondly, I have not seen any mention of the single sentence and it's need to be expanded with references. What do you suggest for fixing the problem of undue weight?:

"BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence" without any refs (violating Wiki rules). This sentence is roughly 1/13th of the intro yet the subject matter is roughly 1/3rd of the article.petrarchan47^Tc 15:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In regards to your suggestion for the lead, it is not becoming too large given the size of the article. As for the body, I can cut some of the 'fluff' from the oil spill section. As for addition of history and acquisitions to the intro, as long as it follows the guidelines for "undue weight", I am fine with whatever you choose to do. As you know, my issue with the intro is bias. I agree the statements about green energy could be removed from the intro, but not deleted. They should be moved into the body of the article. In general, for an encyclopedia, the more information offered, the better. I have concerns with the deletion of material for no good reason. petrarchan47^Tc 23:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to not make any edits to the article whilst this discussion is ongoing. I may do so if edits are made by others which I feel need to be either reverted or corrected, but otherwise will not go to the article to make any changes myself.

Although the lead is at the moment not too long, and could get a bit longer, if the history content which I have suggested above were added to the current lead then I feel that it would become too long. However if those two sentences which I have identified above were simultaneously removed (and yes am happy for them to be moved elsewhere in the article), I think the length would probably be OK. I think that the removal of those sentences and addition of the history content would go a long way towards addressing any possible concerns about the lead having an excessive amount of content on renewable activities, and would provide a much better summary of the article and overview of the topic.

On the point of a citation for the sentence "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence", in my view this is more than adequately supported by the citations within the body of the article.

On the point of weight, a lead does not need to contain a direct proportion of content relative to the size of sections. This is generally impossible and impractical given the small size of the article lead and to attempt to do so would merely create a low quality overview. The lead is there to both provide an overview of the topic (since many people will only read the lead) and a summary of the article. We also have a problem that the 'Environmental record' section in particular is very bloated and of an undue length. In terms of significance to the topic, which is a company, that company's own operations and the most significant details of its corporate history are of much greater relevance than important but secondary issues such as environmental record, safety record, sponsorships and the like.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The Environmental Record IS BP History, perhaps keep that in mind. The sentence mentioning BP's environmental and political controversies violates [Wikipedia:LEAD] Do not hint at startling facts without describing them....the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. ....(and for our perusal:) In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources....The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies...Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

"We also have a problem that the 'Environmental record' section in particular is very bloated and of an undue length." That's certainly debatable, but not surprising these are your views. petrarchan47^Tc 02:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC) petrarchan47^Tc 02:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47^Tc 03:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been watching this debate with interest and do not really have strong views on the subject. That said I think the third paragraph of the lead is very well crafted:

"BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases."

It makes the point that BP has been found wanting but then shows balance by going on to say what BP is doing about it. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Balance is the goal, but we aren't here to defend a company - only to present facts without bias. It's a matter of scale. First of all, know that the statements about green energy above are going to be moved to the body of the article, as agreed to in this discussion further up. The statement about BP having been found wanting is in violation of WP:Lead for the reasons I outlined above. The paragraph and general tone of the intro was heavily biased. The second reason for this dispute resolution was to show that the editor who initially defended this paragraph as being perfect and beyond reproach is pushing POV on the page and should be banned from the topic, imo. To show the bias, I offer the following:

"BP had 518 safety violations over the last two decades, compared with 240 for Chevron and even fewer for its other competitors. Since those statistics were compiled, in 2009, OSHA has announced 745 more violations at two BP refineries, one near Toledo, Ohio, and the other in Texas City, Texas, where 15 people were killed and 170 injured in a 2005 explosion. In the last decade, OSHA records show that BP has been levied 300 times more in fines for refinery violations than any other oil company." Per OSHA [[32]]

"Analysis found that their green campaign overemphasizes their investments in alternative forms of energy, when those investments are just a blip on their history of huge investments in and profits from fossil fuel energy. In the first quarter of 2010, they made $73 billion in revenue, $72.3 billion of that came from the exploration, production, refining and marketing of oil and natural gas. Only $700 million came from solar and wind energy.[[33]]

Another assumption that, albeit well structured, paragraph forces upon us is that these investments in green energy (which peaked at 4% of BP's budget - and that was before BP Solar was shut down) do help and were meant to help 'fix' BP's troubles or the environment. BP pulled out of Solar Energy because it was not profitable ~ showing BP is involved in green energy for the same reasons it's involved with petrol; the positive environmental effect is irrelevant to BP if profits aren't there. Further, it has not been established that their green energy efforts have improved anything, so it wouldn't be right to give the impression that they have.

A tiny list to give an idea of the negative impacts BP is having, to help with scale - these are new stories from just the past month or so:

[on humans]

[on Gulf shrimp]

[on science]

[on microbial diversity]petrarchan47^Tc 02:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

petrarchan47^Tc 04:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Dormskirk, it looks like you changed the third paragraph. I was responding as if you had quoted the version I'm used to, the one that includes "BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period." That is how it reads now.petrarchan47^Tc 04:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I read this article for the first time a few days ago and since I was familiar with BP from my work on the Gulf spill article, I was extremely surprised, to put it mildly, to read the following in the lede:

BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases.[13] BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period.[14]

I put a note on the talk page to say that I planned to edit the lede and was directed to this discussion. If the lede is supposed to give a brief summary of the article for the reader, this information regarding BP's environmental record is laughable - I don't know how else to say it. I really can not imagine that anyone could read the environmental sections and references and still say that one vague line in the lede is adequate. Gandydancer (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Whilst Dormskirk and I edit on a very wide range of company articles, and on all aspects of their activities, it is fair to say that the other two editors in this thread are primarily concerned with the environmental impact of BP's activities. And primarily with increasing the emphasis on environmental impact in the article. There is zero interest being shown in the operations, corporate affairs and general history sections. That's fine, but this is an article on a company not on an environmental topic. The core of the article is about the company's own operations, corporate affairs and corporate history. Many editors in fact question whether company articles should have sections such as 'Environmental record' at all. Personally I don't take that approach, but do recognise that this is secondary information, just as information about sponsorships would be.

Dormskirk and I have also made by far the greatest contributions to the BP article in terms of number of edits. Yes that should count for something in a discussion like this.

There are also plenty of criticisms of the article being made, but few constructive suggestions. I made what I felt to be a pretty reasonable suggestion above as to how to move the lead forward. It would be good if either we could get a consensus for that suggestion, or hear some other suggestions. Otherwise we are just going round in circles. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you have run across many editors that believe that "many editors in fact question whether company articles should have sections such as 'Environmental record' at all" because you have done so much work on company articles which, not surprisingly, would prefer to skip criticism sections. I would assume that most editors do believe that a corporation's environmental record is an important part of its article, not something to be left out or treated as of less importance. Regarding your suggestion that the editors with the most edits should be given special standing, in all of my years of editing I've never seen that suggestion on any talk page. I would have thought that it is obvious that Wikipedia does not work that way. Gandydancer (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you either (a) support the proposal made above for moving the lead forward; or (b) have any other constructive suggestions?Rangoon11 (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, please see the following from the spill article:

In September 2011, the U.S. government published its final investigative report on the accident.[38] In essence, that report states that the main cause was the defective cement job, and put most of the fault for the oil spill with BP, also faulting Deepwater Horizon operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton.[39][40] Investigations continue, with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stating on April 24 2012, "The Deepwater Horizon Task Force is continuing its investigation into the explosion and will hold accountable those who violated the law in connection with the largest environmental disaster in US history". The first arrest related to the spill was in April 2012; an engineer was charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly deleting 300 text messages showing BP knew the flow rate was three times higher than initial claims by the company, and knew that Top Kill was unlikely to succeed, but claimed otherwise.[41][42][43]

In view of the fact that BP has been been found to be largely responsible for what the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder calls the largest environmental disaster in US history, I would expect nothing less than a paragraph in the lede to summarize the Gulf spill. You seem to want to suggest that it is just "two editors in this thread [who are] primarily concerned with the environmental impact of BP's activities" as though certain editors had to really dig deep to find the dirt on BP and bias the article with it. That is absurd. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a company with a 100 year plus history and with global activities. A paragraph in the lead on Deepwater would be grotesquely undue in the context of the overall history of the company and its whole scope of activities. It would be both highly recentist and highly slanted towards the U.S. It would also place a subjectively large emphasis on the environment. For example, more people died in the 1965 Sea Gem offshore oil rig disaster and the 2005 Texas City Refinery explosion. Neither of those belong in the lead in my opinion, but I am puzzled why you think Deepwater deserving of an entire paragraph and show no interest at all in those events. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The history of America is far longer, and in BP's short history it has managed to create the largest oil spill ever for the US, and what most sources call America's largest environmental disaster ever, while others say it was second only to the Dust Bowl (a fact which you think had no place in the article) as well as ranking number one largest accidental marine oil spill in the entire world. These facts are undisputed. Your reasoning above in not in accordance with WP:Lead "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" I am frankly sick and tired of trying to reason with someone who clearly does not want to follow the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia. No editors should have to deal with this if they are simply trying to update an article or fix obvious bias in the article - whether it happens to be that of a large company or otherwise. You were fine with mentioning environmental impact in the lede when it made BP look good. Now when confronted with facts, you declare that companies should not have to even mention environment. There are many updates to be made as the aftermath of the oil spill and the various court cases hit the media, as they doing now. I do not want to have to deal with this nonsense in order to update the article. The POV on your part is clear, and given your behaviour including bullying and lying as well as your self-appointed position as owner of this article, this will likely need to be taken to the Admin board sooner rather than later.petrarchan47^Tc 21:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer Rangoon's question about changes for the lede:

I don't think the DWH spill should require it's own paragraph. It should be mentioned in the lede as the single sentence mentioning BP's 'troubles' gets flushed out in accordance with WP:Lead. BP's troubles should merit a single paragraph and should not be followed immediately by a rebuttal.

Rangoon suggested removal of BP's green/climate claims from the lede and we agreed on that.

Rangoon suggested to replace the green claims with more about BP's history particularly it's acquisitions. He also said the single sentence about BP's troubles is fine the way it is. I disagree with both points. I would need to be shown why more about BP's history and acquisitions merit space in the lede. These arguments only seem valid from the POV of BP or someone hired by them to make sure BP looked good on the internet. But maybe I'm missing something?petrarchan47^Tc 21:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's amusing that despite your taking such great offence at being called a POV-pusher, and insisting that I desist from this, you have since made a plethora of personal attacks in this thread, including saying that I am working for BP and that I am a liar. I have made an effort to engage you in a constructive discussion, despite my views on your very narrow agenda regarding this article and complete lack of interest in the great majority of its content, but it is proving fruitless and very time wasting. Now you are threatening to take me to the Admin board, but simultaneously accusing me of bullying.

There are a number of highly significant aspects of BP's history which are not currently in the lead and which should e.g. mention of its foundation, nationalisation, privatisation, the acquisitions of Amoco, ARCO and Burmah Castrol, and the TNK joint venture. I propose adding in this information, and removing the sentences about BP being the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and its investments in renewables. This is a more than reasonable proposal, and yet since it was made all that has followed is unconstructive comments, absurd suggestions such as putting an entire paragraph on Deepwater in the lead, and multiple personal attacks.

I will now make a further proposal, that, in addition to my proposed changes described above, a mention of Deepwater be made in the following way:

'BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and received criticism for its political influence.'Rangoon11 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is from the intro to the Resolution Dispute: "We may need some administrators to take a look and see which editor is POV pushing". I am not bullying or threatening you by saying this should go to the administrators, I am simply repeating a claim I made originally. As for saying you worked for BP, I am questioning it. My claim in the intro to this DR was "it looks to me like he is working on behalf of BP" but I have not said that you do.

As for the narrow focus with regards to this article, I have also stated that right now I am focusing, to the exclusion of all else, on the bias in the Intro and on remedying that. There is absolutely no clause anywhere in Wikipedia supporting your grief about my narrow focus. I would prefer if you were to use arguments that could be supported by Wikipedia guidelines, it makes things simpler and much faster.

Here is where you indeed told an untruth. When I pointed out that it was not located anywhere else in the article, you switched your reasoning for the edit with "not relevant to section - which is about SAFETY" and proceeded to let me know you weren't pleased I was still editing whilst in discussion. If your edits are valid you would not have to dance around looking for a valid sounding excuse for them. If you had no bias, you would not have a problem with leaving that statement in the Deepwater explosion section, as the section is very short, the information is important and well-sourced. The Deepwater explosion happens to be in the SAFETY section, but that is not justification for your removal of the sentence. Secondly, your argument makes no sense as you left other remarks in that would also need to be removed if your reasoning was valid. It does feel like you are wasting editors time by not being honest.

Keeping in mind "due weight" I stand by my recommendations for the third paragraph re environmental and safety incidents and disagree it should remain one single sentence. You don't like single sentences, anyway.petrarchan47^Tc 06:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not true that since your proposal to add BP history no one has commented. I said that as long as it abides by guidelines for weight, add anything you like. I also asked you to support the claim that BP's acquisitions and history deserved more space in the lede. Those facts might be important to you, but why are they important to Wikipedia? The reason this is all so hard is that your additions all seem geared toward minimizing BP's negative side and bolstering it's positive and neutral aspects in the article. I would like to work with editors who want to update the page with plain ole facts regardless of how it makes BP look. In fact, I did want to keep the mention of BP's recognition of climate change. Since they are the first oil company to do so, it is notable in my opinion.petrarchan47^Tc 06:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Happy to keep the reference to BP being the first major oil company to recognise climate change if there is space in the updated third paragraph.

It would be good to hear the views of the other participants in this thread so that we can implement the proposed changes.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This should help. Perhaps take a quick glance at BP, note the sections, their content, and weight (space) in the article.

From WP: Writing better articles] If the article is long enough for the lead section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any.

Based on this and other Wikipedia guidelines, let's make a very rough draft for an unbiased Lede, starting with 'the third paragraph'. petrarchan47^Tc 02:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That is an essay, not a guideline. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, what are your problems with the essay? It seems reasonable to me and I think that a draft proposal would be a good idea. Gandydancer (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Essays are not policy or guideline and it is really rather tedious to have chunks of them copied and pasted in here, replete with bold text. The same thing has happened on the BP talk page. Just another example of what a tedious, timewasting exercise this discussion has been.

The question is, do we have a consensus on what should be included in the revised third paragraph. I am particularly keen to hear the views of Dormskirk, who has great experience in company articles and previously said that they thought the lead perfectly fine as is.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, company articles have no different guidelines at Wikipedia than do other types of articles. It's easiest to refer to the Wiki guidelines when going forward, which is why I continue to quote them here. Otherwise we're arguing "I'm right, you're wrong and my friend agrees!" which could take forever.petrarchan47^Tc 20:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, I am sorry to hear that you consider this discussion tedious and a waste of time. Though you have no interest, I'd still like to try to work for a reasonable lede. Petrarchan, could you go ahead and present a rough draft as you have suggested? Gandydancer (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Before we go any further, where are the official guidelines/policies for Leads? We need get on the same page. Also, is there a different policy for writing an article about companies? (Seems I've been referring to essays rather than official policies.) petrarchan47^Tc 21:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Gandy, here is an idea of the facts I am considering when trying to create a balanced Lede. (Or, just scroll up to my June 13 entry/response.)petrarchan47^Tc 21:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, please reread Dormskirk's comment, you have misquoted them. They referred solely to the third paragraph and changed it slightly before saying it looked fine.petrarchan47^Tc 22:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47^Tc 22:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement

• The Zeitgeist Movement (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?

Requesting discussion of two specific disputes:

1. The Lead section should contain the phrase "A global system in which all resources become the equal and common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet.", because this is the most important core idea and key fundamental principle of TZM, and the basis from which all other TZM ideas/ positions are developed. This central idea is verified by the following quotes from reliable sources:

• The Huffington Post: "... the world's resources would be considered as the equal inheritance of all the world's peoples ..."
• The Venus Project: "... a holistic socio-economic system in which ... all resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few ..."
• The Palm Beach Post: "... In this world, we all are equal because the planet's resources belong to everyone, not a select few ..."

Requesting discussion of only one specific dispute:

2. The 'Criticism' section contains factual statements that should be removed entirely, or, at best, moved to the 'Criticism' sections of the three Zeitgeist movies, including statements and views that come from reliable sources but that represent (or that point to) extremely small minority viewpoints. Substantial minority views should be represented in the article; but these are not substantial nor prominent minority views. (Antisemitism is not mentioned at all in any of our other reliable sources [NYT, Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, Orlando Sentinel, 5 RT TV interviews, two reliable Israeli financial papers and a reliable Israeli financial TV channel], and conspiracy theories are discussed briefly, and dismissed, in these reliable sources.) Thus they should be removed entirely, or moved to, and debated in, the articles on the three movies.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk · contribs)
• Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs)
• Bbb23 (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.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=The Zeitgeist Movement}} --~~~~ 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?

We have discussed on the talk page, without progress.

• How do you think we can help?

Please discuss the two one dispute.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

the Zeitgeist Movement discussion

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

I have no history with the article. My involvement came about because of this discussion at ANI. Post-ANI, I attempted to set the editors on a course I felt would be most amenable to improving the article in a neutral, consensus-driven fashion. That discussion is on the article Talk page in this section I created. Apparently, Ijon is unhappy with at least some of my suggestions and felt it would be better to come here. At this point, I have nothing else to add.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm very happy with all your suggestions and grateful that you got involved as your contributions were helpful, neutral in tone, and fair. I'm requesting discussion of one specific dispute relating to the Lead section, and one specific dispute relating to the Criticism section.

And there has not been, nor is there now, consensus on the article talk page. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:CueIf filer does indeed request general improvement, he should use an rfc, as a DRN is a forum for specifics.Curb Chain (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23 did a good job of sorting through the talk page, seeing where the consensus was and restoring a neutral tone to the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I revised the DRN; I'm now requesting discussion of only one specific dispute relating to Lead section, and one specific dispute relating to Criticism section.

And again, I'd like to reiterate that several editors have expressly requested that their names not be used to imply that there is any sort of consensus on the article. The only consensus existing right now is that there is no consensus. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the proposed summary of the hypothetical and impossible resource-based economy is as good as any, and it is supported by several sources. IjonTichyIjonTichy also wants to remove criticism because he doesn't like it. That's of course not a good reason, the criticism should stay, it is also from a reliable source. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The proposed addition to the lead is the key core principle of TZM; without it, the Lead (and the article as a whole) do not do a good job. And suggesting that I'm not acting in good faith does not contribute to this discussion.

"Impossible" (your word) is close to the criticisms of utopianism and practical difficulties in a transition to the TZM-proposed global system. These accusations were discussed in the NYT, Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, Globes, TheMarker, TheMarker TV, and 5 RT TV interviews. The dispute regarding the criticism does not involve the reliability of the source. It involves the weight that should be given to allegations that only represent extremely small and insignificant minority views -- not substantial or prominent minority views. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you are acting in good faith. You just tend to conflate "I don't like it" with "Not according to Wikipedia policies", even though these are separate things. It is not an "insignificant or minority view", it's not even a view. The source reports that the organisation has been banned from studiVZ for what studiVZ percieves as antisemitism. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"The original documentary that launched the Zeitgeist movement has been criticized by journalist Michelle Goldberg as being anti-Jewish. Zeitgeist concepts in that 2007 documentary have been criticized as steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories."

Goldberg and Tablet are reliable. But their reliability is only a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for inclusion. The issue is weight. WP policies clearly state that views (or statements of fact that point to the views, etc.) that are (or represent) a significant, substantial and a prominent minority should be considered for inclusion in the article. But extremely small, marginally small, negligible, insignificant minority views (or statements of fact, etc.) should not be included. Accusations of anti-semitism do not have sufficient weight for inclusion: they were not mentioned or discussed in our reliable sources. The NYT, Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, Globes, and TheMarker regularly and extensively report on overt and covert anti-semitism around the globe, helping expose the ugly disease of anti-semitism, rooting it out and attacking it. If anti-semitism was of substantial minority significance to TZM, these reliable sources would have discussed it in detail. But they did not even mention it. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. First you admit that the sources that does either accuse or report accusations of anti-semitism are reliable, then you claim that these accusations are not mentioned in the reliable sources.

The fact is of course that they *are* mentioned in reliable sources. Your statement that the reliable sources who are uncritical to TZM must have mentioned this for it to not be a fringe view are baseless. Such a standpoint would make it practically impossible to add any form of criticism of anything to Wikipedia, as you can always find a reliable source that doesn't mention a particular form or criticism.

I think your efforts of washing away this criticism is a dead horse. We need to discuss how that section should be formulated instead of trying to remove it, because this criticism has reliable sources and is clearly not a fringe view, but one that is shared by several critics of TZM. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Your statement that the reliable sources who are uncritical to TZM must have mentioned this for it to not be a fringe view are baseless. Such a standpoint would make it practically impossible to add any form of criticism of anything to Wikipedia, as you can always find a reliable source that doesn't mention a particular form or criticism. end quote OpenFuture. This seems very basic and apparent, and the other editors that have returned that information to the article are in consensus on that. How is it that citations are supposed to agree with one another? Critical thinking comes from disparate views. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about causing confusion, my mistake. I will try to be more clear next time. But there is no contradiction. I admitted the accusations are based on reliable sources. When I said these accusations are not mentioned in the reliable sources, I meant they are not mentioned in NYT, Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, Globes, TheMarker, TheMarker TV, and 5 RT TV interviews. These sources are critical to TZM; they discuss allegations of utopianism and difficulties in transition to the proposed system (very close to what you characterized as an impossible system), reduced work incentives, and even the 9/11 conspiracy theories. But they do not even mention anti-semitism. Thus, (a) The 9/11 allegations by Jesse Walker are redundant, and (b) the anti-semitism piece in Tablet, although reliable, is not prominent or significant minority, but a negligibly small, fringe, insignificant minority, and thus should be removed.

The accusation I'm washing away substantial criticism, or substantial minority-view criticism, is baseless. All the material in the 'Criticism' section, except the Tablet and StudioViz accusations of anti-semitism, and the Jesse Walker 9/11 conspiracy, were contributed by me.

And again I reiterate: there is no consensus. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

When everyone except one editor agrees, that's a consensus. At this point you are the only one who wants to remove the criticism about anti-semitism. Please understand that the addition of this does not make Wikipedia claim that TZM is anti-semitic. It's only reporting on the accusation; from several reliable sources; that TZM is anti-semite. Trying to remove criticism that is voiced by several reliable sources is against Wikipedia policies (except possibly on BLP's). --OpenFuture (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Tablet is a reliable source. If the accusation of anti-semitism is only against the movie, it needs to be removed and placed in the article on that movie. However, Tablet not only accuses the movie; Tablet directly, repeatedly accuses TZM of being an anti-semitic cult. Michelle Goldberg's opinion isn't weighty in relation to internet phenomena, social protest movements, or economics — she's a journalist at best; she lacks any of the field significance that would lend her opinion weight. Thus, the Tablet hate- and fear-mongering piece is not weight-worthy in relation to TZM. That is a weighting issue, not a reliability issue.

14:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with Ijon's suggestions for the lead, but the problem with the article is more fundamental than whether the lead needs to be modified. The article does a piss-poor job of explaining what the movement is. For example, Ijon cites to a quote from The Huffington Post. That same HP article is currently cited in the lead for the material that is currently there. The HP has much better material that explains the history (at least up to 2010) of the movement, who started it, etc. Yet, none of that is in the body of the article. I learned more about the movement from the HP article than I did reading the WP article. In addition, the WP article states there was a split in 2011. We haven't discussed pre-split material and suddenly at the beginning of the body we are in a split? Rather than fighting about whether the lead needs to be tweaked or the criticism is undue, let's focus on getting the basics in the body of the article about the movement itself. After that, we can address the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the body anyway, and ensure that criticism of the movement is balanced and properly weighted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

my previous 'Mission' section (which was completely deleted) was based mostly on extensive verifiable citations from the HP piece, as well as citations from our other sources. I invite editors to (very substantially and deeply) revise this section (for neutrality, substance, whatever you feel needs revision) for inclusion in the article. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the article when it was deleted, but in glancing at it, I can see why it was. It's incredibly long and reads like a promotional piece for the movement. It's full of "in the movement's view" and similar phrases, although sometimes it lapses into the colloquial "we" as if it were written by someone affiliated with the movement. The article needs a section that sets forth the history and views of the movement in a concise, well-sourced fashion (shouldn't be called "mission"), not a polemic that attempts to disguise its promotionalism with disingenuous "in the view of the movement" qualifiers. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but, frankly, I cringed as I read it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

All the references to "we" are meant to imply we, the global society, or us, humanity. Not "we" as in we, TZM members.

In numerous comments on the talk page I indicated it was something like a rough draft. The only good thing about it was that it was based on verifiable citations from the reliable sources. That's why I invited editors to edit it and I suggested that editors be brutal with it and edit it mercilessly. I fully anticipated that the final version would be very different than this rough draft. It was a (clumsy, perhaps) attempt by a newbie editor (me) to move the editing process forward, after the process has not progressed for years (I'm not exaggerating, take a look at the history page of the article). At least this (ugly) edit helped attract a bunch of new and talented editors to the article, who are now, under your guidance and suggestions, helping bring our article closer to an encyclopedic entry. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

How about this 'Mission' section? (Of course, the new section title would not be 'Mission'.) Automation seems to be highly important to the movement. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ijon, who is nothing if not responsive and energetic (), has made this same suggestion on the article Talk page, and I responded there.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"The article does a piss-poor job of explaining what the movement is." - So does the movement itself, which is a big problem for Wikipedia with these kinds of fringe "movements". --OpenFuture (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It is what it is, and we have to deal with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement (Zeitgeist is 'the spirit of the times' in German) is a global, end sand box Ijon version beginning. The opening line is wrong. The view of promotion is apparent. The movements view fails as a way to explain the information, but is made to sound like Wikipedia represents the official view without critical thought. Stop returning the same information over and over against consensus. Open Future accused you of vandalizing the article a while ago probably because of returning anti consensus material. I agree with him now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Earl, this is NOT the venue to resurrect accusations of editor misconduct and particularly accusations of vandalism. Your comment is not helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Earl is referring to an old version in my sandbox. (a) My sandbox has nothing to do with the article; (b) The 'Lead' section in my sandbox is irrelevant, because I clearly referred only to my 'Mission' section.

The accusations of vandalism are baseless and without merit, and not constructive to this discussion.

In response to Bbb's suggestion, I posted a proposed rough draft on the article's talk page. I recommend editors not waste their time (or mine) on attacking me for the draft - instead redirect your energies to vastly improving the draft.

Tablet is a reliable source. If the accusation of anti-semitism is only against the movie, it needs to be removed and placed in the article on that movie. However, Tablet not only accuses the movie; Tablet directly, repeatedly and obsessively accuses TZM of being an anti-semitic cult. One issue is that Michelle Goldberg's opinion isn't weighty in relation to antisemitism — she's a journalist at best; she lacks any of the field significance that would lend her opinion weight. Another key issue is that accusing TZM of anti-semitism is not a significant, prominent minority view; it is only an insignificant, negligibly-small minority view. WP policies allow for inclusion of prominent minority views, without giving them undue weight; but the policies are against negligibly small views, because they are not worthy of an encyclopedic article.

Thus, the Tablet hate- and fear-mongering piece is not weight-worthy in relation to TZM. That is a weighting issue, not a reliability issue.

The dispute on anti-semitism is only beginning, and is nowhere near ending. Thus I restored the "undue weight - discuss" tags, because they must remain until the dispute is fully resolved (by this DRN, or by further dispute resolution processes, up to arbitration if necessary).

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ijon, unfortunately, your proposed draft is a non-starter, as I commented on the Talk page. You have to stick to secondary sources. The weight tags are not supported by anyone but you, so I've removed them. There is no "arbitration" for content issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor who opposes the anti-semitism accusations. Two other editors (Reinventor098 and 82.153.143.237) have been trying to delete the entire anti-semitism paragraph over the last few says, as you can see from the article's history. I do not agree with their tactics - I would rather they join the conversation on this talk page instead of deleting. But the fact they are deleting implies I am not the only editor. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If I may chip in, I do think weight is an issue here. The Tablet article is an opinion piece, not a reporting of facts. The issue of the reliability of the journal as a provider of information is separate from that of the value of this journalist's expressed opinions. Paul B (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear another voice. Actually, one of the things Ijon objects to is Goldberg's criticism is not directly of the movement but of the movie (although many believe the movies and the movement - there's a mouthful - are intertwined). He believes the criticism therefore belongs in the movie article, not the movement article. At the same time, assuming for the moment that the criticism does belong in the movement article, it's no different from any other criticism of a movie, which is, as always, subjective. It's also part of a pargraph on antisemitism because of the other material in the paragraph. Now, normally, I would argue that including criticism of the movie in the movement article has a WP:COATRACK aspect to it, but then we get back to the supposed intertwining of the movies and of the movement (the movies are supposed documentaries made by the movement's founder). I hope that completely muddies the waters. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of a movie as a work of art is quite separate from criticim of arguments that happen to be presented in movie form. The first is "subjective", yes, but the second requires expertise if we are to use it. It's not a "review" of the movie ("I give it three stars"), it's a review of claims made in it, or rather of claims alleged to be implicit in it. I have to confess a dislike of this kind of claim about "implicit" antisemitism, which based on a fundamentally false logic (Jews have been said to be behind X by antisemites, therefore any criticism of X is really "hidden antisemitism"). Yes, antisemites claim that Jews are behing global banking, does that mean anyone who criticises global banking is really secretly criticising Jews even if they never mention them? The issue is whether this comment is significant enough to include. I don't think one article cuts it, but obviously a case can be made if there is more material on these lines. Paul B (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I understand your point and would normally agree with it. However, I think your argument is blurred somewhat when the review is of a documentary. I didn't see the movie and can't comment on whether Goldberg's criticism was as simplistic as you appear to make it out to be.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is refreshing to hear a new voice.

"The original documentary that launched the Zeitgeist movement has been criticized by journalist Michelle Goldberg as being anti-Jewish. Zeitgeist concepts in that 2007 documentary have been criticized as steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories."

Both of these sentences are directly sourced to Goldberg's piece in Tablet. The second sentence is a direct quote from the Tablet piece.

Bbb23 modified the second sentence, so now the paragraph reads: Zeitgeist: The Movie, has also been criticized by journalist Michelle Goldberg as being anti-Jewish. Goldberg describes the movie as "steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories."

Does anyone seriously believe the original second sentence (accusing TZM concepts, not the movie) is not going to rear its ugly head again (and sooner rather than later) in the TZM article?

Tablet is reliable. But Goldberg uses economic arguments (TZM's criticism of the giant, multinational, trans-national banks) to conclude TZM is an anti-semitic cult. But she is not an authority on the banking industry, economics, cults, internet phenomena, or antisemitism. And her accusations of cult or antisemitism were not corroborated by any of our other reliable sources: NYT, Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, TheMarker, Globes. The NYT, HP, PBP, TM and GS have and extensive track record reporting on (a) antisemitism and (b) criticism against global banks for malfeasance, causing the financial crisis, etc. Yet the NYT, HP, PBP, TM and GS, while reporting on the Zeitgeist movement, and while criticizing TZM (for utopianism, 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc.) have not even mentioned antisemitism.

The issue is weight-worthiness, not reliability-worthiness. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out at the RSN (days ago) and the talkpage of the article (today), there is a peer-reviewed scholarly article "Grauzonen der Antisemitismusforschung, oder: Versuch, den ‚Zeitgeist' zu verstehen" [Grey areas of anti-Semitism research, or: an attempt to understand "Zeitgeist"] that explicitly discusses anti-semitism and the movie.[34]. With that information to hand, trying to exclude a discussion of the topic in the article based on WP:WEIGHT is a total non-starter. --Slp1 (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This peer-reviewed scholarly article: (a) admits the first Zeitgeist movie does not even mention the word 'Jew' or 'Jewish', (b) conflates the movie's criticism of international banks with anti-semitism, (c) conflates protests against the World Economic Forum in Davos with anti-semitism, (d) conflates organized anti-globalization protests with anti-semitism, (e) conflates criticism of Ariel Sharon and Donald Rumsfeld with anti-semitism, (f) conflates the Z movie with the Z movement, (g) conflates the movie's criticism of large multinational banks with the movie's criticism of Christianity, (g) conflates the movie's 9/11 conspiracy theory with anti-semitism, (h) conflates the movie's criticism of the financial industry with Nazism.

This 2010 paper calls for other scholars to continue to investigate the connection between the movie and anti-semitism. Yet it seems that in the last two years no scholars have bothered to answer this call.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The question is not if they are wrong or right. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide to remove a notable opinion because it is wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with Wikipedia policies or guidelines. But it is interesting to see how Goldberg's piece in Tablet is essentially a cheap imitation of this peer-reviewed piece. Both of these pieces are classic examples of the kinds of published "work" which Norman Finkelstein has been fighting against for decades. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 16, 2012 at 08:59 (UTC) Reason: It appears that the issues have reached the point where further discussion on talk page is a better solution, no comments here for three days

X-ray computed tomography

• X-ray computed tomography (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?

The issue is about adverse effects of CT scans, and typical radiation doses of CT scans. I have contributed to that section, and an other user:Jmh649 deleted my contributions, without discussion, without asking for refs, and without giving time to provide refs, and without stating phrases that are not according to rules, and without allowing time to correct them.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Jmh649 (talk · contribs)
• 79.179.224.214 (talk · contribs)
• Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs)
• NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)
• Bluerasberry (talk · contribs)
• Yobol (talk · contribs)

The user Jmh649 do not understand radiation dose units, and yet he deleted a lot of subject matter related to it, and instead has wrote an error, namely mGy=mSv for xrays, which he quoted from a web page, which is not even a primary research. This after deleting my contributions, that were accurate, because he claimed they were from primary sources. In addition, after I was referred to the rules, I did not find anything in the rules preventing the use of primary sources, and found that the rules were just about the way that primary sources should be used. Instead of helping me achieve the semantic requirements, the user opted to delete everything I have contributed.

• 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.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=X-ray computed tomography}} --~~~~ 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 have asked the user Jmh649 to resolve the issue at the talk page, and after that he has wrote his issues with my contributions. I have replied with an answer, and he went on and deleted my contributions again, without answering to my reply.

• How do you think we can help?

I don't know, I am new to wikipedia.

My last version is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&oldid=496795977#Adverse_effects . You will be able to see that the adverse effects section, and typical dose section in the the current version is under-representing compared to my last version, and is also structured wrong stating "contrast" as an adverse effect title, instead of stating the adverse effects related to contrast - immediate death, pseudo allergic response, kidney damage, etc. You will also see in the 'Typical scan dose' section, that Jmh649 deleted the most relevant doses, which were quoted from a research, and instead wrote an error in the title of the table column mGy=mSv. This error reflect over the lack of understanding of the subject matter of Jmh649. I don't understand how someone that doesn't understand the subject matter, allow himself to delete other people contributions, and without even reading the referenced articles. I think that the referenced articles were not read by Jmh649, since their content directly contradict the 'mSv=mGy' error that Jmh649 wrote. Jmh649 also does not understand that CT cause patients' bodies to absorb ionizing radiation, and for that reason deleted adverse effects of ionizing radiation from the section, since the references did not include the word CT, btw at least one of them did mention CT:

"Irradiation of the brain with dose levels overlapping those imparted by computed tomography can, in at least some instances, adversely affect intellectual development. Although formal diagnostic protocols do not advocate computed tomography in cases of minor head injuries, clinical practice dictated by legal and financial considerations does not always adhere to these protocols. The risk and benefits of computed tomography scans in minor head trauma need re-evaluating."

I think that the article should be reverted to my version, since in one day 200,000 people undergo CT examinations in the US alone, and denying them from knowledge of adverse effects such as quoted above is evil. After that, I think that if the text don't conform to wikipedia's standard, then a point to point discussion over its content should be conducted at the talk page until all the research referenced in my version regarding adverse effects would be appropriately expressed in the wikipedia article.

79.179.224.214 (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

X-ray computed tomography 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 a volunteer clerk/mediator here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I have no particular connection with this subject, but I am an engineer with experience with other kinds of medical diagnostic equipment and I have been CT scanned. I have some preliminary thoughts before I jump into the meat of the dispute

79.179.224.214, it looks to me like this is the situation we are in. You clearly want to do the right thing and improve the article (I see no signs of self-promotion or vandalism). It also looks like you are new to Wikipedia and somewhat unfamiliar with our standards, and have made a few mistakes. (No problem, we all have done the same.)

I think we can work together and craft something that meets your concerns and which conforms to Wikipedia's standards. This, of course, depends on whether you are willing to work with us and learn not only our policies, but the reasoning behind them. If you are willing to do that, your reward will be gaining the ability to help an audience that is literally millions of times larger than the audience you could reach with a website, blog, or even a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal. Wikipedia would benefit as well; we need more editors with experience in these areas.

Regarding the difficulties you are experiencing, one problem is that you are reading various policy pages that others are referring you to with an eye towards justifying the changes you want to make. This, naturally, biases your interpretation.

Another problem is that all of those policies were written and edited using the same techniques that were used to create the rest of Wikipedia, which means that the quality varies from "crystal clear" to "as clear as mud".

Finally, Wikipedia's policy pages are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are a convenient way to inform new editors what the longstanding consensus is on various issues, but they are a (possibly flawed) description of the consensus, not the consensus itself. Someone who has been around longer and has seen the policies applied in various situations naturally has a better feel for what the consensus is than a newbie who is just looking at the policies for the first time.

A procedural note: I see that under "Who is involved in the dispute?" you list only yourself and Jmh649, and you have correctly noted that Jmh649 has not discussed this on the talk page. However, several other editors have been discussing this with you, and you did not list them. You need to add all of those names above under "Who is involved in the dispute?" and notify them.

Later, we will look at the edit in question in detail. Please look at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&diff=496795977&oldid=496791930 That is the edit we will be discussing. It may be helpful to click on the Delta button at the bottom to see another way of seeing the edit, and of course there are "Revision as of" links at the top that will show you the article before and after the edit. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added all the people I that commented over the disputed matter to the list here, and I have informed them about the dispute on their respective talk page. 79.179.224.214 (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

user 79.179.224.214, thanks for exploring Wikipedia and seeking out this process. This dispute began on 9 June and now after 2 days you are taking the issue here. I would not have called this a dispute; it seemed like a discussion to me and there is still active talk and open questions on the talk page. I propose that dispute resolution be postponed until the discussion on the article talk page is finished. It is more useful to have discussion on the article's subject on its own talk page than it would be to have it here. Also, I see no reason stated as to why the discussion should be here rather than there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry, I apologize, that I have invited you to the dispute late. Please understand, that I thought that only I and Jmg649 are the parties to this dispute. This dispute entry was started on 04:07, 10 June 2012, due to an advice, that I have received. The talk page version at the time was 02:56, 10 June 2012, and my perception of the dispute was as stated in this dispute entry. 79.179.224.214 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The additional names were added at my request. There is no requirement that anyone respond, but I wanted everyone involved to be notified. In my opinion, in this particular case it is useful to have a discussion here in addition to any discussion on the article's talk page. As a clerk/mediator at the dispute resolution noticeboard, I have given 79.179.224.214 some advice that he is not getting on the article talk page (see the top of this section) and which, I believe, will resolve this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I read your advice. I am not sure if I understand from it what you want me to understand. For example, did you imply, that the policy pages (like WP:MEDRS) are irrelevant, and what is relevant is what long time editors think?

More to the point, is the claim that primary research can never be used true or not? 79.179.224.214 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all irrelevant, nor do the opinions of individual long time editors trump written policy. What I was trying to say was that when several long time editors disagree with you about the interpretation of a policy, there is a possibility that you have gotten it wrong. Or not. I apologize for being unclear. The other question you ask is more interesting. I am going to outdent to give it more room.

Ah. Much better. The question at hand is:

"Is the claim that primary research can never be used true or not?"

First, let's look at the edit in question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&diff=prev&oldid=496795977

In this case, because it was all in a new section, we can take a shortcut. First we can click on the "Revision as of 20:21, 9 June 2012" on the upper right:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&oldid=496795977

then append the section to that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&oldid=496795977#Extensive_DNA_damage

Which makes it easy to scroll down and look at references 10 through 15, which the section cites.

Before even getting in to the "primary research can never be used" claim, I see a problem, and you should see it too if you look. Compare the references cited by your newly-added "Extensive DNA damage" section ([10] through [15]) with those from the existing "Cancer" section ([26] through [34]) -- or with the citations used in hundreds of other Wikipedia articles. Do you see the difference?

The cancer section has cites like "Estimated Risks of Radiation-Induced Fatal Cancer from Pediatric CT" and "CT scans on children 'could triple brain cancer risk'" -- clearly cites to reliable sources talking specifically about the effect of CT scans on humans. Forget about primary or secondary for a moment. They are reliable sources talking specifically about the effect of CT scans on humans.

Your new section has cites like "The line is a linear fit to the data points with a slope of 35 DSBs per cell per Gy." and "DNA double strand break repair in brain: Reduced NHEJ activity in aging rat neurons" The first is about an experiment done with cells grown in a medium and the second is an experiment done with aging rats. So, how do I know how the experiments done with cells or rats apply to humans who get CT scans? Simple! All I have to do is to take the word of some unknown person who edits Wikipedia from IP address 79.179.224.214! Do you see the problem? If, as you claim, those experiments with cells and rats apply to CT scans of humans, why is it that you cannot find a reliable source that says that? Why, it almost sounds like you have done some original research!

By an amazing stroke of coincidence, Wikipedia has a policy that covers this exact situation. It is called WP:PRIMARY and it says:

"Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Original analysis of the primary-source material... sounds a lot like what I described you doing above concerning cells and rats, doesn't it?

OK, let's look at a modified version to your question: Is it true that someone told you that primary sources can never be used? I looked at every single comment on Talk:X-ray computed tomography, then I went back and searched for all uses of the word "primary". The only person who has said anything about primary sources never being used is you. Nobody told you that. You made it up. Wikipedia has a page about that as well: Straw man.

As I said before, if you are willing to work with us and learn not only our policies, but the reasoning behind them, you will be able to become a productive part of Wikipedia. Alas, it is generally true that the amount of time spent explaining Wikipedia's policies to someone is inversely proportional to the odds of them ever becoming a productive member of the Wikipedia community. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

With regard to "The line is a linear fit to the data points with a slope of 35 DSBs per cell per Gy." - The interactions between DNA molecules and X-rays is a matter of physics, thus it does not matter where the DNA molecules are located. It only depends on the structure of the DNA molecule, and the nature of the X-Ray, regardless of the location of the cell containing the DNA molecule be it in the body, or out of it. Since the DNA is the same and the X-Ray is the same, the number of DSBs per Gy would be the same. I have begun to search secondary sources for the same data (btw google show that that article is cited by more than 800 other articles), and I have found similar numbers stated for in vivo, by what I think are secondary sources, and I have asked for confirmation, that they are indeed secondary sources, on the article talk page. Here are the articles: "Radiation induces thousands of single-strand breaks per Gray, but only about 50 double-strand breaks.", "20–40 DSB foci per nucleus per Gray of radiation for a mammalian cell", and "For X-rays, on average 20–30 DSBs are induced per Gray". It is true that in this experiment the DNA molecules were in cells grown in medium, but in other experiments the DNA molecules were in peripheral lymphocytes that were extracted from human blood, after the human has undergone a CT. See here. About the rats's neuron repair mechanism, maybe that is not as obvious as the X-Ray interaction with DNA, but that source was just to support that the repair mechanism is faulty. There are many other sources, that support that the DNA repair mechanism is faulty in humans, but I was not asked specifically about that source until now, and I understood that I was told off, that I can't use any primary source, because my contribution was deleted and in reply to my question I was told: "All of the refs supporting this text are primary research papers", "The issue with your additions had to do with the references. The references where simply not appropriate", "The same thing as with all the content in question. It was not supported by proper references.", "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss.", and "For important medical information we use ideal sources." the last in reply to me saying "It does not state that non ideal sources can't be used". For this reason I asked "More to the point, is the claim that primary research can never be used true or not?", I am not sure if I got an answer to that. Note, that the last question semantics doesn't state that any one made that claim, yet I want to know if that claim is true or false, in order to know if the deletions have merit or not. Having said that, and looking into the definition of straw man, I think that what I was told "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss." is pretty much saying you can't use primary sources period. Thus, no straw man. After I have defended the honor of the mighty 79.179.224.214, I humbly request, please answer. 79.179.224.214 (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You see, no body has questioned the content of the articles, until now, they just deleted it, and said it is not proper, not appropriate, primary.

Is this article a secondary review? (see e.g. page 25 that include a table, that concentrate many other researches that were reviewed.) 79.179.224.214 (talk)

Primary sources can be used, but not the way you are trying to use them. They are to be used for things that are uncontroversial, uncontested, directly stated in the source (no interpretation or other use of your own knowledge or expertise allowed) and they have to be reliable sources. For example, you can use http://www.robinwilliams.com/ as a source for a claim that actor Robin Williams was born in Chicago (http://www.robinwilliams.com/content/biography says that explicitly, and the Robin Williams website is a reliable source on the topic of Robin Williams).

It may very well be true that the other editors on the page did a poor job of explaining Wikipedia's policies to you, but they did give you links to the actual policies, and everything you need to know is contained in those policies. It is your responsibility to find out what Wikipedia's policies are and to follow them. The only responsibility someone who reverts your changes has is to provide a link to the relevant policy (and, of course, the policy has to actually apply). They don't have to explain the policy to you.

Your explanation above about DNA molecules and X-rays is a prime example of the wrong thinking you have fallen into. It violates WP:OR (specifically WP:SYNTH) and WP:V, (also see Wikipedia:Attribution#No original research)) and so cannot be used. Again, look at what you want to insert into Wikipedia and at the references you are citing, then look at what is already on Wikipedia and the references supporting that. Surely you are capable of seeing and understanding the difference between the two. What conclusion do you draw from them being so radically different? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

But I stated: "Experiments showed that ionizing radiation cause DNA double strand breaks at a rate of 35 double strand breaks per cell per Gray", clearly the primary source state exactly that. Is that primary source unreliable? Is it controversial? Is there an other problem? Can it be fixed? 79.179.224.214 (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That particular statement cannot be retained unless you find a source that specifically states how that experiment relates to humans undergoing CT scans. That source would be acceptable if you were to try to add the information to our articles on X-rays or Ionizing radiation, but you would have to present it as what happens to cells in a growth medium, not what happens in humans. The primary source in question is not a reliable source on the subject of the effects of CT scans on humans, because it says nothing about the effects of CT scans on humans.

If you want to fix the entire section, simply find reliable sources that specifically address CT scans, live humans, and DNA. Then write copy that reports what those sources say. This is what whoever it was who wrote the cancer section had to do, and this is what you will have to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You wrote "CT scans, live humans, and DNA". Does it have to be "CT scans"? Couldn't it be xray? I think, that the source of the xray is irrelevant. 79.179.224.214 (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have already found what seems to be a review article regarding radiation therapy which state: "Radiation induces thousands of single-strand breaks per Gray, but only about 50 double-strand breaks.". Can that be used? 79.179.224.214 (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Radiation therapy and CT both use X-Rays, and subject patients to Grays of X-Ray radiation. And the review article states radiation, in general, which means all type of radiations. Thus the statement from the radiation therapy review should be considered to apply in the case of CT, imho. Btw, the numbers of the in vitro study, and this review are pretty close. 79.179.224.214 (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with the following statement from that section? It is about living humans, CT, and DNA:

A Study found, that the contrast agent increased the radiation damage to the DNA that was caused by CT examination: The presence of iodinated contrast agent during CT increased the double strand breaks levels in peripheral lymphocytes by approximately 30%.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.224.214 (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

About the table, Mr. Doc James has removed 3 columns from it. The mGy column is quoting the primary source verbatim, and shouldn't have been removed. I read WP:NPOV, and I think that for a neutral point of view, that column need to be included. The next column is based on a simple calculation, the mGy value divided by 3mGy/year, which is the background radiation giving the number of years of background radiation. Simple calculations are allowed according to WP:OR. The next column is based on calculations relying on the mGy column, and the DSB rate, which we are still discussing about. 79.179.224.214 (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

About the cognitive decline section, it is based on a review article, which is quoted. One of the primary sources there state:

"External radiotherapy to the head of infants with dose levels that overlap those from computed tomography may adversely affect intellectual development."

"Irradiation of the brain with dose levels overlapping those imparted by computed tomography can, in at least some instances, adversely affect intellectual development. Although formal diagnostic protocols do not advocate computed tomography in cases of minor head injuries, clinical practice dictated by legal and financial considerations does not always adhere to these protocols. The risk and benefits of computed tomography scans in minor head trauma need re-evaluating.".

I think that this support my view that the source of the ionizing radiation, be it radiation therapy or CT, is irrelevant for its effect. 79.179.224.214 (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Good find on those those "dose levels that overlap those from computed tomography" sources. As for your question about "Does it have to be 'CT scans'? Couldn't it be xray?" I have been thinking about that and looking at various policies and my answer is...I don't know. I am hoping that someone else might be anble to shed some light on that. As for the removal of the three columns from the table, I need to get back to you on that. I have a prior commitment that may keep me occupied for up to two days. I still strongly support your basic goal, which is to create a properly sourced section informing the reader about CT scans and DNA damage. That's something that I would want to know as a patient, but it has to be in the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. We will try to do the best possible.

Until someone would shed light on that, I am trying to see the problem from other people's point of view ... suppose that we have established that xray cause a certain problem, and that CT emit xrays, and suppose that some patient go to do a CT, and ask the doctor, would I get that certain problem from that CT? it emits xrays, and xray cause the certain problem. And the doctor would answer him, oh no, it will not cause you the certain problem. And the patient would say, why not? it emit xrays, no? xray cause the certain problem, no? And the doctor would answer, yes xray cause the certain problem, but this is xray from a CT, and because this xray come from a CT, it will not cause the certain problem. So don't worry about it. And the patient would ask the doctor, are the xrays from a CT the same xrays as the one that cause the certain problem? And the doctor will say yes, they are exactly the same. And the patient would ask, well doctor, if they are the same xrays, then how come that xrays from a CT doesn't cause the certain problem, if it emit the same xrays that cause the certain problem? And the doctor would answer, isn't it obvious? It is because the CT xrays are from a CT. Duh.

Here is an other story, suppose that we have established that drinking boiling water cause nasty burns, and that a certain golden cup has boiling water, and the patient would ask the doctor, would drinking the boiling water from that golden cup cause me a nasty burn? And the doctor would answer, oh hell no. And the patient would ask, why not? drinking boiling water is known to cause nasty burns, no? And the doctor would answer, because it is from a golden cup, duh. 79.182.215.205 (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Stories are interesting things, They can illustrate, or they can deceive. I could write a bunch of stories with endings like:

"Because you are wearing SCUBA gear, being underwater for an hour is not fatal",

"Because you were vaccinated, you won't get the disease",

"Because the radiation is Alpha rays instead of Gamma rays, it won't give you bone cancer",

"Because the X-Rays of are at 10^3 eV with an exposure time of 10 nanoseconds instead of the 10^5 eV with an exposure time of 10 milliseconds we used before, the risk of DNA damage is greatly reduced" or even

"Because you are driving a tank, being shot at with a rifle is safe".

Those would be stories where something does make a difference to go along with your stories above where something does not make a difference. So how do we determine with kind of story we are talking about? Because someone posting to Wikipedia from IP address 79.182.215.205 says so? That's not the Wikipedia way. If, indeed, they both have the same effect on DNA, why is it that you cannot find a source that says that? The person who wrote the section on cancer was able to do it. Why can't you?

(By the way, I am purposely ignoring the fact that I can easily answer these questions from my own expertise designing equipment for producing radiation cross-linked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene; that would be Original Research.) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I understand the concern, that maybe the effect of the same absorbed radiation dose from two types of xrays would be different. I think, that I will be able to find a source, that would demonstrate that the effect of the discussed types of xrays is about the same effect, if I would search for that.

Perhaps I have already searched and found these sources, perhaps I have even posted them here, and just haven't quoted the relevant sections, and how it demonstrate the point yet.

Note, that I have already found and posted for in vivo radiation therapy "Radiation induces"..."about 50 double-strand breaks." per gray, and for an in vitro study "90 kV x-rays"..."35 DSBs per cell per Gy". So the DNA damage per gray, with in vitro 90keV xrays, and in vivo radiation therapy is pretty close. AFIK CT xrays are 80 to 120keV, usually 120keV for adults. Thus, the used 90keV xray are in the range of keV used in CT. Thus the xrays used in CT produce about the same amount of DSBs as radiation therapy.

Please give me the benefit of the doubt, and don't assume, that I can't find something, or extrapolate from that assumption, that therefor the 'assumed not found something' doesn't exist.

I know that I am new to Wikipedia editing, and maybe I don't understand the rules, but FWIW I edit in good faith, I think that what I am trying to contribute is correct and important, and I am willing to search for better sources if it is really necessary, but I also think that I am confronted with unfair conduct, and at that case even good sources that I will find would be rejected. For this reason, first I want to understand why the sources that I have already found are not good enough. This will enable me (A) to know that I really need to search new sources, (B) to evaluate if new sources meet the criteria (C) to know that the game is fair and that searching for new sources is not a futile task, since it is going to be rejected regardless.

Think of it - if one of the editors is invested in a CT facility, or acting on the behalf of someone who is invested in a CT facility, he would delete anything he can from the adverse effects section, just like Mr. Doc James did.

Mr. Doc James gave me a wrong justification for the deletions, and thus threw me off track into a discussion of whether primary sources can be used at all. I think, that many of the sources, that back up the deleted contributions were adequate, but the contributions weren't edited in order to remove just inadequate parts, they were deleted in their entirety. Mr. Doc James has proved, by the insertion of the error Gy=Sv to the article, that he doesn't understand the subject, and that he didn't read the sources thoroughly, yet he allowed himself to delete without asking questions first. Can you understand why I might be just to suspect, that unfair conduct could be involved?

79.182.215.205 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not only assuming good faith, I am convinced of it. It is blindingly obvious that you want to improve the page. As for the behavior you describe, DRN only deals with article content, not user conduct. WP:WQA deals with user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence :)

About the three columns, I suggest to first restore the two columns, that we know to be properly sourced.

I found a paragraph from "Computed Tomography — An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure", which is a review, imho, that support most of my deleted DNA damage section: "Biologic Effects of Low Doses of Ionizing; Radiation Mechanism of Biologic Damage;Ionizing radiation, such as x-rays, is uniquely energetic enough to overcome the binding energy of the electrons orbiting atoms and molecules; thus, these radiations can knock electrons out of their orbits, thereby creating ions. In biologic material exposed to x-rays, the most common scenario is the creation of hydroxyl radicals from x-ray interactions with water molecules; these radicals in turn interact with nearby DNA to cause strand breaks or base damage. X-rays can also ionize DNA directly. Most radiation-induced damage is rapidly repaired by various systems within the cell, but DNA double-strand breaks are less easily repaired, and occasional misrepair can lead to induction of point mutations, chromosomal translocations, and gene fusions, all of which are linked to the induction of cancer.23".

79.182.215.205 (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

User:79.182.215.205 - you can stay on this board if you like, but it is my opinion that it would be better for you to return to the talk page of the article's subject and reference discussions there on this board. This dispute should stay open, but discussion about the article content should be on its talk page, while problems about fair treatment should be here. When you make proposals on content like you are doing here, they are unlikely to be read by people seeking information on CT if they are on boards other than the CT board. I also recommend that you make a user account because people are less likely to communicate with you when they have to go to the extra work of finding your IP as it changes. You have some IP addresses wherein people started conversations, and then those conversations are abandoned when you switch. Dispute resolution works better when more people participate, and I want everyone to have a chance to participate easily. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blue Rasberry. Personally I have no preference regarding the posting location. I have posted here because the mediator instructed us to discuss the disputed content here.

79.182.215.205 (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for disputes that cannot be resolved at the article talk page level. If you can work it out on the talk page, that is far better than seeking dispute resolution. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 16, 2012 at 08:42 (UTC) Reason: Involved parties are working out content dispute on article talk page, behavior issues at WP:WQA.

Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes

• Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes (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 have some concern regarding NPOV and the due weight of several references. Following a previous case I've filed [35] which brought several outside editors to the article, the user in question, Keahapana, had attempted on several occasions to restore some disputed material, which I feel violates WP:OWN [36], [37], [38]. The material in question has been challenged by several other editors, [39], but nevertheless was allowed to remain for the next months.

I've made several changes on May 15 per the previous discussion [40], which was reverted by Keahapana [41] 5 days later. There's some reverts forth and back since.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• PCPP (talk · contribs)
• Keahapana (talk · contribs)
• Homunculus (talk · contribs)
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs)
• TheSoundAndTheFury (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.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes}} --~~~~ 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 discussion at [42], which has been inconclusive due to the lack of outside editors. Due to my past history with the article and editor in question, I do not believe that I can engage in a amicable discussion without third party mediation.

• How do you think we can help?

Hopefully solve the disputes over reverted material and find a mutually satisfying conclusion.

PCPP (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes discussion

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

Comment by Homunculus

Two things:

• PCPP, today you deleted some material from the page. Are you satisfied with the current version [43]? Or are there outstanding issues? If the latter, would you be willing to list them point-by-point as a basis for discussion? (For the record, I think the version as it now stands is fine, though other parties may disagree; the deletions this morning were much less significant than previous ones).
• There has been some ambiguity over whether PCPP's involvement with this page constitutes a breach of a topic ban he is under. He has been warned for this a couple times (most recently here[44][45] though the exact parameters and terms of the ban may need to be clarified. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to propose this, but if the user is not allowed to edit the article, maybe he could raise specific concerns (unrelated to his topic banned area) in this forum and allow other parties to discuss / edit accordingly. Homunculus (duihua) 14:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Keahapana

I welcome DRN help resolving this dispute and look forward to hearing independent comments. Rather than again explain my admittedly subjective opinions, I suggest that participants draw their own conclusions from the Talk and History pages. To summarize, some editors and I have repeatedly asked that large-scale deletions be discussed in advance, but other editors choose not to seek consensus. Our request, as quoted in current fn. 52 above is, "if there are specific problems with content, please discuss before deleting again". Taking one of today's diffs (made under the rubric "Paraphrased CSM quote per NPOV") as an example, compare

• A Christian Science Monitor article critically framed the CI question of academic freedom, "Let's suppose that a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive foreign government offered to pay for American teens to study its national language in our schools. Would you take the deal?"
• A Christian Science Monitor article argued that teaching of Chinese language in the United States should be done on the terms of freedom, open discussion and democracy.

Based on Wikipedia standards and conventions, which content version is preferable? Keahapana (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by PCPP

Hi, I've read the discussion, and per the terms, I will not edit the main page of the article while the discussion is going on, and will not touch or mention the paragraphs regarding FLG. Overall, I feel that this article is overlong with quotes, and some can be better served with summarized statements. I also feel a need to distinguish between criticisms of CI and criticisms of individuals working at CI. My main disputes are with several of Keahapana's recent additions, which I view as failing to satisfy NPOV and due weight.

Here are some of the specific changes I disagree with:

• 1) [46][47]

Statements by Pierrebourg et al alleging that some CI employees have relations with United Front Work Dept and Huawei. The authors also allege that United Front and Huawei employees were engaging in possible propaganda and spying efforts. In my opinion, this is given undue weight, since it engage a "guilt-by-association" fallacy, sounds like a conspiracy theory, and itself is not really a criticism of CI itself.

• 2) [48]

A quote from the German publication "Der Spiegel", which claims that CI possibly promotes "China's cultural superiority". I feel that this statement falls on undue weight, as it comes from an article about China's foreign relations, and only mentioned CI in one sentence.

• 3) [49][50]

Comparisons with Mussolini's Italian Institutes. I feel that this violates NPOV and engages in further association fallacy.

• 4) [51]

A statement from Branner speculating on the long term consequences of CI finances. I feel that this statement adds little to the article, which is in danger of being too long with its quotations.

• 5) [52]

A tabloid headline referring to China as "a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive foreign government". I feel that this violates NPOV, tells nothing to the reader, and feel that it's better to use the author's concluding statements about how Chinese should be taught "in terms of freedom and democracy"

• 6) [53]

A paragraph detailing that the Dickinson State University not wanting a CI, noting that it's not where they want to focus right now. I feels that this is not really a criticism at all, since such institutions can be rejected for administration reasons at anytime. Also, the university mentioned is a comparatively minor educational institution which has been accused of being a diploma mill.

• 7) [54]

A paragraph detailing a Senate hearing regarding Chinese diplomatic efforts in the US, which includes quotes of political rhetorics from Representative Dana Rohrabacher as well as statement from Steven W. Mosher. I feel that quoting Rohrabacher adds little to the article, and it's better to simply summarize his statements. As for Steven Mosher, it was claimed that he was expelled by Stanford due to Chinese pressure, while failing to mention the event happened in 1981 and has nothing to do with CI at all.

• 8) [55]

A paragraph regarding a local dispute over an elementary school's Confucius Classroom, sourced largely from blogs. I feel that this does not meet notability and due weight requirements.

• 9) [56]

The paragraph states that CI is administered by Hanban, and its chair used to work with United Front. This already says "association fallacy", and the Mosher quote regarding United Front is inappropriately added to synthesis further spying allegations.

• 10) [57]

Here is a paragraph about London School of Economics accepting donations from China, and associates it with the controversial Gaddafi donations. Again, I feel that this has little to do with CI, and more to do with LSE.

• 11) [58]

Long paragraph regarding Visa requirements of CI employees. I feel that this is given undue weight.

• 12) Lastly, I feel that the article would serve better if it was renamed "Reception of Confucius Institutes" or something similar instead, since the current title emphasizes an undue weight on negatives, suffer from a repetition of similar statements, while not giving due weight to CI's side of the story. I also feel that this article is in danger of becoming a collection of random negative stories on CI pulled from Google news, and as such, does not satisfy WP:CRIT. Perhaps the article could be restyled after similar criticism articles on Microsoft and Apple, where the criticism is organized by a clear heading and opening statement, present all sides using very little direct quotes and more concise paraphrasing. --PCPP (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Clerk Comment: I am a volunteer here at DRN, and I'd be happy to take a look at the dispute. I'll take a look at the article in question and try to give some insight. I'd like to give a couple of reminders, first, though:

1) We do not make administrative rulings here. DRN exists to help editors establish consensus and to prevent editor conflicts from escalating. We do not "pass judgment" on which content is preferable; we merely help the involved editors decide that for themselves.

2) While the issue is being discussed here in DRN, it's best if the involved editors refrain from editing the article/section in question (except to revert obvious vandalism). If you would like to make an edit to the article, discuss it here (or on the article's talk page) first so that we have transparency.

I haven't had a chance to review both sides of the issue or look at the article in-depth, but I will try to comment when I am a little more familiar with the issue. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue Hello everyone. I think I will leave most of this in the capable hands of Sleddog116, but I thought I would provide some background as I closed the last DRN thread about this article. Here is a list of links:

• Previous DRN thread in January 2012
• Arbitration enforcement links for PCPP: February 2011, November 2011, January 2012, and another in January 2012
• Current arbitration case Falun Gong 2, which is not directly related but involves a few of the editors here, and is about the area of PCPP's topic ban

It is my understanding that editing the parts of the article might not be a technical violation of PCPP's falun gong topic ban, but that the issue is not black and white, and if an administrator thinks that he has been testing the boundaries of the ban then he could be blocked anyway. I would suggest that he only edit the talk page, just to be on the safe side, and ask for third-party assistance (as he has done here) rather than editing the page directly.

Reading the article, I think that it shows symptoms of systemic bias, and could do with more commentary from the Confucius Institute and its supporters to balance out the criticisms raised. For example, the "espionage" section reports many allegations that the Confucius Institute or its employees have engaged in espionage, with not a single rebuttal from the CI itself. Whatever the truth of the matter may be, I find it hard to believe that if serious allegations of espionage were made, the CI did not even attempt to rebut them.

We must also remember to be culturally sensitive about the subject matter here. People generally see reality through the prism of their native culture, and it is all too easy to fall into the trap of thinking our own culture is "normal" or "right", and that other cultures are "strange" or "wrong". For example, from a Western viewpoint, the CI asking that no-one talk about Tibet might be seen as "stifling freedom" or "toeing the Communist Party line"; from a Chinese viewpoint, however, it might just be seen as the CI being respectful to their superiors back home, and a necessary step to avoid embarrassing them. In my opinion, we need to make sure we present a nuanced picture, and give both sides of the story. This might mean finding Chinese-language sources if we cannot find English sources that would do the job. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, as a way to kick of the discussion, I agree with Homunculus that it would be good if PCPP could present a point-by-point list of the things he is concerned about. That will help us keep this discussion focused and productive. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Sleddog116:

Thanks, Mr. Stradivarius. I can't really argue with anything you just said. I've taken a look at the argument, and I've reviewed the most recent edit history of the article. As Homunculus and Strad said, I think PCPP needs to give a brief point-by-point list of concerns. I'm not going to comment on the IBAN issue, but I think I might have an administrator take a look at this and see if it's going to be a concern. Without taking the IBAN into the account, I see basically two main grievances from the disputants:

By PCPP: The other editors are finding every possible negative source (many of which are allegedly unreliable) and including it here.

By the other disputants: PCPP is removing every negative fact from the article, even those that are reliably sourced.

Is that an accurate synopsis of the essence of the argument, or have I missed something important? As far as I can tell, this is a simple, clear-cut case of WP:REDFLAG and Neutrality of Sources. Remember: All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say.

For instance, this removal was completely justified because, as far as I can tell, the material that PCPP removed was not in the given source, so it would not be WP:NPOV to present it as such without attributing it to a reliable source.

On the other hand, removing every negative source is also not justified. This is not an issue that can be settled arbitrarily. Neutral point of view does not mean "fill the article with non-neutral statements but make sure both sides are equal"; neutrality is presenting the information in a neutral way and attributing it to sources. Some will be positive, some will be negative. The prominence of each viewpoint will determine how much "weight" each one gives. We can't simply look at the article and "balance the positive and the negative" if that's going to give a viewpoint undue weight. For instance, there is a significant number of people who deny that the Holocaust ever occurred, but because this viewpoint (though extensively published) represents an extremely small minority, Holocaust denial is not even mentioned in the Holocaust article except in the "See Also" section. Doing otherwise would give Holocaust denial undue weight.

If the prevailing reliably-published view towards the subject is negative, then that negativity will be reflected in the article. Period. That is simply how Wikipedia works - we never get anything first, and we don't make inferences about our subject matter; we simply pass on, summarize, and/or simplify what can already be found in other sources. On the other hand, since this is the English Wikipedia, the majority of our reliable sources will invariably demonstrate a Western bias. Therefore, I think we need other sources, as Mr. Stradivarius said above. The Monitor is a good source, but we do need to see if we can find some other sources.

PCPP, I think, again, that you should also be a little more specific with the exact problems you have with the article as it is. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: I have spoken with an administrator, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and he clarified the terms of the ban(s) on PCPP: "OK, the Confucius Institution in and of itself is completely fine, it's only the parts of it relating to their discrimination against the Falun Gong and any responses to said discrimination that fall under PCPP's ban (he's indefinitely banned from the Falun Gong topic area, broadly construed). If that's happened, that'd be a clear violation of his topic ban; if not, I don't think there's an issue." Now, I'm not entirely sure of exactly how to interpret "broadly construed," but based on Blade's response, I don't think any ban violation has occurred yet. But since the topic is "broadly construed," it could easily become a problem if it escalates. PCPP, I suggest you keep this in mind. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Keahapana

Thanks Sleddog116 and Mr. Stradivarius. I'm not familiar with the dispute resolution process, and appreciate your thoughts. Yes, your synopsis is accurate, and available trustworthy sources on CI controversies are problematic. I double-checked that removal, and the linked Starr article says, "The issue was taken up in the Swedish Parliament where Göran Lindblad compared the CIs to Mussolini's Italian institutes of the 1930s and expressed extreme concern about the links between the Nordic Institute and Stockholm University." Although several reliable sources mention this historical parallel, "Mussolini comparisons" have been removed and restored without consensus. Keahapana (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sleddog116, any recommendations on how to organize this page? Should each involved party have their own section, or is it better to proceed with the conversation as one would on an article talk page? Homunculus (duihua) 17:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

For now, let's just talk about it like we'd do it on an article talk page. Thank you, PCPP, for providing us with a list of specific concerns. I think the best bet at this point would be to take each one of PCPP's concerns listed above (starting at the top) and discuss the problems with and/or solutions for each one. Remember, please address edits, not editor conduct. We've already addressed PCPP's TBAN, and since the admin I spoke to does not think a violation has occurred, we'll leave it at that. From here on, try to keep the discussion focused on the problem with edits. I apologize for not responding sooner, but I've been somewhat busy over the last few days. What I would like to see all of you doing here is taking each of PCPP's concerns and addressing them one by one. I'm mostly going to just let you discuss the problems, but I'll be here to keep the discussion focused and provide input if anyone requests it. Since there are a lot of concerns, it could be a lengthy discussion, so let's all try to keep cool heads and remember that Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• A note for everyone - I have just found out that PCPP's edits to this article have been directly mentioned in the Falun Gong 2 arbitration case here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

• Ancient Egyptian race controversy (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 article states at the top of the page "Please note: this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way, bearing in mind academic consensus, this is not a referendum on Afrocentrism or Eurocentrism."

When you edit it, there is a yellow message above the edit window that says "Please note: this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way, bearing in mind academic consensus, this is not a referendum on Afrocentrism or Eurocentrism."

We have a new editor, SirShawn, who doesn't appear willing to acknowledge this and is not only adding material that is not about the history of the debate, but is arguing the debate in a pov way. I and another editor have tried to discuss this on the talk page but have gotten nowhere. Three editors have reverted him, Wdford then replacing some material of his that is relevant to the article. SirShawn's latest comments have included insults and the statement "Your attempts to revert the edits from back to what they were is nothing more than biased censorship and blatant lies (in the case of the non existent 90% commonality between ancient and modern claim). If you wish to play a game in which you get as many biased people to unwarrantably undo my positive and up to date contributions to this article in an attempt to start an edit war than please believe that I will get twice as many people to support my actions!"

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Dougweller (talk · contribs)
• SirShawn (talk · contribs)
• Wdford (talk · contribs)
• GreenUniverse (talk · contribs)

The account SirShawn started editing on June 11th, and except for adding something to Land of Punt has only edited this article.

• 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.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Ancient Egyptian race controversy}} --~~~~ 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?

Discussed on talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

Explain to SirShawn the importance of gaining consensus and presenting material in an NPOV manner.

Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy discussion

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

• Comment simple case of ignoring consensus. If he continues to war please file at WP:ANEW.Curb Chain (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also note that the article is already on article probation because of previous disruptive editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• SirShawn, if you want to change the topic of an article, you need to present coherent evidence. In terms of a scholarly debate, this means multiple field reviews of the debate as conducted by scholars—not just contributions to the debate, but reviews themselves of the debate—thereby indicating that academics have achieved a consensus on a matter. The appropriate place to do so is on an article's talk page. Wikipedia represents, in scholarly articles, the preponderance of scholarly knowledge. Where scholars are split on a matter, such as the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article, we report on the scholarly controversy. Edit warring, and accusing other editors of partisan editing, particularly when they're relying on reliable sources, are disruptive and not conducive to the editing process. Calm down, read review articles and field reviews of the topic, and if you're convinced that the article's topic needs to change from reporting the scholarly controversy, to taking the position of one side in the controversy (as a result of that side's position being accepted in multiple current field reviews), then discuss this with other editors on the Talk: page of the article before editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me first start off by saying that every single contribution that I have made to that article are as mainstream and contemporary as it gets in regards to this discussion. In the modern scholarship section of the article I have added in the official statements of the "Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt", "The Encyclopedia of Archaeology of ancient Egypt", University of Manchester, "National Geographic" (which in itself cites a dozen scholars for their statements), and the Encyclopedia Britannica. The issues that several posters are having is that every one of these modern authorities have pretty much plainly come out in the support of the "black African" theory in regards to ancient Egypt. Their rejection of these sources is clearly a reflection of their own biased. Doug has attempted to argue that the contextualized (in terms of the social concept of "race" which is relevant to the article itself) statements by every one of those authoritative sources belongs in an article which is supposed to deal with individual studies dealing with strictly with biology and culture ("Population history" article). The population history section is dealing with conflicting individual studies, and almost none of which deal with "race" in the social sense. Doug is also hypocritical on what he perceives the purpose of the article to be. He states that it is somehow only to reflect the "history" of an on-going debate, while simultaneously acknowledging a section of the article devoted to MODERN scholarship and disputing the inclusion of the most MODERN and accepted theories in regards to Egypt's origins TODAY.

Interestingly enough another issue with the article is that a blatant lie in regards to a claim that modern Egyptians are "90%" genetically identical to ancient Egyptians is cited by a source that does not state it anywhere in the link. This claim prior to my contributions was posted THREE TIMES throughout the article (clearly a POV). Now why should that original research be repeated throughout the article, yet the contextualized (keyword) statements dealing with race of the Fitzwilliam, Oxford, Manchester, Britannica ect be excluded? It's makes absolutely no sense.

Another issue is that they are saying that my sources are basically biased to support my POV. Well is it at all possible that one particular POV is well...where the facts lay in regards to this issue? I mean if not then why not simply cite another modern institute of the same academic integrity which opposing contextualized statements? If it's really that much of a dispute amongst modern scholars shouldn't it be easy to cite other recent views, rather than censor the one side to make it appear as though no decision has been reached? Clearly there are emotional attachments to this issue, and imo anyone who wishes to censor any of those top notch sources should not be taken seriously.

One poster (WDford) attempted to say that somehow argue that including these sources were a POV because they were cited "Afrocentric" scholars. When I pretty much debunked that assertion (see the talk page), he nor anyone else responded.

As evident by the talk page these users aren't trying to be logical in their decisions. They are emotionally attached to certain ideas, and are simply trying to bully their views into place with a so called "consensus" to be unreasonable.

SirShawn (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It sounds to me that the logical next step is to discuss the sources, one by one, at the reliable sources noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There are 3 issues here. One is the attitude of this editor, which I commented on below (why didn't I have an edit conflict here? I'm sure I was editing directly below SirShawn). Then there is how much of the material is about the history of the controversy and how much is arguing the controversy and thus should not be in the article. The third is pov (& maybe sources, eg Britannica isn't a good source for anything where you can find other sources). We can't solve the 2nd problem without getting cooperation and a willingness to abide by consensus, which so far seems far from likely. I don't know how to solve the 3rd except the same way. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sir Shawn's attitude is the major problem. I see no willingness to have a serious discussion or WP:AGF (believe in the good faith of other editors). The word 'bullying' seems a bit ironic here. Statements such as "Your attempts to revert the edits from back to what they were is nothing more than biased censorship and blatant lies" don't make me want to discuss anything with this editor, and certainly don't suggest the possibility of a constructive dialogue. Nor does " If none of you three can justify why these contributions don't belong on the talk page then don't touch the article." I'm not bothered by removing the 90% thing until we can be sure of the source (looks like it might be in a similar book) but that's mainly because the genetic issue is much more complicated and that oversimplifies it. No one is trying to censor anything, and indeed Wdford replaced some of the Oxford stuff at [59] and [60] (although you wouldn't know if from the comments above). Reading the article's talk page gives a better insight into the problems being encountered.

This article is under ArbCom sanctions, something I'd missed when I brought this here. Dougweller (talk)

The problem here as I see it is not so much about the reliability of SirShawn’s cherry-picked sources, as that the topic is much broader than his selected sources reveal, and his selected sources do not represent a consensus. The full debate is clear in the daughter article Population history of Egypt, where the many contributing specialists are discussed in full. For instance, there is a large and detailed discussion around DNA, of which the disputed sentence here is but a summary. SirShawn however wants to include a handful of carefully selected sources in this article without including all the rest of the material which contradicts his POV, thus resulting in an unbalanced POV section. This has been explained several times on the talk-page, but SirShawn is not yet open to this message.

The material on this topic is too much for one article, and so it is spread over two separate but linked articles. This “modern scholarship” section is just a summary of the daughter article, and is clearly linked to it. If we are to follow SirShawn’s preference and incorporate the dissenting material he wants to incorporate, then to achieve an NPOV article we would essentially have to merge the two articles, which would result in a single huge and unwieldy article as it was in the past. Wdford (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Then you need to go back, and answer again the question "How do you think we can help?" Because originally you wanted someone to explain to User:SirShawn how to go about editing. Fifelfoo did that very clearly. What do you think should happen next? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear that someone else has come out in favor of my edits on the talk page (pulaar) who makes this issue 2 against I suppose 3).

WDford your problem with the "reliability" of my source(s) is mind boggling. First of all I have cited four prestigious encyclopedic references who all give a summarization on the issue of the "race" of the ancient Egyptians. Are honestly saying that Oxford (the actual encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt), Fitzwilliam[61], Manchester[62][63], Nat Geo[64], The Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of ancient Egypt [65] and Britannica are all biased? You seem to have a problem with my sources because they all support one particular theory and discredit others. Well tell me what does that suggest about the "controversy" of the issue? To me it suggest that most contemporary scholars have their minds made on the issue. If for whatever reason you feel that this neglects the opinions of other modern authorities then why not simply CITE other MODERN authoritative institutes (which represent the majority opinion on these issues) which say different, rather than trying to censor what the major ones say?

For neutrality purposes why can't we just include these conclusions from my sources and balance the article out with the "other" modern authorities who say otherwise? This should not be a problem if some of you could truly find other sources to corraborate distinct views on the issue.

@ Doug, Well from my POV on attitude is irrelevant as I have another POV. I've attempted to logically discuss this issue of my contributions with you two on the talk page, but in every instance both of you state your opinions and ignore my response. From there with your lack of a response continued to revert my edits using bullying tactics with claims of a 2 to 1 consensus. That shows in unwillingness on you all's part to compromise.SirShawn (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

3 editors reverted you, not two. You have again replaced your chosen version, which it appears you intend to keep doing unless somehow you are convinced otherwise. 'Pulaar' is an IP who has never edited before (see WP:SPA and hasn't actually said anything specific about your edits, and appeared after you said you would recruit other editors to support you. This is unacceptable behavior particularly when you've been told that the article is under ArbCom sanction. And this is not the article in which to try to prove a case about 'race' in Ancient Egypt, which you are pretty clearly trying to do. But it is your behavior that concerns me here. The material should have stayed out "until a proper discussion takes place." once it was reverted. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopaedias and National Geographic are not sufficient sources for historical articles, see reliable sources for history articles and the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard. If an article is currently under Arbitration Committee sanctions, conduct issues such as disruptive "I don't hear that" behaviour may result in sanctions being applied to editors. I would suggest that editors take any reliability issues to the reliable sources noticeboard. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Wandering Son

• Wandering Son (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 basically a dispute on what pronouns should be used for certain characters in a fictional series where two of the main characters have expressed interest in being the opposite sex. In this case, the first protagonist Shuichi Nitori is a biological boy who wants to be a girl, and the second protagonist Yoshino Takatsuki is a biological girl who wants to be a boy.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Juhachi (talk · contribs)
• 137.52.209.97 (talk · contribs)
• 50.128.198.195 (talk · contribs)
• DBailey635 (talk · contribs)
• 66.65.6.19 (talk · contribs)
• Diego Moya (talk · contribs)
• Sera404 (talk · contribs) 

It is my belief that 137.52.209.97 and 50.128.198.195 are the same person.

• 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.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Wandering Son}} --~~~~ 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 is the second time the issue was taken up on the talk page, the first being almost a year ago. The current discussion can be seen at Talk:Wandering Son#Pronouns again. There were also various edit history comments posted, which lead no where. Assuming 137.52.209.97 and 50.128.198.195 are the same person, they seem to prefer not discussing much of anything, as 137.52.209.97 only edited the talk page once, and this was the only diff of someone arguing to use female pronouns for Shuichi and male for Yoshino (or in other words, the opposite of their biological "assigned" sexes). The other editors on the talk page have been in favor of using their biological sexes to determine which pronouns to use, and two editors have expressed confusion on the recent changes that 137.52.209.97 and 50.128.198.195 have done to the article: [66], [67].

• How do you think we can help?

An outside opinion would be helpful, but mainly I'm trying to resolve the dispute with the various guidelines and policies I and others have outlined on the talk page. The dispute mainly comes down to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV which I believe 137.52.209.97 and 50.128.198.195 are going against in this case.

十八 03:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wandering Son discussion

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

Hello everyone, I'm a clerk here at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I thought I would give my opinion on this dispute. My apologies to the IP, but the guidance at MOS:IDENTITY is very clear on how we treat these kinds of issues. In the absence of any self-identification, which is impossible given that we are talking about fictional characters, we must use the pronouns that are used in the sources on the subject. If in this case, as has been indicated on the talk page, both the work itself and the secondary sources use the characters' biological gender pronouns, then this is what Wikipedia must do too. So we should make sure we refer to Shuichi as a "he" and Yoshino as a "she" throughout the article. This is not meant to undermine the trans-gender themes in the article at all, and we should make sure we cover these aspects of the work with diplomacy and tact. Pronouns are not an area that we can compromise on, however. I think we should clean up the rest of the article to use the biological gender pronouns, and if there is further edit warring we can report it at WP:AN3 or WP:RFPP as appropriate. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 07:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As someone who participated in the discussion, I don't feel identified with the comment above that "The other editors on the talk page have been in favor of using their biological sexes". At Birdo which is a similar case I sugested changing the article to the feminine form. Here, before making a decision, I'd like a more thorough analysis of how the characters describe themselves in the original language; the decision above to use the biological-cellular-sex seems to be based on someone else's translation, and the wording of the scenes where the characters express their desire to belong to the other genre. Otherwise it's not clear that there's really an "absence of any self-identification" and that the pronouns used by third-party sources are the ones to use. Diego (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Japanese typically doesn't use male/female pronouns, so it doesn't really apply. The closest the manga comes to calling Shuichi a boy with a pronoun in the original text is when he's called a 'boyfriend' when going with out Anna Suehiro. However, Shuichi does use the first-person pronoun boku, typically used by boys, and Yoshino uses watashi, a neutral first-person pronoun, but the "default" pronoun for girls/women. In the official English translation of the manga, as stated, male pronouns are used for Shuichi and female for Yoshino. Otherwise, I've found that third-party sources refer to Shuichi as a boy, and Yoshino as a girl. Even Japanese sources like Mainichi Shimbun, and Dengeki do the same, as do numerous English sources.--十八 21:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I propose we keep it as referring to their biological sexes and to how the English translations refer to them as, including all pronouns. Refer to Shuichi as a he and Yoshino as a she. We can still say they are biologically boy and girl who want to be the opposite. There is really no need to confuse people any further. Finally, I suggest make the page protected after making the aforementioned changes, in response to the constant edit wars. 74.72.170.51 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not the right place to request page protection. Our goal is to act as mediators and to help those in disputes to come to an agreement among themselves. If you have given mediation a fair try and still can not agree, let us know and we will advise you as to where to go next (which may or may not involve page protection). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Pantheism, Classical Pantheism

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. Pantheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Classical Pantheism (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? An individual is trying to control "pantheism" related pages to suit his interests for his particular group (The World Pantheist Movement) that has its own idea of what pantheism means to them. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Naturalistic (talk · contribs) Allisgod (talk · contribs) user Naturalistic wrote a book and created a category of pantheism called "Naturalistic Pantheism", which is represented by his group, "The World Pantheist Movement". In a nutshell, it is a New Age environmental atheist group. Pantheism is a term most scholars attribute to philosopher Baruch Spinoza, who had a viewpoint very different than this 'new' variety of pantheism - he was a deterministic theist. It was also coined by a man who would have said that this 'new' variety of pantheism is not pantheism at all. User Naturalistic has set up the Pantheism wikipedia page for the purpose of promoting his new version of pantheism and his organization. Recently I have attempted to make edits and he quickly deletes them and demands citations and when i provide valid citations he removes the content and/or reorganizes the page to protect his interest of promoting his group (and perhaps selling his books). I have reviewed the history of the page and others have given up fighting him in the past - he is an educated person with a lot of time on his hands and the page seems to be fulfilling his interests. I cannot compete with the guy and need some help. He is an intelligent guy and frankly a bit sneaky. He accuses the other person of point-of-view bias when it's really him with the the POV bias; he pretends to compromise when he has not compromised at all;he very carefully does everything with the interest of protecting his brand and controlling the Pantheism pages. In fact, he is attempting to redefine the word pantheism and bury the other (more reasonable) perspective. 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. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Pantheism, Classical Pantheism}} --~~~~ 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? exhaustive discussions and editing actions lead me to believe he will do anything to control the page's content. How do you think we can help? The content on the page is not easy to understand, but we need moderators to help stop his overwhelming control of the pages. He is trying to define the word to suit his agenda and crush the more reasonable perspective. Allisgod (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Pantheism, Classical Pantheism discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Clerk's note: What you are talking about is a claim of ownership. That is a conduct matter, not a content matter, and this noticeboard is only for content matters. If you have one or more particular edits which you would like to discuss, which have already been substantially discussed at the article talk page, please feel free to raise them, below, but this thread will be closed in 24 hours unless you care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC) PS: If you wish to pursue the ownership claim, instead, please use WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U to obtain the opinions of other editors, or WP:ANI to seek banning, blocking, or other sanctions. TM 14:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC) PPS: Also, please notify the other editor and update the "Have you informed..." question, above, if you wish to pursue this request. TM 14:43, 15 June 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.

Political activities of the Koch family, Koch family

• Political activities of the Koch family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Koch family (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?

From an article neutrality stand-point, I've been trying to add a section to either the articles listed, which doesn't casts the best light on the Koch's, for the past 3 days. I've been faced with stone-wall, partisan editors (Including a very troublesome admin) Arthur Rubin who has a Wikipedia record of being reported, edit warring, tag-team reverting, deleting other people Talk Page posts, etc. etc. in the hundreds. (See my Talk Page for more details on that. User talk:XB70Valyrie) Every time I argue down the frivolity of their initial arguments they change their positions repeatedly. Instead of collaborating they nit-pick. On two occasions, once with Arthur Rubin and the other with AdventurousSquirl, both had argued that things didn't appear in the reading material and thus my edit was not admissible. I told them to go back and read it, again. Indeed the words were there. They came back saying they had missed that the first time, or words to that effect. This proves to me they don't even care about what the article said when they began arguing against it. They just argued against it because they didn't like my edit. They all started by deleting my edit first. I had to summon them to the Talk pages. I have made concession after concession and all they can do is pick more and more. I can see exactly what's going on. A 5th grader could. I will not be Gamed. RE: "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia." The other two users listed refuse to offer any concessions or make any recommendations. What they want is endless bantering in an attempt to filibuster me into complete capitulation to prevent my edit from appearing in any manifestation whatsoever. Doing so is an act against the cornerstone doctrine of Good Faith.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs)
• AdventurousSquirrel (talk · contribs)
• Arzel (talk · contribs)

The users in question accuse me of being abrasive in my lingual attitude at times. Have I ultimately become confrontational in my stance? Admittedly, Yes. I learned from Arthur Rubin that I should expect as much so I came in strong on the Political activities of the Koch family Talk Page. I am convinced that I am being Gamed and the opposition (I shouldn't HAVE TO use that word) are acting in bad faith. Anyone being Gamed would become defensive/offensive. That's why it's one of the biggest corner-stone violations of Wikipedia.

• 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.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Political activities of the Koch family, Koch family}} --~~~~ 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?

Endless discussion on both Talk pages.

• How do you think we can help?

I think it would be best to convince the users to acknowledge the principles of editing in Good Faith. Their stone-wall positions and lack of help, recommendations or concessions of any kind paint them as a Tag-team of guardians to the POV of supporting the Koch family in these articles. That being said, Arthur Rubin has show some willingness to negotiate on the Koch family page, but, I'm certain he did it as a way to bait the edit I had added from that page, on to the other where he knew I'd face even greater opposition. My opinion, of course.

XB70Valyrie (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Political activities of the Koch family, Koch family discussion

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

(Comments about user conduct deleted. This was prior to warning, so no criticism is implied --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

• I am a volunteer Clerk/Mediator here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard ( WP:DRN ). WP:DRN is for discussing disputes over article content, not user conduct. I am going have to ask all of you to stop talking about each other and start talking about specific parts of the article you wish to change or to talk about someone else's changes. If you feel that you must comment on user conduct, do it on that users talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I was doing that on the article talk pages. My assertion is basically that:

1. The material is irrelevant to Koch family.
2. If the reference is reliable, the factual (as opposed to opinion) parts of the reference might be distributed to the appropriate sections of Political activity of the Koch family; WP:Criticism#Controversy articles and sections suggests that there should rarely be a section called "controvery".

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(Lengthy comments about other users after having been warned deleted. Don't do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

About the actual edit. The original piece I cited [[68]] was done by The Guardian in London, England. I chose it because, as you'll see, is has no palpable allegations of bias. Arthur Rubin didn't like it because he thought the article itself was written more like an editorial. I agreed in part, and offered to use only the hard data from the editorial. We'd rewrite the conjunctive phrases together. Well then, suddenly it's not "relevant" in the Koch family article. Because the section it was going in was a synopsis of the main Political activity of the Koch family. It was recommended from another user that the primary iWatch [[69]] article from which the very neutral The Guardian article was written on, be used. No objections were raised by Arthur Rubin. In fact, we had agreed to edit what Arthur Rubin thought was the opinion (and I agreed to greater or lesser extent) out of the verbatim. Ultimately, Arthur Rubin dropped this initiative after my edit, wherein I was very accommodating. Then, upon my arrival at the Political activity of the Koch family my edit was greeted by immediate and un-discussed reverts (WP violation ≈ "Don't just revert an edit. Start by discussing on the Talk Page.") both by User:AdventurousSquirrel and Arzel. Once knee-jerk editors realized I'd already started a thread on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family then only did they begin to express their concerns. Arthur Rubin begins by pointing out that the creation of a "Controversy" section is generally discouraged, but being an admin has conveniently fialed to mention starting a "Criticism" WP:CRITS section, which the article could use. In fact nobody brings this to light. With as much oppositional knowledge as these parties, including an Admin, have nobody wanted to breath a word about it. More bad faith. Finally, in the end, I found the WP:CRITS section and recommended it. By then it was too late. I listed areas wherein I had made concessions on 4 occasions and had none made by User:AdventurousSquirrel or Arzel. Only "remove, remove, remove".

Conclusion - I think, as agreed upon, the consensus edit proposed by Arthur Rubin should ultimately find its way, intact in a new "Criticisms" section. Other criticisms throughout the article can be migrated there. The iWatch article which User:AdventurousSquirrel doesn't like was written by a think tank with liberal accusations leveled against it. But that doesn't mean data from it doesn't belong in a criticism section. That's what they're there for. That being said, it's obvious that the neutral The Guardian fact-checking team didn't find the article lacking in its presentation of raw data. Therefore, they published their own article based of the facts presented. Clearly the elements I'm intending to include are not subject to the liberalization of the publication. Any attempts to crush this edit is depriving the Wikipedia reader of the facts. WP rules do not exclude using an editorial as a citation from reliable sources since the journalist is subject to the fact-checking department of said publication according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Again, the facts are the meat of my addition. Using a citation and the existence of the "references" section, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability "allows readers and editors to check the source material for themselves."--XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(Additional personal attack by XB70Valyrie after being warned deleted. XB70Valyrie, if you have a complaint against an administrator, go to WP:AN. This noticeboard is for discussing the content of the article --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

(ec) :Sorry about the comments about the editor I made above. I was discussion content that on the article talk pages. My assertion is basically that:

1. The material is irrelevant to Koch family.
2. If the reference is reliable, the factual (as opposed to opinion) parts of the reference might be distributed to the appropriate sections of Political activity of the Koch family; WP:Criticism#Controversy articles and sections suggests that there should rarely be a section called "controvery".
3. XB70's assertion that there is anyone other than himself who is in favor of the controversy section being intact is incorrect. I initially was in favor, per WP:IAR, but now I see no reason why the sections on specific lobbying (derivatives, toxics) shouldn't be distributed to the appropriate sections of this article, and the non-specific lobbying merely reinforces better sources already used in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Rape culture

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. Rape culture (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 apologize for the not-quick explanation. This is a pretty complex and lengthy issue.) Rape culture has long been a contentious article, but in the past issues have been resolved via active talk page discussion that generally stayed cool. See the four sections starting with Talk:Rape_culture/Archive_1#Prominent_Incidents for some examples that have occurred in the past year or so. There was a running debate over neutrality of the article that was resolved - including removal of the {{NPOV}} tag - after discussion between multiple editors. This January, Media-hound began writing lengthy talk page posts which questioned the neutrality of the article and whether it included an appropriate global scope. Some of these complaints were certainly legitimate, particularly that at that time the article included no discussion of rape culture in any countries other than the US and UK. I attempted to reply to the first of these messages. However, I didn't have unlimited time (nor did other editors) and I wasn't able to reply to the steady stream of posts. Many of these contained large blocks of information about rape culture in different countries - good information, but needing someone to turn them into article sections. (As an aside, I have certain personal psychological issues which sometimes prevent me from being able to deal with things involving rape. Media-hound has stated they believe this is an excuse for me not wishing to talk about the article. I'm not comfortable discussing these issues on public pages here; email me if you need more details.) Media-hound continued to post lengthy messages, which begun to take a harsher tone. They repeatedly accused other editors and myself of perpetuating systemic bias and demanded that their suggested content be immediately added. In addition, they posted a number of messages which were simply impossible to reply to - see, for example, this one, which bounces from topic to topic, and this 29,626-character post. They were told several times that messages that long were very difficult to reply to. With the exception of a large (and mostly very good) section on India, Media-hound has made relatively few large edits to the page. However, I have contested several of their more recent edits. Chief among them has been the "origins and usage" section of the article. Media-hound has repeatedly focused on a 1975 film as the supposed first use of the term, including intentionally minimizing the importance of a 1974 usage that definitively predates the 1975 use. This has included the outright deletion of several referenced paragraphs (with a completely false claim of original research). Media-hound repeatedly cites WP:SILENCE, assuming that if no one replies to their talk page posts (even if they are difficult to parse and well-nigh impossible to respond to in any sort of a complete manner) then that's a tacit approval. While that's a plausible interpretation of policy, it ignores that they have alienated a number of editors. Kaldari (an highly experienced editor and admin) stated that they no longer attempt to pursue discussion about the article due to Media-hound's "aggressive and confrontational" style. (diff) Media-hound has repeatedly accused me of WP:OWNERSHIP (I don't believe I own the article, but fully admit that I do tend to be defensive about it) and having a conflict of interest (which I do not). I've said it before on my talk page and I will repeat it here: I have no academic, political, or financial connections to anything related to this article. I am a member of a local group that aims to educate fraternities about rape; however, my work with this article predates the existence on that group which is presently on hiatus. I have indirectly accused Media-hound of a COI of their own - as I mentioned above, they have promoted the 1975 film above other possible origins of the film. Additionally, their editing has bordered on the dishonest at least once, when they changed the wording of a direct quote (see changes under line 13 in the diff). That made me, for the first and only time, suspect bad faith on their part. (That edit also shows their insistence on referring to rape culture only as a concept, and never as a term - which goes against previous style in the article as well as general usage (in which rape culture is both a term and a concept). After I partially reverted the above edit in which they deleted cited content, they left a particularly long and difficult to follow message in which they accused me of biting the newbies and other rude editing behavior. (I believe I've been mostly fair (if occasionally a tad testy) through this whole dispute, although I did have one edit summary that was intended to be joking but I realize afterwards was a bit rude.) Since this, they have more or less ignored anything I've said about content issues, and they've heaped a lot of criticism particularly on me. What sparked me coming here was this latest reply from Media-hound. They'd posted an RFC complaint about the origins and usage section, claiming it contained original research and was unverifiable. Okay, fair enough, it needed a bit of reworking. I made what I considered a pretty good edit where I cited every statement and added a lot of detail. Media-hound replied with a harsh response in which they repeatedly accused me of POV editing. I made what was clearly a good-faith edit in which I attempted to fix specific issues they had mentioned - and my thanks was accusations. It feels like Media-hound is attempting to prevent me from making any edits to the article. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) Media-hound-_thethird (talk · contribs) Kaldari (talk · contribs) Mmyers1976 (talk · contribs) Media-hound-_thethird and myself have been the two primary editors involved in this dispute. The other three editors may or may not wish to participate here, as they have not been as involved in contentious discussion. Kaldari, who has been an active editor of the page in the past, may not wish to comment - they expressed in this diff that they were no longer participating in discussion due to the confrontational style. Mmyers1976 has contributed to both the article and the discussion, but they have not been active - including responses to talk page messages - in 2 months. 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. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Rape culture}} --~~~~ 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? There's been a whole lot of talk page discussion. The vast majority of it has been on Talk: Rape Culture; some has additionally been on User talk:Pi.1415926535. It has, as I've mentioned above, just gotten ugly. How do you think we can help? I'm looking for a couple different things here. One is that I want to establish some method of actually being able to communicate. I simply cannot respond to extremely long talk page posts - and clearly, neither can other editors. Second, some manner of civility. I believe that I've tried to be fair and polite. But every single edit or reply I make earns me a rant from Media-hound accusing me of systemic bias, original research, or worse. Their tack from day one has been to create confrontation and accuse other editors of failures. They've never said "I think the article is incomplete; perhaps we can discuss adding sections on other countries;" instead, they yell when their demands are not immediately met. It feels like they are assuming bad faith of everyone, particularly me. Third, there is the ongoing content dispute, which has several parts. The current issue involves the "origins and usage" section, particularly the section about Susan Brownmiller's work. Media-hound feels that it is original research, while I feel that it is a well-cited section that outlines how multiple authors believe Brownmiller's work was a major part of early work about rape culture. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Rape culture discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. There was an RFC on this issue a short while back. (Apparently initiated by User:Media-hound-_thethird) I came to the talk page with the hope of offering an opinion, but I'm afraid I couldn't figure out what was going on. I found Media-hound's style of writing to very ... difficult to understand. It may be that miscommunications are a big a part of this dispute as anything else. APL (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Editors should not contribute to talk pages in ways that alienate other editors, it is disruptive of the collegial process of editing. Walls of text are a hostile way of contributing to discussions, and should not be countenanced. What cannot be said succinctly should not be said. Rather, if there is an extended contribution to make, editors should make the smallest element of their extended contribution first and wait (at least a week) before proceeding if discussion is not occurring. (Similarly, contributing too often, and in reply to every other editor's post is just as hostile as walls of text). If editors are not able to comprehend what other editors are saying, they should say so politely, examples include asking other editors to restate themselves using bullet points, or in a single paragraph of no more than three sentences. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Some comments and questions: Much of the problem here seems to be one editors failure to communicate but writing long indigestible comments. I'm not sure DRN is the right place to handle that, and I'll also say that in my experience it's usually very hard to establish a working communication with these editors, although it's certainly worth a try. However, I also have a question. If Mediahound contributed a largely good section on India, where is it? If the section was good, and it has been removed, Mediahound would rightly feel that his contributions were overlooked, which would contribute to the length of the angry rants. As such, my immediate feeling here is maybe that the failure to communicate from Mediahound is worsened by a failure to listen. Of course, it is impossible to say if this feeling is wrong or right without reading through all of the discussions, which is not feasible. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC) The section on India has yet to be inserted into the article. It's in user-space, but is discussed here: Talk:Rape_culture#Section_on_rape_culture_in_India_In_Draft_-_WIP. APL (talk) 08:41, 16 June 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.

Punisher title volume numbers

• List of The Punisher comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Punisher: Purgatory (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 has been some debate about where to include The Punisher: Purgatory in the article List of The Punisher comics, because the indicia for that comic simply says "The Punisher". This issue was debated last year, and I thought that a consensus had been reached, but now another editor insists that The Punisher: Purgatory be listed as Vol. 4 on this list, and has edit warred to maintain this POV. This editor also continues to change the volume numbers on other articles about Punisher titles accordingly, to support this POV. The List of The Punisher comics article has been temporarily protected, to force a discussion on the talk page, but I believe that some mediation by a third party is necessary.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Fortdj33 (talk · contribs)
• Snakebyte42 (talk · contribs)
• 65.95.7.116 (talk · contribs)
• 65.95.4.84 (talk · contribs)
• 99.174.174.97 (talk · contribs)
• 184.147.0.15 (talk · contribs)
• 65.95.4.45 (talk · contribs)
• 99.159.250.190 (talk · contribs)
• 108.82.5.39 (talk · contribs)
• 184.147.4.135 (talk · contribs)

I have tried to initiate discussion, in order to come to a consensus, but Snakebyte42 seems to be taking this personally. He has also made comments, both on talk pages and in edit summaries, that are personal attacks against me, even though I am not the only editor who has reverted his edits. I am simply the only one who has tried to discuss it with him, and warned him about edit warring on the talk pages, but he has not shown any desire to follow the Wikipedia policies that I have mentioned.

• 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.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Punisher title volume numbers}} --~~~~ 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?

As mentioned above, I have tried to discuss this on Talk:List of The Punisher comics, first in the thread titled "The Punisher: Purgatory", and then in the Discussion thread created after the page was protected from editing.

• How do you think we can help?

Someone who is knowledgeable about dispute resolution may be able to explain the concepts of civility, ownership, disruptive editing, edit warring and BRD to Snakebyte42. I have made references to all of those policies, but they have fallen on deaf ears, because he is more concerned about stating "I'm right and your wrong", instead of trying to come to a consensus.

Fortdj33 (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Punisher title volume numbers 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 a clerk/mediator here at the Wikipedia Dispute resolution Noticeboard. Snakebyte42, I deleted your comment. Part of the deleted comment said "yes, this comment is long and talking about user interaction rather than the article itself" Clearly you know the rules but chose to not follow them. Please don't do that. We all get a bit hot under the collar at times, but you need to post arguments that are calm, reasoned, and about the article content. Lighting up your flamethrower is not helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My flamethrower is not even remotely primed, and no, what rules are you referring to? I simply wrote that to defend against accusations of hypocrisy, since the bulk of the comment was directed at Fortdj33's refusal to do just that. As I've said repeatedly, I cannot discuss the contents of the article any further than I already have, since I have been dragged here rather than be presented with any counterpoints to my previous attempts to so. Please excuse the tone; it's clearly not you I'm frustrated with, I don't even know you and I'm sure you're just wonderful. If repeatedly asking the other involved user to discuss the contents of the article in increasingly elaborate and frustrated comments is not a path forward, please present me with one. EDIT: Never mind. I had something else in here about Fortdj33's comments, but I don't care anymore. Just, please instruct me in how to proceed so that this can actually move forward. I'm tired of insults happening rather than progress, and I'm including myself in that assessment. Snakebyte42 (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Scenera Research

• Scenera Research (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 dispute about what citations fall within Wikipedia's rules. The dispute involves disagreements about whether various citations are verifiable, whether some content is opinion, and whether some content is original research? For example, is a citation to a listing of patent applications on the US patent offices website allowed? Is it appropriate to categorize patents based on the listing where no categorization information is present? Is a reference to an individual a suitable citation? These issues I believe can be easily resolved.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Hadenuff (talk · contribs)
• Ardvarkface (talk · contribs)
• Merrygoround92 (talk · contribs)
• 68.68.134.89 (talk · contribs)
• 174.109.77.169 (talk · contribs)
• Countryham (talk · contribs)
• Callitlikeicit (talk · contribs)
• Zepheydog (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.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Scenera Research}} --~~~~ 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?

Two attempts to discuss the issue have been made, but no response has been received.

• How do you think we can help?

Simply tell the users what the rules are with respect to the issues described above. It's apparent rules are either not known or are not being followed.

Zepheydog (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Scenera Research discussion

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

My understanding was delete requests were not to be removed until the discussion surrounding deletion had been completed. Zepheydog has improperly removed the tag. This appears to be part of a dispute outside of wikipedia that is being fought on a wikipedia page. The reason for deletion was related to whether the entity was noteworthy and based on the apparent conflicts of interest with the parties involved. A company that isn't noteworthy shouldn't have a wikipedia page. Further, wikipedia shouldn't be used to further disputes outside of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadenuff (talk • contribs) 00:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Filer, please state where you have discussed the issue.Curb Chain (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson affair

• Craig Thomson affair (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?

In this edit a new IP editor added a statement about the Health Services Union refusing to investigate the finances of a Victorian branch of the union. However, the source provided to support the statement says that it was actually the Victorian branch requesting that the national finances be investigated. The article is therefore incorrect, and it should be reworded to swap the roles of branch and head office. I've been trying to either remove the incorrect statement, or correct it, but have had no luck in discussion. Unfortunately the new editor's efforts to defend his insertion without regard to the normal discussion procedures of indentation have jumbled things around a bit, but it settles down towards the end of the section.

Here's the current statement:The FWA investigation has been criticised for failing to investigate the finances of the HSU No.4 Branch following a petition by HSU members in July 2009.

Here's the quote from the source: HSU Victoria No. 4 branch represents medical scientists, hospital pharmacists and psychologists. The branch's petition of 268 members in June 2009 followed an April call the same year for a full investigation of the national union's financial administration between 2002 and 2007, the period when Mr Thomson was federal secretary. However in a response that stunned Dr Kelly's branch, Fair Work official Terry Nassios said that as the national union did not itself have members, it was only treated as a union branch for the purposes of financial reporting.

At the least, the statement in the article should read: The FWA investigation has been criticised for failing to investigate the finances of the national union following a petition by members of HSU No.4 Branch in July 2009.

(My bolding, to highlight the error.)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• 121.216.230.139 (talk · contribs)
• Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)
• Skyring (talk · contribs)
• Collect (talk · contribs)
• Youreallycan (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.

• Disputed. I am the editor formally known as User:121.216.230.139 and no message was left on my talk page.. Further, the editor requesting this is the subject of discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Skyring_.28Pete.29_topic_ban which may be pertinent as to why this process was begun. I apologise if adding this comment here and in this way is inappropriate. One21dot216dot (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Craig Thomson affair}} --~~~~ 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?

Discussion on talk page failed to resolve the wording, though we made some progress. As the article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics, I made a request there.

• How do you think we can help?

I'd like the some fresh eyes on the wording to get the article statement to agree with the source which supposedly supports it.

Pete (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson affair discussion

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