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
Jessica Nabongo	New	Log6849129 (t)	3 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours
Neith	New	Potymkin (t)	3 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 14 hours	Potymkin (t)	16 hours
Existential risk studies	Closed	JoaquimCebuano (t)	1 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours
Ashfield Independents	Closed	NottsPolitics (t)	14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours
Existential risk studies	Closed	JoaquimCebuano (t)	14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 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 06:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Macclesfield Bank, South China Sea Islands

• Macclesfield Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• South China Sea Islands (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 Macclesfield Bank is notable for being a disputed territory. The dispute in the article seemingly started when I added references in a particular statement about the claimant countries in order to make the content in the article verifiable (because there weren't any citations there before that edit). In the succeeding edits, Namayan removed the referenced Philippines claim as he is not convinced that such claim exists. He argues that a primary source is needed and that according to his research on documents from the UN website, the supposed citations for the purported Philippine claim misrepresents Philippine government position on the issue.

The following are current sources used for the Philippine claim:

• US State Dept., published in 2005
• Inquirer article, published June 25, 2012
• ABS-CBNnews.com article, published June 21, 2012
• Want China Times article, published June 22, 2012

The dispute is centered on the issue on whether the above mentioned independent sources were inaccurate or not in publishing such information.

These sources, being recognized news agencies or in the US State Dept source's case, an official body of another sovereign state, are highly unlikely, in my belief, to post information of such magnitude if these weren't well researched or are downright false. I believe looking over at documents at the UN website and drawing conclusions from it without authoritative supporting sources constitute original research, more so by assuming that the information posted by the US State Dept, et al are not accurate nor true until proven otherwise.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Namayan (talk · contribs)
• Xeltran (talk · contribs)

I believe Namayan erred in making presumptions that just because he didn't find any mention of the territory in what he believes is the best source for the subject (the UN website, among others), means that such claim by the Philippines is non-existent. At least 3 of the references above have been published recently. His assertions that the Philippines as the country does not claim the territory, citations are contrary to Philippine territorial laws and submissions to the United Nations is original research as it is not supported by any other source that disputes the accuracy of the information published from the 4 sources. He has also yet to disprove that the sources posted false or inaccurate information, their credibility were questionable, or the information is contrary at all to what the official Philippine government position is. He is insisting that the information posted from all the references are inaccurate because he did not find any mention of the territory in any of the laws/treatises/etc. he researched on. The South China Sea Islands article is also being listed since Namayan has already been reverting edits there under the same assertion. If the claim of the Philippines is non-existent at all, the Phil. government would have already issued a notice to all these agencies that they posted wrong information or the US State Dept, et al would have already withdrawn such information through an erratum. Any of the two scenarios did not happen. For an issue of such magnitude, I find it unlikely that the Phil. government is not aware of the content of such references (1 is a paper from the US, 2 are nationally recognized newspapers, and 1 is a news publication from another country).

• 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=Macclesfield Bank, South China Sea Islands}} --~~~~ 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 started a topic at his talk page in order to clarify my addition of my sources and to have his actions clarified. A long discussion has ensued. Seeing no consensus on the issue, I suggested that the matter be elevated to the Philippines topics noticeboard where yet another long discussion followed. I restored my references to the M. Bank article with a {{better source}} tag in order to reach an impasse with the understanding that my edit will be construed that such claim by the Philippines is backed up with reliable and verifiable sources but better sources are being desired. Namayan still removed the Philippines as a claimant country even when references were clearly supplied with his understanding that such information is not supported by official government documents.

• How do you think we can help?

Third opinion from other parties is earnestly needed in order to identify whether the given sources pass the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. If the sources qualify as such, the claim can be included in the article. Third opinion is also desired in determining the validity of the information of the articles. Four different sources were already cited in order to support that such a claim by the Philippines exists. I believe that: to regard their content as inaccurate, or their credibility questionable in the absence of or non-access to a primary source; and to interpret the primary sources (UN documents, laws, treatises, etc.) available without evidence of being an expert or being an authority of the subject constitute original research. Thus, third opinion is also being sought in order to determine whether such is true.

Xeltran (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Macclesfield Bank, South China Sea Islands discussion

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

Being an editor of Wikipedia for over 6 years, who has also done extensive gathering of references for Philippine content to be provided in Wikipedia, I am very well aware of the requirements needed for an article.

This disputed information stemmed from the citing of news articles and a U.S. State Department publication in absence of an any official information from the Philippine government, which is the most reliable source on territorial claims of the country. On the other hand, I have cited and listed laws that define Philippine territory, which are likewise deposited with the United Nations [1], yet it is not being recognized by the other editor, saying that as a non-expert on the issue, I should not be interpreting these laws. These laws are explicit in determining the extent of Philippine territory and identifies the extreme points (land features) of the nations borders/baselines being an archipelago. It has also identified areas outside of the defined baseline as regime of islands in compliance with UNCLOS, in this case Kalayaan Group of Islands (Philippine claimed portion of the Spratlys) and Scarborough Shoal. It is illustrated by this map.

The other editor insists that secondary references should be the basis for an article to be verifiable, which I subscribe too, PROVIDED, in this case being a State matter, there should also be primary information to base it upon, and this "purported" territorial claim must be sourced from an official government publication. Unfortunately, the other editor has not presented any though. The other editor also insists that I provide information, that refutes the articles that he/she has presented. Why would a government bother to publish something it doesn't have a stake on?

It should not take an "expert" on the matter (a cartographer) to pin point the geographic features on a map, if one will just look at the map of South China Sea one can already see, that Macclesfield (close to Paracel Islands, off Hainan, China) is not being identified as a territory claimed by the Philippines, as in the map I have cited above.

During the deliberations in Congress of the Philippine Baseline Law (in time to meet the U.N. deadline as per UNCLOS), there were various discussions that were published in reference to this, let me cite this one. This by GMA News Network (one of the two largest broadcasting companies in the country) also illustrates the definition of the country's territory.

In a case brought before, and decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, which contested the constitutionality of the Philippine Baselines Law (Republic Act No. 9522), the petitioners argue, that the law which declared Kalayaan Group of Islands (Philippine claimed portion of the Spratlys) and Scarborough Shoal as regime of islands instead of enclosing them in the Philippine baselines, has weakened the claim of the Philippines over these territories. The non-mention of Macclesfield Bank, could be construed that it is not a territory that the Philippines claims. This is not rocket science. Why would these petitioners against the Baseline Law, who are concerned about territorial diminution of the Philippines, not voice their concern about the non-inclusion of Macclesfield Bank, if it were indeed a territory the Philippines claims? Plain logic and common sense do not constitute original research.

A thesis in the University of Wollongong by a Filipino expert on the matter, studied this issue, and no where would he indicate that Macclesfield is claimed/should be claimed by the Philippines by properly enclosing and defining it in its territory.

It is hard to conceive that the non-mention of Macclesfield Bank as a territory claimed by the Philippines, should not be construed that the government of the Philippines does not lay claim to this land feature. I'd also like to pose questions to guide those who will comment on the matter:

• Is the U.S. State Department the authority to indicate which territories another country claim?
• Can this newspaper/or a broadcasting company, substitute any official information from the Philippine government, not being an official agency of the government itself?
• Should a country's territorial laws be explicit about the territories it doesn't claim?

Also, if one has to go by official maps, though trivial it is used by governments as a propaganda arm to illustrate its territory and the areas they claim, one can just go to the National Mapping Agency of the Philippine government and download the "Philippine Administrative Map with the Kalayaan Group of Islands" located at the bottom right side of the site. One will find that Macclesfield is not even identified as a feature in the map. -- Namayan (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It is immaterial in this dispute to put forward the number of years an editor has been in Wikipedia. The sources presented pass WP:RS, WP:SOURCES, and WP:V. Nothing in those policies warrant the need of a primary source if reliable, verifiable secondary sources are available to prove the same. In fact, according to WP:SECONDARY, Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.

The argument that just because an editor has not found the material cited in the secondary sources in his perceived primary source is flawed as well. All this time, he might looking for something that cannot be found there at all. Are we to ignore the content of four reliable secondary sources because we cannot seem to find such information in our perceived primary source? If we are to entertain the idea that such claim does not exist at all, WP:V stil says, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

According to WP:OR, [Original research] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. All four sources presented generally support the idea of the existence of such claim. Nothing was presented that would support the contrary, other than the other editor's assertion that such claim did not exist at all since he cannot find it at his perceived primary source.

Laws are not meant to be interpreted by the ordinary Wikipedia editor. As non-experts on law (unless strongly supported by reliable sources), editors must be careful not to tread the path of original research (e.g. reading these by themselves and drawing conclusions upon them without the support of reliable secondary sources to support such assertion). Laws, afterall, can be interpreted in many ways by many parties unless the state that enacts it publishes its implementing guidelines. Laymen are not qualified to assert that these laws are explicit unless supported by authoritative references. The Baseline Law, which the other editor insists is clear enough to distinguish which territories are being claimed or not, is just one law and is therefore does not constitute the whole system of evidence that will be used for arbitration in an international body.

I requested for any material at all to support the other editor's assertion that such claim did not exist and that ALL four sources presented inaccurate information. He has yet to prove that the four sources did. It's wrong to assume that all of them erred in publishing such unless one can prove that their credibility is questionable or they have been posting circular information. In this case, the editor who asserts that these sources have published wrong/false/inaccurate information has the burden of proof.

Moreover, reliable sources should have their published information taken as true until proven eventually to be false. If these sources published wrongly about the claim in the first place, the Philippine government would have already issued a correction on the matter or these agencies would have not published such information if they haven't researched it thoroughly, unless they're willing to gamble their credibility. None of those scenarios happened. There has yet to have a mea culpa on the part of the US State Dept., etc that they published wrong information. There was no comment from the Philippine government about such claim. No comment is not to be construed as not true.

The question, therefore, is whether the other editor is qualified to draw conclusions upon himself after he read the material he brought forward. Taking into account WP:OR and WP:RS, are individual editors more reliable than four independent reliable sources (which we will assume would have done extensive research before publication)?

The other editor has posed questions for commentary. I'll answer and throw back a few of my own:

• Is the U.S. State Department the authority to indicate which territories another country claim? Acting as an independent secondary source that is not party to the claim, it is wrong to assume that a high-level department of another sovereign state would publish information in an inaccurate manner without extensive research. An editor who insists on the contrary should provide proof that the information contained in their reports is questionable.

• Can this newspaper/or a broadcasting company, substitute any official information from the Philippine government, not being an official agency of the government itself? A newspaper need not be an official agency of the government to publish government positions on a number of issues. In fact, if such agency is under the stewardship of the government, its reliability is questionable for suspected bias (see WP:IRS). As all four sources were independent and their reliability as a secondary source has not been determined as questionable, we take their published information as verifiable (even if other editors express concern if they're true or not; see WP:V).

• Should a country's territorial laws be explicit about the territories it doesn't claim? It depends upon the State. As non-experts to the issue, editors should refrain from drawing conclusions upon themselves after examining primary sources. As editors are generally not persons of authorities on the subject that they edit, what we include in Wikipedia should be preferably lifted from secondary sources who provide critical commentary on a number of issues and whose published information are verifiable and reliable (see WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:IRS.

My questions:

• How qualified is an individual WP editor in determining a State's interpretation of its laws upon inspection of them?
• Is the information published in the supplied sources verifiable or not? Are the sources reliable or not?
• Should information lifted from several secondary sources be immediately construed as inaccurate/false in the absence of or non-access to a primary source that supports such information?

Xeltran (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the other editor presented his/her case, so I have to present mine. If it's arbitration the other editor wanted then let other judge the merits of the cited sources.

As far as I know, I have presented maps drawn to represent the demarcations of Philippine territory, and it doesn't take a lawyer/cartographer to understand base points presented in the law (which identified the land features) and drawn in a map like this one, which is similar to other maps I have presented above. A reading of the Supreme Court decision on the case also clearly presents what were the points being presented by the petitioners against the New Baseline Law the Philippine Congress passed, and it doesn't take a lawyer to understand that. The laws pertaining to the demarcations of Philippine territory and the Supreme Court decision was pretty straight forward, but still thankfully there are maps to represent the Philippine territorial laws, which would not take a lawyer or an expert on the subject to interpret, as these can be plotted by anyone with a good mapping tool. I believe it doesn't take a literature major to understand a literary work. I think the other editor must also recognize that other good articles in Wikipedia have not actually been written by experts on the subject. -- Namayan (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. While I stand to be corrected, I am unfamiliar with any Wikipedia policy or guidelines which supports Namayan's claim that, "The other editor insists that secondary references should be the basis for an article to be verifiable, which I subscribe too, PROVIDED, in this case being a State matter, there should also be primary information to base it upon, and this 'purported' territorial claim must be sourced from an official government publication." He/she may believe that is the way that Wikipedia should work, but the way in which to achieve that is to propose that standard as a policy or guideline using the procedure set out in WP:POLICY. Until then, reliable secondary sources are sufficient to include an assertion in Wikipedia and at least some of the sources offered by Xeltran appear to be reliable (but not including the US State Department source, which as a self-published source cannot be used as a reliable source for claims about a third party). In light of that understanding, whether or not Namayan's sources require original research is a moot point. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights, TransporterMan. While I do believe that articles of such nature are highly desired to have primary sources that validate their secondary citations, I haven't found any current Wikipedia policy that supports or warrants such "requirement". I believe the current version is sufficient enough to satisfy the following conditions which I see is an amenable common ground for all parties in this dispute: Place the Philippine claim in the article with the corresponding secondary sources and place a {{better source}} tag. I hope that it will be understood by any reader who stumbles upon that page that such a claim by the Philippines was mentioned in a reliable source, although a better source is being sought after if only to satisfy the need for a primary one. Xeltran (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the secondary sources contradict the Philippine territorial laws from which it should derive its information, which shall then prevail? -- Namayan (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no proof that the secondary sources contradict your preferred primary source. Your view that the articles contradict the maps you've read have not been affirmed by an independent, authoritative reference. While you may believe that Wikipedia needs to work in a way that you advocate it to be, current WP policy affirms the inclusion of a Philippine claim based on the sources I've presented. Xeltran (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Such maps would qualify as secondary sources too much like the references that you had cited. Why would there have to be double standards? Such maps were made by a reputable news agency too, as well the study about Philippine territory of an expert on the subject. -- Namayan (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Maps have to be examined by qualified persons of authority and have their findings self-published then picked up by an independent source for analysis. So no, not anyone could just read a map and take it as face value. If a map points to a body of water as East Sea, and one ordinary reader believes it to be called so, is he then absolutely correct in asserting such, when there is a dispute going on about whatever that body of water's name is? A map then, by itself, I believe, does not constitute as a secondary source. The study of the PH territory of an expert of a subject is a self-published source, just like what TransporterMan pointed out about the US State Dept. report. Even if we take away the US report on the list of references, I still have 3 others to support the inclusion of a Philippine claim in the article.

A source (believed to reliable, yet to be proven the opposite) publishes the claim. No WP policy blocks such inclusion. No current WP policy requires that in this case being a State matter, there should also be primary information to base it upon, and this 'purported' territorial claim must be sourced from an official government publication. Why then should it not be included unless it was clearly proven to be wrong through a contrary claim by another secondary source? WP is not the place to assert which is right or wrong. A related WP essay (not a policy, mind you) entitled Truth, not verifiability affirms WP:V by saying "verifiability, not truth" - whether material can be verified by reliable sources, not whether individual editors believe is true. It goes on by saying that WP reflects the information published by reliable sources, not an editor's thoughts. That's why policies like WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS in place to ensure that every information is neutral and verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Xeltran (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless because the answer to Namayan's question, "Unfortunately, the secondary sources contradict the Philippine territorial laws from which it should derive its information, which shall then prevail?" is that under Wikipedia policy, the secondary sources clearly prevail unless you can produce a primary government source which expressly says that they make no claim to these places. (And even then, even if there was a government document which expressly says that they make no claim to the area, since other reliable secondary sources say that they do, that would not prevent an assertion being made in the article that they make the claim. Instead, it would merely require that both the assertion that they make such a claim and the assertion that they do not make the claim being reported in the article. Wikipedia does not weigh or attempt to reconcile conflicting sources, it merely reports both claims.} The fact that there are some government documents which do not include or mention it requires interpretation of the purpose and scope of those documents and such interpretation is forbidden by the WP:PRIMARY policy. The fact that some documents or laws say what territories the government claims for certain purposes does not necessarily mean that the included places are all the places claimed by that government for other purposes and, further, does not mean that new claims have not arisen since that document or law was written. (I'm not saying that is what has happened here, but only saying that the mere possibility of such eventualities prevents the use of proof-by-silence. However, the mere existence of this discussion User_talk:Namayan#Sources_for_Phil._territorial_waters_map on your talk page over the meaning of the baseline law illustrates that the scope and purpose of the baseline law are a matter which are less than apparent on its face. For a primary source to be usable under WP:PRIMARY, the assertion for which it is being used must be absolutely apparent on the face of the source. Indeed, in this edit, you tell another editor, "It will help you if you would read documents about UNCLOS, and why countries have to docket their territorial limits and submit it before the UN deadline of May 13, 2009." If it is necessary for a person to do such reading in order to understand the scope and import of a document, then that document cannot be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia under the WP:PRIMARY policy for anything which arises out of that scope or import.) I see absolutely no support in Wikipedia policy for Namayan's position in this matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I placed a new reference to support the Philippine claim (see here). It's still from the same publisher but it's more recent and the explanation for such a claim is better explained than the previous one. As no Wikipedia policy currently prevents the inclusion of the Philippine claim in the M. Bank article basing from the sources presented and I see no need to tag it with {{bettersource}} (as the presented reference seems sufficient to support the information), I think this issue can now be resolved. Xeltran (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: August 12, 2024 at 12:18 (UTC) Reason: This appears to be either stale or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I will try to contact the Inquirer article authors. I've been reading up on the Philippine territorial claims and this is the first time that I have ever heard that the Philippines is claiming Macclesfield Bank. I believe this is sloppy journalism on the part of Inquirer. --seav (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer comment: if editors of the page want to pursue the issue, they should query the sources at the reliable sources noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

After posting the closing note, above, I noticed that even though Namayan is an experienced editor here with 9,000+ edits since 2006 that he has not edited since July 6. While he may have decided to walk away from this discussion or, indeed, from Wikipedia altogether, I'm disinclined to jump to that conclusion without giving it a few more days. I'm going to leave this thread open through the weekend until at least 13:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC), and will then close it as stale or resolved if it has not picked back up. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll be commenting on this thread in due time, but I think people here should be aware that Namayan is currently attending Wikimania 2012 in Washington, D.C. Now as to whether or not he'll be using that time to edit Wikipedia, I cannot conclusively answer, but I can say that he's not retired, nor is he on hiatus. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Braille

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Vanisaac on 08:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC).

• Template:Braille (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?

We have been in a long dispute over which braille systems should be included under the heading of "unified braille". Specifically, the main contention is over Tibetan braille. I have already requested a 3rd opinion, and I waited for several weeks for those recommendations to be accepted by the other editor. When it finally became clear that the other user in the dispute would not be implementing the third opinion, I did so in the most neutral way possible, and was reverted within minutes.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Vanisaac (talk · contribs)
• Kwamikagami (talk · contribs)
• Coastside (talk · contribs) (3rd opinion)

• 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=Template:Braille}} --~~~~ 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 3 May - 12 May. 3rd opinion requested 18 June, answered by Coastside 18-19 June.

• How do you think we can help?

Given that Kwamikagami is an admin, and that this has had a chilling effect on my editing, I think that simply having more editors who are willing to stand for policy would be a help.

VanIsaac_WS^contribs 08:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Braille discussion

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

This is not the dispute. The dispute is what to call the family of French-based braille alphabets. It is only by contravening this convention that Algerian braille is notable. At first we had "Latin based", but Vanisaac objected that wasn't accurate. Then we had "Universal braille", and Vanisaac was happy with it for a while, but then changed his mind. I don't really care what we call it, but I do object to Vanisaac's OR that certain braille alphabets are "unclassified" because he can't find them in a list, despite the fact that they are transparently based on the nearly universal French order, as he himself admits. That would be like arguing that the Latvian alphabet is "unclassified" because it doesn't appear in a list of Latin-based alphabets.

We seem to be confusing the title for the topic. Nav boxes, like articles, are based on their topic, and the title needs to be chosen to fit, not the other way around. — kwami (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with Tibetan braille being classified as such, and the 3rd opinion says that any system not found in a source as being part of this system should not be included in it.

Whether you invent names like "Latin based" or "French derived", it doesn't change that there are no sources which support your classification. The fact that I would actually agree with many of them - the notable exception being Tibetan braille - doesn't change the fact that without a source actually saying it, it's OR - either on your part (for Tibetan) or on both our parts (for Armenian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Yugoslav, &c). So while I may not like the 3rd opinion's finding and solution, it is the only one that is actually in line with Wikipedia policy on original research. If you had a citation for any of your claims, we wouldn't be having this dispute. The fact is, we only have one explicit source listing unified braille systems - the '54 Unesco report - and they list only French, English, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Russian, Devanagari (Bharati), Swahili, and Indonesian. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 08:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You want to claim that Tibetan braille is not French-based. Fine. Please provide a ref. The Unesco report is irrelevant, since that's not the topic in question and does not address the issue (obviously, since it was published in 1953 and Tibetan braille was not invented until 1992—essentially, you're arguing that no alphabet invented after 1953 can be based on French/international braille, which is ridiculous).

On April 25, when you introduced the title "unified",[2] you defined it like this:

In 1878, the [Congress] proposed an international braille standard, where braille codes for different languages and scripts would be based, not on the order of a particular alphabet, but on phonetic correspondence and transliteration to Latin.[3]

Please provide a ref that Tibetan braille does not fit this pattern, since it so obviously does. (You argued that the %age of cognacy in Tibetan braille is too low, but that is OR: you have not provided a published cut-off point. Even the French and German-braille %ages are not very high.)

— kwami (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A) I don't have to find a citation to refute original research. B) My count on Tibetan was 12 anomalies out of 34 letters, or 65%. German has 0 anomalies or 1, if Eszett is not a ligature, and French is maybe 1, depending on how accented letters are treated by the World Braille Council. That's 96% at very the least for French/German. I'm not sure exactly where I would stick the demarcation line, but I can tell you that it is somewhere between a D+ and an A. C) Where I would stick the demarcation is immaterial, because it is OR. The reference we have says French, English, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Russian, Devanagari (Bharati), Swahili, and Indonesian only. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 10:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course you do. That's the definition of OR. If you have no citation, you have OR, and we don't accept OR. Nearly everything you've said about Tibetan braille, for months now, has been OR.

We calculated the %ages for French and German. They were rather low—French has 14 anomalies out of 44 letters, or 68%. Your ref says "based on" Latin. Tibetan braille is based on Latin, as you have admitted.

Please provide a ref that the cut-off date for Universal Braille alphabets is 1953. Not that it's relevant, because that's not the issue here. — kwami (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you calculated percentages for French and German on a basis that I consider both unsupported by the actual evidence and fundamentally irrational. But again, I'm not arguing that you should accept my interpretation of braille unification, only that we implement the neutral third opinion and follow Wikipedia OR policy: The only source with an explicit list says French, English, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Russian, Devanagari (Bharati), Swahili, and Indonesian are unified braille systems. If you can find a SOURCE for any others, I will be elated to include them. Absent a source, it is OR, and does not belong. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that your opinion is just that, an opinion, and OR. I suppose it won't matter to explain, again, that the Unesco source is irrelevant, since you haven't understood it so far. If you can find a RS that Tibetan braille is not Latin based, please present it, and notify me on my talk page. — kwami (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you not read anything I've said above? The only classification that is sourced is that French, English, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Russian, Devanagari (Bharati), Swahili, and Indonesian are unified. EVERY classification of a braille script beyond those nine is original research by either of us. I freely admit, above, multiple times, that either of us trying to classify any other braille systems in such a way is contrary to WP:OR, which is why I implemented the 3rd opinion recommendation earlier today, which you promptly reverted. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course I read it. Do you think it's not possible for someone to be informed of your opinion and yet still disagree with it? That's quite arrogant of you. What you're claiming is that we need to restrict ourselves to a list published in 1953. Any alphabet they omitted cannot be included in our template; any alphabet devised since then cannot be included in our template. That's far beyond the requirements of OR. There's such thing as common sense, and recognizing the Latin alphabetical order in alphabets is trivial. If we follow your fundamentalist interpretation, we can't say they follow the ABC order, but we can't call them "unclassified" either, because we have no source for that. We can't call them "other", because we have no source for that either. Our only choice would be to delete them from the template. Yet you're happy to include most of them. You just object to one, which crosses an arbitrary line which you invented. — kwami (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course they can be included in the template. We just can't give them a classification that is unsupported by documentation. Trying to make up rules and statistical interpretation is the crux of the problem that we have. We have a different interpretation of what makes a system unified. Without documentation, trying to classify them is OR. So the default position is to simply not classify them when we can't cite it. I may not necessarily agree with that arrangement (I don't), but I can at least defend it with a source. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue I am a volunteer here at DRN. The primary dispute here seems to be pretty clearly addressed by WP:BURDEN: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. What material is being added or restored here? The previous status quo was without the use of "unclassified" - ergo, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wants to change that status quo. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that has gone on for several months now, and we have significantly expanded the number of Braille articles in the template since then, so there are two questions: 1) How do we identify a status quo of the navigation template? 2) How do we incorporate all of the additional articles that have been added to the navigation template in that time? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's simply a case of looking at the article's history and determining when and how the dispute started. Where was the first change-and-revert? Whoever made that first change and was reverted is responsible for providing the independent evidence. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The relevant criterion is the 1878 congress, quoted in the 1953 Unesco document and every other history of braille, which declared that braille in all languages should follow the order of Braille's original alphabet rather than their own alphabetical orders. The defining difference between French braille and the early English braille alphabet was small: W had been tacked on as an extra letter rather than being in position #23; after the international standard was established, it was moved to match the French position. There is now a large family of such braille alphabets. They're self-evident, as they have a = 1, b = 2, c = 3, d = 4, e = 5, etc., or else that same order applied phonetically. That's just what we have in Tibetan, a point which VanIsaac concedes. Almost all diverge from perfect unity in one respect or another (extra letters, sometimes reassignments of basic letters esp. in non-Latin scripts); the question is whether there's a cut-off point, which VanIsaac judges Tibetan has crossed. He has no source to justify such a call.

VanIsaac objects to calling this international family of braille alphabets "Unified international braille", saving that for a rather poorly defined convention in the Unesco publication. Fine. I don't particularly care what we call it, and have changed the rubric in the template to "Other French-based alphabets" to meet his objection. Perhaps he has some other title, which would better capture the "international braille standard" order set forth in 1878 for English, French, and German.

(BTW, only three Tibetan braille letters, q x y, contradict the original braille standard. Compare pinyin, where q x r contradict the norms for Latin alphabets, yet is still considered to be Latin. VanIsaac judges this to be too much, but I don't see how that's anything but his personal judgement.) — kwami (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some passages from the 1953 doc that VanIsaac places so much importance in:

[Due to] the tendencies in America and Germany to re-arrange the Braille alphabet ... [the 1878] Congress decided ... that it should be adopted ... with the values of its symbols unaltered from those of the original French. (p 25)

[This only applied to the 26 letters of the Basic Latin Alphabet. The extra French, German, and English letters and contractions were never unified, as can be seen at a glance in the WP-fr article,[4] which contrasts them.]

This was effective as far as the scope of the Roman alphabet allowed, but, as most Asian and African languages contain more letters or sounds than Roman had equivalents for, they had to find some way of representing them. Most of the designers of Braille spoke English and some of them turned to the contractions of English Braille to find signs which would provide precedents for local letter values ... But beyond these again, many non-European alphabets included letters for which no Braille precedent had been created. Arbitrary signs had to be allotted to them, with the consequence that even throughout these traditional Brailles only limited uniformity was achieved. (pp 27–28)[5]

The interesting thing about this quote is that it's actually talking about braille systems in Asia in the period where there were multiple braille systems in India and the mess that had been caused by different applications of similar principles to all the different languages of India. The actual development of unified world braille is captured several pages later: "In 1949, the government of India, alive to the difficulty of reaching accord within India, asked UNESCO to study the whole problem on an international level." (pg 30) There is a great deal of history of other Asian braille systems, as well as Perso-Arabic braille given, but the conclusion does not come until page 39 - "In 1950, the government of India (...) accepted the recommendations of its (Unesco's) braille committee (but) the details of the signs for many letters in Indian and other languages remained to be determined. The Unesco program included a provision for the Perso-Arabic conference; and the government of India raised the question as to whether it and Ceylon might not also participate so that simultaneous agreement could be reached on such letter-sounds which several large linguistic families shared in common. (... The conference's) results laid the foundation for complete uniformity between all the languages within India and between them and Ceylon, while at the same time securing the maximum affinity with the braille systems designed for the Perso-Arabic and African languages and the old traditional braille of Europe." So while the original development of unified braille happened in the 1870s and 1880s, it wasn't until 1950 that it was truly extended outside of the closely related languages and orthographies of Europe. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the Unified international braille of which VanIsaac speaks. It is not actually a unified system, but rather a family of partially compatible systems. Even English, French, and German, the original three brailles, diverge from each other to a large degree. How much divergence is too much would of course be a judgement call, and would need to be sourced to not be OR. — kwami (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue Okay, thank you; that summarizes the locus of the dispute, I think. Now, VanIsaac, how do you maintain that your proposed additions are not original research? Remember, OR is anything that can't be verified by the letter of outside sources (i.e. not simply your interpretation of outside sources, but what the sources literally say). Sleddog116 (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So there are actually two completely separate questions here. The first is what my preferred grouping would be, which is actually identical to Kwami's, except that I firmly believe that Tibetan can not be defended as being unified, Latin-script based, French based, or whatever term Kwami makes up for it. For the record, I consider "Unified braille", "Unified international braille" or "World braille" to be the prefered terms, as those are actually attested in outside sources. Contrary to the original usage I had seen, it appears that "World braille" is actually more common than "Unified", due to its development by and oversight of the World Braille Council, but Unified is somewhat more descriptive, so I think we're splitting hairs on this one. So if you want to know what my prefered version is, it would be the version from May, with Tibetan not erroneously classified as Unified.

Now, the second question is what I can actually defend with concrete citations, of which I can only find a single source that actually lists the various unified world braille compatible systems, which is the grouping that I've consistently given above - from page 74-79 of the Unesco report - French, English, Greek, Russian, Devanagari - representative of all the Indian languages, called Bharati braille (pp 112-113), Perso-Arabic, Indonesian, and Swahili - representative of African languages including Malgache, Hausa, Sulu, Shona, Mundang, Chinyanja, and even Maori (pp 82-84). This is the version that I believe actually conforms to the policy guidelines brought in by User:Coastside the last time I tried to actually gain a consensus on this issue, and which was so perfunctorily reverted to its current state. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

PS, Kwami has taken the opportunity of this process to again thwart consensus by adding the invented "Category:French-based braille alphabets" to the contested articles [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] and [16]. I consider it to be extremely counterproductive, antagonistic, and acting in bad faith to push non-consensus actions while in the middle of a dispute resolution process. Kwami, you did the same sort of thing (contested page moves) back when we had people trying to come to a consensus on Writing Systems article naming conventions last year, and I consider it to be taking advantage of my refusal to edit war with you while this dispute is ongoing. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(uninvolved editor comment) Would you both please consider the possibility of regrouping from scratch. Perhaps English, Other alphabetic, Non-alphabetic. The purpose of a template is not to instruct but to help a reader find their way to the articles they need. If someone is looking for information about Japanese Braille they are not at that point worried about whether it is a syllabary or abugida. That is detail that needs to be spelt out in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've tried several times to suggest presentations that side-step the whole contentious issue and had them rejected out-of-hand by Kwami. If you look at the template talk page, you can see that I drew up a version organized geographically, and the rejection offered absolutely no solution to help get past the dispute. It's quite frustrating to have your good-faith efforts to resolve a dispute be so summarilly dismissed. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has contributed for three days. If you guys can't help mediate this dispute, where do I go from here? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 02:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest starting here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests --Guy Macon (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. It appears that Kwami was desysopped and blocked for BLP and has claimed to stop editing. I guess I'll just try to do my best to implement a neutral presentation on here. I welcome anyone to review my edits and look forward to working with you. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 19:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

False alarm. I guess Kwami has decided to continue to pursue this matter. We'll have to continue this matter. Any help would be appreciated. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

DePiep experience

Resolved

-DePiep (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved, no argumentation

I, DePiep, got involved in a discussion, nothing special, that started by Kwami at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems#Braile again July 20, so 10 days after this thread started. I think I joined constructicvely with Kwami, and vanisaac contributed too. (I just created a /sandbox example!). Only now I discovered this active DRN thread. Later on I may choose to be an involved editor. For now, I feel deceived and disappointed. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC) I apologize for not noticing earlier that this had not been linked from that discussion. I got caught up in the whole mess there and dropped the ball on that. Again, my sincere apologies. VanIsaacWScontribs 22:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Read, no cmt. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Fascism#democracy

– New discussion.

Filed by R-41 on 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC).

• Talk:Fascism#democracy (edit | subject | 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 problem is involving a dispute over fascism's political relationship with democracy. The article titled Fascism currently says that fascism rejects liberal democracy but says that fascism denies that it is entirely against democracy. Two users, Yiddi and The Four Deuces (TFD) have claimed that fascism did not claim to be democratic and that it was opposed democracy entirely. The user Trust Is All You Need (TIAYN) noted that fascism has claimed to support a form of democracy. TFD made a statement that caused the dispute to solidify, TFD said: "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" - the bolded part is the part that I and others have contested is not accurate.

I agreed with TIAYN that fascism did indeed claim to support democracy, and I provided evidence of fascists declaring that fascism supported a form of democracy. Italian Fascist theorist Giovanni Gentile in the Doctrine of Fascism that he ghostwrote for Mussolini, declares support for an "organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy". I utilized the World Fascism encyclopedia by Cyprian Blamires as a reference for the quote, and furthermore the source goes on to explain fascism's claims to being democratic, see here: [17], Blamires' source is a reputable source that is available at English language university libraries, including Harvard University's library, see here [18]. Note that I am not saying that fascism is democratic in practice, I am saying that fascism claims to be democratic. What I am saying is that the issue of fascism being undemocratic in practice does not mean thereby that the ideology opposed democracy or was not democratic in theory.

TFD responded that sources by scholars were needed to verify this. I provided sources from preeminent scholar on fascism Roger Griffin and A. James Gregor (I initially forgot that I used Gregor's source and said it was by another scholar on fascism, Emilio Gentile, out of confusion, because the authors have two books that are visually similar). Both these sources clearly showed scholars acknowledging fascism's ideological claim to be democratic, see here for Griffin's source: [19], see here for Gregor's source: [20]. TFD responded by saying that WP:WEIGHT applied. I responded that the issue of TFD claiming that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" is factually inaccurate and that that claim cannot hold WP:WEIGHT because the sources I provided demonstrate that fascism did claim to be democratic in theory. I suggested that TFD accept a compromise involving a statement along the lines of: "fascism is widely regarded as undemocratic in practice in spite of claims by fascists that they are democratic". TFD did not acknowledge this. The argument continued, and I and the users TIAYN and Collect have grown frustrated over what we view as stubbornness by TFD to admit that his argument that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" is not factually accurate and is thus an untenable argument. TFD claims that I am promoting an obscure claim.--R-41 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Yiddi (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
• Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs)
• R-41 (talk · contribs)
• Collect (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=Talk:Fascism#democracy}} --~~~~ 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?

Have attempted Wikipedia:Negotiation to seek a compromise. The compromise was involving an acceptance by TFD and users on a phrase we could both agree upon, basically along the lines of the following: "Fascism is widely regarded to be undemocratic in practice in spite of claims by fascists that they support democracy". Wikipedia:Negotiation failed, frustration between users has grown.

• How do you think we can help?

There needs to be a resolution on the specific issue of TFD's continued claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory", that TFD is using to justify an argument that fascism was entirely, and without any qualifications, "opposed to democracy", because I have presented evidence that contradicts this claim. As I have said, TFD is refusing to accept the material as disproving her/his argument. He/she claims that WP:WEIGHT applies to justify her/his claim, I claim that WP:WEIGHT does not apply to her/his claim because it is factually inaccurate. Her/his claim needs to be reviewed as to whether it is logically tenable to uphold, given the fact that sources I have have been provided that appear to completely refute it.

R-41 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Fascism#democracy discussion

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

From uninvolved volunteer. I suggest working in two steps. First reach agreement about the sources that you think are most relevant to the topic. You'll be using objective criteria like author's expertise, academic publisher, reviews, how much on the topic, how recent. Then look at them to see how they treat the different aspects of fascism. That should help you move away from yes/no on particular phrasings, and instead give a thorough treatment to the relationship between democracy and the different theories and practices of fascism. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your idea, but the issue of TFD's claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" being contradicted by the fact that in theory there are multiple examples of fascism being declared by its theorists or leaders to be democratic. Again the issue is not that it actually is democratic in practice, but that in theory it did claim to be. The problem is that TFD's claim that it is not consistent with what fascist theories proclaimed, and that indeed scholars like one of the most preeminent scholars on fascism Roger Griffin, and another prominent scholar on fascism, A. James Gregor, have noted fascist claims to be democratic. I understand and appreciate what you have said, but it seems to me that TFD's statement, that he is using for his argument, is factually inaccurate.--R-41 (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I just want to commend User:R-41 for writing a well detailed but striaghtforward file and Dispute Overview.Curb Chain (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is also accurate and dispassionate, and I commend him highly for it. Meanwhile, I think it would profit others to read the discussions at the article talk page. Collect (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Also note TFD's "response" at [21]. Where one editor dismoisses the sheaf of answers provided by another editor as "pointless" I fear that this is not just a "content dispute" but a case of WP:Collect's Law being demonstrated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Collect.--R-41 (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

We need to focus on the article, not on editor behaviour. If someone makes a statement on a talk page that you don't find convincing, especially if it's a short statement, probably best to ignore it. I think there is a substantive disagreement about article content behind this, which is the only thing we could address here. Could you state what that disagreement is. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The disagreement is about the basis of TFD's argument that the article should say that "Fascism opposes democracy" based on TFD's claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory". The reason why TFD's statement is important is because that is the basis for her/his argument for removing the current sourced sentence from the intro that says that "Fascism condemns liberal democracy for basing government legitimacy on quantity rather than quality, and for causing quarreling partisan politics, but fascists deny that they are entirely against democracy." and replacing it with "Fascism opposes democracy". The problem is that there is evidence that fascists in their theory declared themselves to be democratic, but they did indicate that they opposed liberal democracy. I have provided several sources to verify that fascist did claim to be democratic. Therefore, the fascists did not oppose democracy - "oppose" indicates that fascists held a negative value towards democracy as a whole without any qualifications - the evidence suggests that in their ideology, they did not declare such a negative value towards it as a whole without any qualifications, but they did indeed oppose liberal democracy.--R-41 (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Absent from R-41's exposition, which presents only support for his/her position re. the disputed content (and yet is eulogized somewhere above as "dispassionate" and highly commendable!), is any material that might support TFD's position. E.g. Jackson J. Spielvogel, associate professor emeritus at Pennsylvania State University, in Western Civilization: Since 1300 (Cengage Learning, 2011), quotes Mussolini/Gentile: "Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it" et seq. [22]. Writegeist (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You have taken what they said out of context, they clearly say that they are referring to the conventional form of democracy, based on multiparty system and parliament. In the same document, the Doctrine of Fascism, it says that they support an "authoritarian democracy".--R-41 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of descriptions of fascist ideology say it was anti-democratic, and ignore that in an essay attacking democracy, a Fascist said that fascism was democracy. The few scholars who have commented on the sentence have not given it a lot of attention and do not appear to agree on what it meant. Anthony Arblaster, for example, said, "Yet even Mussolini, or his ghost-writer Gentile, paid lip-service to the term by definining Fascism in the next sentence as 'organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy'." (Democracy, p. 48)[23] Arblaster's interpretation does not support the view that fascism was democratic or even claimed to be. We should not take an obscure, ambiguous quote and provide it with a weight and meaning not accepted in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, so we are not here to discuss fascism, but you want help in resolving whether the article should contain a statement "fascism is opposed to democracy". Is that correct? Please answer but I have given one suggestion already and I'm hoping that another volunteer will comment and lead. Itsmejudith (talk)

I really think an administrator has to review if TFD's claim is logically tenable. Just look at TFD's last claim posted here, it is completely illogical. He shows the Arblaster source that shows the statement by Gentile that fascism is "organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy" where the author claims it was disgenuine, and goes on to say "Arblaster's interpretation does not support the view that fascism was democratic or even claimed to be". But he did acknowledge that fascists claimed to be democratic, the quote by the Fascist theorist Gentile declaring it to be "organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy" the author happens to believe that it was disgenuine. Do you see the logical fallacy with TFD's argument that fascism didn't even claim to be democratic?--R-41 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope a volunteer will come along who will help you to formulate the problem in a way that will allow it to be resolved. But if you do want to discuss sources (as I suggested above), then I will be happy to facilitate that. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source that describes fascism's claim to be democratic in detail: The civic foundations of fascism in Europe: Italy, Spain, and Romania, 1870-1945 by Dylan J. Riley.

Here is a paraphrase of Riley's work from a Wikipedia article I wrote: In the fascist and quasi-fascist regimes that governed Italy, Romania, and Spain from the 1920s to the 1970s, authoritarian democracy was promoted as an alternative to liberal democracy, multi-party based democracy was dismantled and replaced by corporatist representation of state-sanctioned corporate groups that would unite people into interest groups to address the state that would act in the interest of the general will of the nation and thus exercise an orderly form of popular rule. {Riley, Pp. 4-5) Italian Fascists argued that authoritarian democracy is capable of representing the different interests of society that advise the state and the state acts in the interest of the nation.(Riley, Pp. 4.) In contrast, fascists denounced liberal democracy for not being a true democracy but in fact being un-democratic because from the fascist perspective, elections and parliaments are unable to represent the interests of the nation because it lumps together individuals who have little in common into geographical districts to vote for an array of parties to represent them that results in little unanimity in terms of interests, projects, or intentions, and that liberal democracy's multi-party elections merely serve as a means to legitimize elite rule without addressing the interests of the general will of the nation. (Riley, Pp. 4.)

TFD has criticized this source in the past because Riley takes the unconventional stance of saying that although fascism was definately not liberal democratic, fascism did claim to be democratic and could conceivably be considered an authoritarian democracy (outside of the conventional liberal democratic idealist view on what democracy is). Riley's source focuses particularly on the original fascism, Italian Fascism, it claimed to represent an "authoritarian democracy" and Riley notes that the basis of its claim to be democratic is through its corporatism whereby the Italian Fascists claimed that they upheld the general will of their nation through participation in corporatist sectoral organizations. Now TFD would be correct to say that Riley's opinion that fascism may have been democratic in practice is certainly a minority view, but Riley's description of fascism's claim to be democratic through appeals to public participation in the state and to the general will are important, and I believe are of interest to at least mention briefly the fascism article. Riley's source shows, like the other sources I have shown, that fascism did indeed claim to be democratic and sought to present itself as democratic.--R-41 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

All the reviews of this book that you presented say that Riley's writings on fascism and democracy challenge existing views and you would need to show that discussion of his views had gained some sort of recognition. The article should reflect what is typically found in mainstream sources and we should not be including views that are universally ignored. Certainly we should not present them as facts. TFD (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I knew that you would focus on Riley's view that fascism may be democratic in a sense, rather than acknowledging that he has noted fascism's claim to be democratic. I am saying that your statement "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" is inaccurate. Don't you get it TFD? I mean it is rattling my mind that you cannot acknowledge that fascists DID claim to be democratic, your statement "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" is factually false, and you know it.--R-41 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

R-41 please note: your personal attacks on TFD, both here and at Collect's talk page, e.g. [24] and [25], are not really conducive to dispute resolution. Writegeist (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh great, you again, Writegeist. I told you to stay away from me. I said on Collect's page that I seriously think that TFD's comments have become irrational and I specifically said that I didn't mean it as an insult or a joke, I was serious. TFD has been shown evidence from fascists and a quote from the Doctrine of Fascism stating their claim that they supported democracy, so TFD's argument that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" has been proven false, and he knows that it is false. The only possible reason you are aware about what I said to Collect is because you are Wikihounding either me or Collect. I remember you insulting a WQA volunteer whom you then as another WQA volunteer were supposed to cooperate with. You patronizingly told the volunteer to get a desk job, amid me asking for assistance for other users there for help in resolve a dispute between two other users. That WQA volunteer, not me, reported you for your personal attack and uncivil behaviour. Also you have repeatedly talked about Collect and me on your talk page after discussions with both of us had ended, and you regularly talked about us in a condescending manner to other users. You are here to stir up crap because you have a grudge against me for calling you out for acting like a jerk to that WQA volunteer. I will not speak to you on anything here, nor listen to you Writegeist, because I regard your intentions here, as hostile and vindictive, you are involved here to carry out your personal vendetta against me and you clearly have been Wikihounding either Collect or me, to be aware of that one statement that I made to Collect.--R-41 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh? This noticeboard is for dispute resolution, not dispute escalation. By all means raise your personal issues at my talk page. Not here. Writegeist (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your prior post imdicates blatant stalking at best. I suggest you redact your posts which are not going to aid in any resolution at all. Collect (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: the only Highbeam source for a review of Riley's work is at [26] and quite contrary to TFDs assertion about every review - does not disparage Riley at all.

Riley (sociology, U. of California at Berkeley) explains how this came to be by arguing that civil society facilitated the emergence of fascism in these countries because it preceded the establishment of strong political organizations among both dominant classes and nonelites. Because of this lack of hegemonic politics, the democratic demands of voluntary associations "assumed a paradoxically antiliberal and authoritarian form: a technocratic rejection of politics as such," which created a general crisis of politics that provided space for the growth of fascist movements.

Clearly does not support TFDs blanket assertion about reviews. Other reviews include This brilliant comparative study of the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Romania brings Tocqueville and Gramsci into a novel and surprising conversation. It will change the way you think about civil society, fascism, and democracy.(William Sewell, the University of Chicago 2011), Make no mistake, this is much more than comparative fascisms. Dylan Riley not only rethinks and meshes the legacies of Tocqueville, Arendt and Gramsci; he sobers us up to the actual history of civil society and democratization in continental Europe. This theoretical lesson seems still gravely relevant elsewhere in the world today. (Georgi Derluguian, author of Bourdieu's Secret Admirer in the Caucasus: A World-Systems Biography 2010) etc. (Amazon.com listing of 9 reviews - none of which is what TFD implies all reviews are) When asserting that all reviews are antithetical to a book, it helps if one is actually dealing with facts. Collect (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Collect, you should be aware that dustjackets of books tend to copy the most complimentary paragraphs of reviews and may not present a proper summary.

Stanley G. Payne, who is one of the world's foremost experts on fascism, and quoted by R-41 dozens of times, for example, wrote, "The most controversial aspect will be its definition of Fascism, which he calls an 'authoritarian democracy', using the latter term in a distinctive manner that is not as clearly defined as it might be....The thrust of his argument is that democracy is a broader concept and practice than the classic liberal democracy of the West....It is doubtful that this definition will gain much acceptance."[27] Payne praises the book for other aspects.

Riley has presented a new interpretation of fascism and democracy which may or may not gain notice, but so far has not. Since we are not a crystal ball, his views are safely ignored.

TFD (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You present a single source for your position - where you claimed that virtually every source agrees with what you know to be the truth. I presented a substantial number of reviews (not "dust jacket blurbs" as you term them) which directly contradict your assertions. Examples which contradict an assertion disprove it. You are in DEADHORSE territory now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that Riley is potentially RS for the article. So are his academic reviewers. If you want a further opinion on this go to RSN with a brief question and avoid commenting until some uninvolved editors have had their say. But if you can all agree on this general principle then there is a lot to be worked out about what is best taken from Riley, how to balance it etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not a matter of rs, but a matter of weight. what weight do we provide views that have not yet gained acceptance, especially when one of the most noted experts says that they are unlikely to gain any acceptance? TFD (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You saw above that I suggested a procedure in two steps. It seems that this is now moving to the second step, what may be used from Riley without attribution or comment, what can be used and balanced, and what shouldn't be used at all. Does everyone involved have access to the whole book? Has everyone read it in its entirety? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No one questions whether the book is a reliable source, only whether A the opinions presented in the book support R-41's edits and B whether the opinions expressed in the book have gained any acceptance. I have read a substantial portion of the book (what was available on Google books). But our role is not to evaluate original ideas but to report what sources say about them. Of course R-41 has not read this book, he formed an opinion and searched for sources that appeared to support his views. He does not care whether a books was written by Gentile the Fascist or Gentile the fascism scholar. He presents sources from decades ago. I conscientiously read all these sources and when I explain what is wrong with them, R-41 uses Google to find another source he has obviously not read. That is the wrong approach - do not assume something and look for sources, identify sources and reflect what they say. TFD (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Riley's book was published by Johns Hopkins, prima facie a reliable source. [28] He has received multiple awards, including the Seymour Lipset Award. [29].

[30] The book succeeds in providing an explanation of the origins and varieties of fascism that is both theoretically powerful and empirically accurate. (Max Whyte, University of Chicago in Chicago Journals)

[31] DA Messenger in American Historical Review says Dylan Riley, a sociologist, examines the understudied role of civil society in fascism's rise in Italy, Spain, and Romania

[32] is also far more than a "blurb" In short the book has gotten many academic reviews, and has been well-received. It is from a major academic publisher, and the use of one person asserting that "no one accepts it" is here shown to be ludicrous and tendentious to the extreme at this point. Googlescholar, which I generally found not to be utile except in really blatant cases, here shows some value - with the book title getting nearly two thousand hits! So let us look at Payne and what he actually wrote (noting that he appears to be in the minority here if we believe TFDs assertions!) - Payne objects on the grounds that the use of "authoritarian democracy" as a term "would nominally include many forms of authoritarianism on the one hand, while failing to distinguish Fascism from Communism on the other." Payne does not say that Riley is wrong - just that Payne would prefer a narrower definition, of all things, in his review, and not that he finds Riley to be wrong. In short - likely misuse by excerptation of a review which does not actually say what TFD has asserted it says. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Collect, you need to distinguish between facts and opinions. No one questions where Riley got his facts right, or even if he has argued his case cogently. The issue is whether his opinions about fascism and democracy have gained acceptance. As the reviews show, they have not. TFD (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You at first averred that no one gave Riley a favourable review, then that no one "supported" Riley, then that the reviews were mere "blurbs" now you are reduced to arguing that the reviews 'which were almost totally favourable somehow still do not show that Riley has any "acceptance" per what you "know" to be the "truth." Too many steps involved TFD for me to take your arguments seriously. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Collect, before jumping in, could you please read the discussions. You appear to have no understanding of the topic, the matter under discussion or the sources presented and your comments do not help to bring the discussion forward. I did not for example say that "no one gave Riley a favourable review" and your misrepresentation of what I said is offensive to me and a waste of eveyone's time, including your own. Can you explain what your point is about the subject of discussion or are you just arguing for the point of arguing? PS - could you please stop using terms like "averred" - it does not sound educated, merely someone trying to sound educated. TFD (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Following your rationales step-by-step shows your position for what it is, and I need not list all the academic reviews, academic scholarly citations etc. any more than I have thus far. And all you are reduced to is saying you dislike the English word "averred"? Really? That is what this board is for - that "averred" is disliked by you? Cheers. Will someone hat TFD's off-the-wall commentary - I do not think having it here does him any great favours at all. Collect (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To get back on topic, as I said I think TFD is ignoring that Riley is acknowledging the fact that fascists claimed be democratic. I actually agree with TFD in that I disagree with Riley that fascism was in practice democratic - the two prominent fascist regimes were led by narcissistic individuals, Mussolini and Hitler, who sought to make sure that no one could challenge their vision of what Italy and Germany should become. But that is just my personal review of Riley's view. That being said, I will summarize my points by saying that TFD's argument based on this statement: "Fascism was not democratic even in theory", is inconsistent with this Italian Fascist declaration that fascism involves an "organized, centralized authoritarian democracy" [33]--R-41 (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you read Riley's book in full? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have read significant portions of it on Google Books, much of it is shown, though there are sections that are not shown because it is a preview of the book. Nevertheless the summary of what the book is arguing is described on pages 10 and 11 in particular. Riley's work is not some lunatic fringe work, it applies methodology and uses political analysis - particularly Tocquevillian analysis of democracy and civil society. Riley says the problem is that there is a common POV in the Western world to associate liberalism (as in liberal political culture) with democracy and automatically associate authoritarianism with antidemocracy (see page 11 of Riley), he says that this view is biased and illogical.--R-41 (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're arguing to include material based on a source, you really have to have read all of it. We can all see that this is very serious academic research. The question now is which bits of Riley's arguments should be used in the article, and if they need balancing. I haven't read the book myself by the way, but I will if it helps to move this dispute forward. It looks extremely interesting. But without reading it all, and the reviews, we are not in a position to say which bits we can use, and how. Otherwise, we are working in the wrong direction, wanting to make a point and finding a reference for the point, as opposed to identifying a good source and working out what to take from it. I hope that point is well taken. By the way, you don't actually have anyone formally facilitating on this. I said I would only comment on sources, and I may well be reaching the limit of my competence in resolving your case. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Riley's work is a serious discourse that has received attention from the scholarly community. We need to have references that are serious in examining common claims made about fascism. Riley challenges claims that fascism is necessarily the opposite of democracy simply because it is authoritarian. On page 2, he says his claim very clearly: "fascism, far from being the opposite of democracy, was a twisted and distorted form of democratization, that, paradoxically, embraced authoritarian means", see here: [34]. I believe that the combination of evidence that fascists claimed to be democratic alongside claims by the majority of scholars that it was undemocratic and a minority of scholars that it was a non-liberal form of democracy could be said in the following way: "Fascism is widely regarded to be undemocratic in practice, although fascists themselves claimed to be democratic and there are a minority of scholars who view fascism as supporting a variant of democracy". I would welcome an invitation through proper channels of a WP:EXPERT on political concepts and systems such as democracy and fascism to assist you and other moderators and observers here, in the discussion.--R-41 (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that an expert is what's needed. I'm well enough read in 20th century European history to understand the points at issue. You could probably do with someone who edits in completely different areas, to stand back and apply conflict resolution techniques. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think is up to the editor asking to add information to provide sources, and I have not asked for any additions. The type of source we should use I believe is an article on fascist ideology or an introduction or introductory chapter to a book on fascist ideology that outlines the major issues, how various scholars have addressed them and the degree of acceptance of these views. TFD (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The user Yiddi who has since been indefinately blocked from Wikipedia and admitted to being a sockpuppet of the banned User:Chaosname, said that the article should say that "fascism opposes democracy", and you TFD supported such a statement. So you are advocating a claim that "fascism opposes democracy", that is a major overarching claim with no conditions, you need evidence to confirm that fascism as an ideology "opposes" democracy as a whole, and not just liberal democracy.--R-41 (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not advocating including any claim, I am merely oposing the inclusion of your claim. TFD (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Comment: I would like to offer some advice, from a logical standpoint. I have no in-depth knowledge of any of the "claims" made here. As stated in WP:Fringe_theories page, "Ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." I believe R-41's claim could also fall under an "exceptional claim." If there is verifiable proof that fascists have claimed fascism to be similar or variant of democracy, it should be included in the article. If it is also the minority opinion, it should be stated as such. I believe that User:R-41 has provided sources to back up his claim, and if such sources are verifiable and acceptable under WP policy, he has met the conditions necessary for inclusion. I also think it would help to have a clear, simple statement as to why TFD feels the claim in question should not be included, if worded properly. Sources to support your statement would be very useful as well. Arguments over the viewpoint of any author are not necessary. If the statement was made, it deserves to be included. If it is widely viewed as incorrect, it should be noted. Acronin3 (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim is not "exceptional" at all. It is the refusal to accept what is a current and accepted reliable source which is now "exceptional" as is evident to anyone reading the colloquy thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Acronin3. I will recap for you. Since articles and introductions and introductory books about fascism ignore the reference to "authoritarian democracy", it is so insignificant that it should be ignored per WP:WEIGHT. Bear in mind that the claim fascists supported democracy is based on an interpretation of a single sentence in a 1923 article by Mussolini attacking democracy. Otherwise he made no statements whatsoever saying that he supported democracy and the sentence is almost entirely ignored except in such lengthy writings such as the 3000 page dictionary of fascism, but even then is given little prominence. The few scholars who have discussed the sentence are not necessarily convinced that it is a genuine statement. It is in any case the wrong approach, we are supposed to reflect what the experts think not look for sources to add what we happen to believe. TFD (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Would the involved editors please state (very briefly indeed) which statements in the article are at issue. The word "democracy" appears 23 times and I don't think all of those are problematic. The phrase "liberal democracy" also appears many times, and is overlinked. Someone could sort that, and perhaps also check that the qualifier is used in the source, so that sources aren't misrepresented. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"Fascism condemns liberal democracy for basing government legitimacy on quantity rather than quality, and for causing quarreling partisan politics, but fascists deny that they are entirely against democracy."Jens Rydgren. Movements of exclusion: radical right-wing populism in the Western world. Hauppauge, New York, USA: Nova Publishers, 2005. Pp. 6.Blamires, Cyprian, World Fascism: a Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1 (Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2006) p. 170-171 While the first source does not say that fascists "deny that they are entirely against democracy", it was apparently chosen because it says that fascists oppose liberal democracy, while most sources merely say that they oppose democracy. Note that the book is about right-wing populism, not fascism. The second source says, "However, the same article suggests that there is a way that the term "democracy" can be understood which is compatible with Fascism--namely, when it is understood as "organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy"". Notice that there is no mention of this essay in the book's 26 page introduction.(pp.1-26) TFD (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Fascists repeatedly claimed to be democratic. The issue about whether they were in practice is separate from the fact that they claimed to be democratic. I have shown TFD, the example from the Doctrine of Fascism that says "organized, centralized authoritarian democracy", and numerous other examples of fascists declaring support for a form of democracy. I chose the first source by Rydgren because it describes precisely what fascism ideologically opposed in liberal democracy - its ideal of rule through quantity rather than rule through quality. WP:WEIGHT does not warrant exclusion of material analyzed by scholars simply because a quote is mentioned once in a book - quotes are typically only mentioned once in a book, nor does it warrant acceptance of TFD's clearly factually incorrect claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory". I propose that the following compromise to resolve this by addressing the different claims and the different weights of scholarly opinion: "'Fascism is widely regarded by scholars to be undemocratic and anti-democratic in practice. Fascism denounces liberal democracy for basing government legitimacy on quantity rather than quality. However fascists have claimed to be democratic and a minority of scholars regard fascism as supporting a form of democracy.". This could be placed in the main body of the article and the existing sentence referring to fascism's relations with democracy in the intro could be removed.--R-41 (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks, both, for clarifying. And for your suggested text, R-41. Your second sentence is ungrammatical . If you could rephrase, then others can comment on whether this is an acceptable compromise. It does seem better to take this from the lead into the main body. Did you still want to consider how to use Riley? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the sentence for my latest proposal above. To Itsmejudith, as to your inquiry on how Riley's work should be used here, Riley should be mentioned as being amongst a minority of scholars who view fascism as supporting a form of democracy, after saying that most scholars view fascism as undemocratic and anti-democratic in practice - that way WP:WEIGHT is upheld, and the different perspectives are shown.--R-41 (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just so other users here don't get lost in all the conversation I will restate my latest compromise proposal here: "Fascism is widely regarded by scholars to be undemocratic and anti-democratic in practice. Fascism denounces liberal democracy for basing government legitimacy on quantity rather than quality. However fascists have claimed to be democratic and a minority of scholars regard fascism as supporting a form of democracy.". This will be put in the main body of the article, and the current sentence mentioning fascism's relation with democracy will be removed from the intro.--R-41 (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

R-41's claim that "Fascists repeatedly claimed to be democratic" is false. The source he provides is one sentence from a 1923 article condemning democracy. R-41 does not appreciate irony, "a rhetorical device, literary technique, or situation in which there is a sharp incongruity or discordance that goes beyond the simple and evident intention of words or actions". It would be wrong for us to make a claim that does not appear in summaries of fascist ideology. This is anyway similar to the approach of conspiracy theorists, where one sentence, e.g., Eisenhower saying "military industrial complex" or George Bush saying "new world order" becomes the basis of a theory about their political agendas. TFD (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

An astounding claim -- so any quote you might dislike because it is not the WP:TRUTH should be discarded now becasuse you know it is "irony"? We established the source is a reliable source. That is is widely cited and accepted by the academic community, that the reviews in scholarly journals were not "blurbs", that the author and publisher are both notable for works in the field, and now we are to remove it as being "irony"? And then the gratuitius comparison of R-41 to "conspiracy theorists"? Sorry TFD, the fifth line of defense you present falls. Collect (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's focus on content, shall we? R-41 has suggested proposed wording, which it seems to me is worth discussing properly. But there is quite a lot of proposed wording here, and each point will have to be worked on separately. R-41, each point will need its source. I am going to advise on sourcing myself here below, as that is one of my main interests in the encyclopedia. Weight should also be carefully considered. Pulling the proposed wording into its component parts:

1. "Fascism is widely regarded by scholars to be undemocratic and anti-democratic in practice." That is a claim to scholarly consensus. We need a source for the fact that this is the consensus. It isn't enough just to refer to two, three or four works that support the point.
2. "Fascism denounces liberal democracy for basing government legitimacy on quantity rather than quality." We need a source for that. I'm worried about the tense of the verb here. Are we sure that fascism has always said the same things about democracy/liberal democracy from the 1920s until today? Another question is whether denunciations made in the 1920s would be valid today, given that democratic systems have themselves evolved.
3. "However fascists have claimed to be democratic..." I would expect a reference at that point. Also, would it not be better to detail some such claims, rather than making this blanket assertion? Do we have to send the reader to look up the sources?
4. "A minority of scholars regard fascism as supporting a form of democracy.". Again, this is a claim about the scholarly consensus. We need a source that spells out that this is the minority view. If it is just Riley, then we can't say "a minority of scholars". We would have to say "According to Riley..." and then probably also... "a reviewer of his book said that this definition was unlikely to be generally accepted". #This will be put in the main body of the article, and the current sentence mentioning fascism's relation with democracy will be removed from the intro. I'm crossing my fingers that there may be immediate consensus for this one.

I hope this helps, also that you will get some more non-involved comments. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that we can use a single sentence in one article to say, "However fascists have claimed to be democratic". The few sources that have commented on this sentence do not appear to support the claim. Even if they did, the claim is so obscure that it should be ignored. We have one scholar who recently claimed that fascism was democratic (he says that his opinion is original), and a review by a fascism scholar that says his view is unlikely to be accepted. Again, weight says we should ignore this. TFD (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about something more specific? Roughly like: In 19xx Mussolini made a speech in which he said .... (ref Riley, page number). Riley argues that fascism makes claims about democracy (ref Riley). In a generally favourable review, scholar says Riley's view on this is unlikely to be accepted. (ref) In 19xx Hitler said... (ref). So we get nearer to showing the reader what happened rather than telling them what happened. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that when writing articles we should only include what most writers would mention in an article of comparable length. We should not leave readers with the impression that there is a dispute about whether or not fascism was democratic. Also, there are many other minority views about fascism that could have an equal claim for inclusion. It is better to put these things into separate articles. TFD (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Minority views are different than fringe views. And scholarly minority views should be shown. Riley's work is scholarly and was reviewed and praised by multiple reviewers.--R-41 (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I want to add one more thing that I believe I have not made myself clear about here and on the Talk:Nazism page. While I believe that we cannot deny that various fascists did claim to support a form of democracy, we do not have to take their claims to support a form of democracy, seriously. Perhaps this can reduce a bit of tension here and help to move towards a resolution.--R-41 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm about to go off on wikibreak, so if you folks can continue the discussion on the talk page, that will be good. If you can't then you will need to post here asking for further attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear fuel cycle

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Jpritikin on 08:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC). Nuclear fuel cycle (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? Talk:Nuclear fuel cycle#It's not a cycle Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? NPguy (talk · contribs) Jpritikin (talk · contribs) NPguy never tried to improve my summary. He only reverts it in total. I have repeatedly revised to try to meet his objections. 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=Nuclear fuel cycle}} --~~~~ 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 discussed this issue on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Not sure Jpritikin (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Nuclear fuel cycle 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 regular volunteer here at DRN. I'm afraid that I agree with NPguy on this one, point by point, in his comments at the article talk page, including the non-usability of the Caldicott Twitter post currently included in the article. A source which appears to be reliable and which says exactly what you are trying to say can, however, be found here and it appears there are any number more which can be found through this search. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Finally a constructive suggestion. That looks like a great book to cite. Thank you. Jpritikin (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 16, 2012 at 13:47 (UTC) Reason: Appears to be resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Zombie Diaries, World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by CyberGhostface on 19:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC).

• The Zombie Diaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries (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's been a non-stop edit war going on at these two articles between User:Bradswanson2010 and various IPs (who may or may not be related) regarding the two films in question. Basically it comes down to the budget of one film and how wide the release was for another. Taking a look at the history pages it's non-stop "Undid revision by so and so."

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Bradswanson2010 (talk · contribs)
• 217.33.166.226 (talk · contribs)
• 81.105.0.14 (talk · contribs)

I'm going to guess that the IPs might belong to the same organization/person and may be involved with the films in question.

• 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 Zombie Diaries, World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries}} --~~~~ 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 left a message on Bradswanson2010's page as well as a notice on the film Wikiproject.

• How do you think we can help?

I suppose an experienced editor can take a look at the two pages and come to a conclusion as to what direction should be taken.

CyberGhostface (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The Zombie Diaries, World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries discussion

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

My immediate thought when looking at this case was, "let me check the article talk pages." I saw no comments on the talk pages, and it appears that none of the editors involved have communicated with each other outside of edit summaries. Is this correct, or am I missing something? Because I think our first step is simply for said editors to "sit down" and talk about it - not fight about it, please note, but just communicate. If, after this, nothing comes out of it, we can move on to our next steps in this - potentially at WP:3 or something of the like. Theopolisme _{TALK 20:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)}

Yes, both 217.33.166.226 (talk · contribs) and 81.105.0.14 (talk · contribs) are makers of the films in question and are attempting to hide the low budget of the first and the fact that the release of the second was limited to only three cinemas in the UK. The budget of £8,100 is widely known, referenced frequently online and has even been verified in the page discussion thread by Michael Bartlett - one of the directors. For the makers to now attempt to edit the page to try to present their films in the best light is not representative of the truth - that being that The Zombie Diaries budget was £8,100 and that the The World of The Dead was released at 3 UK cinemas for 3 days before the DVD release. Bradswanson2010

Bradswanson2010 is completely incorrect in a number of his assumptions. There is no evidence that the film World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries was screened at only 3 cinemas. Bradswanson2010 has provided a dead link as evidence. It was a limited release before the dvd release, but to state 3 screens without evidence cannot be accepted as true. Also, the evidence to support the budget of £8,100 for The Zombie Diaries is based upon posts on messageboards, blogs and not from any official source. The imdb budget entry states £500,000! I don't believe this is correct either, however it demonstrates that it is more accurate not to state the budget, as it is clearly unknown at this present time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.0.14 (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Kevin/Michael, as you know, filmmakers inflate their budgets on imdb, much the same as your two alter info on here to make your films appear more successful than they actually were. The £8,100 budget is consistent across all the references and a widely known figure. You also know that your film was released at 3 cinemas for 3 days before the films release on DVD complete with spectacularly misleading cover. Bradswanson2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradswanson2010 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Clear case of edit warring. On World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries the budget isn't even stated so why are you making an issue?Curb Chain (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the evidence, it cannot be certain what the budget for Zombie Diaries was, nor the number of screenings World of the Dead had. Based upon that, they should not be referenced on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.0.14 (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The evidence that the budget to The Zombie Diaries is £8,100 is referenced five times. Based on what you say, there is no actual evidence that The World of the Dead was released in any cinemas. Bradswanson2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradswanson2010 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright - thank you all for responding. 1st note, please remember to always sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~) - it makes it easier to see who's who and what's what. Now - as Curb Chain said, this really seems like just a huge edit war. This may be a case for Wikipedia:AN/EW - as I don't think you two(three) are agreeing on anything over this medium. Rather, you're letting this stretch out in a great number of reverts. I looked at the references, and it appears that Bradswanson2010 is correct - the references that are not dead links do say that the budget is £8,100. However, as 81.105.0.14 will not accept this, and as both of you are in the wrong for WP:EWing... I recommend that, if you two can not come to a consensus, this dispute be brought to the Wikipedia:AN/EW. Another final note to CurbChain - on World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries, it appears the debate is regarding the number of screenings. Theopolisme _{TALK 12:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}

I believe the point on the dead links was to do with the '3 cinema screenings' reference. As it has been agreed that is not reliable as it is a dead link, it should remain as 'limited' as it is common knowledge the film released a very minor theatrical run. Regarding the budget, the links provided by BradSwanson2010 are blog sites and not from any official source. So it is unreliable information. If you notice Bradswanson2010's recent amendment to World of the Dead to do with misleading cover art, it is clear he has an agenda to try and stoke up anything that tries to paint the film-makers and the film in a bad light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.166.226 (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As it is now appears evident that you two can not come to a consensus, I believe that this dispute should be brought to the Wikipedia:AN/EW - I really don't have any other suggestions at this point, as it appears that you both are acting hostile-ly towards each other and it is not as much a content dispute as a personal battle between you. Thanks, and please let me know- Theopolisme _{TALK 14:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}

217.33.166.226/Michael/Kevin, you cite "common knowledge" for stating the film had a limited theatrical run. It is also "common knowledge" that the run was three screens. It is "common knowledge" that the budget for the first film was £8,100. It is also quite clearly common and referenceable knowledge that both films had misleading cover art. There's no agenda there - just adding to the facts here on Wikipedia. Bradswanson2010 Bradswanson2010 (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring report filed - this is not something we can help you with over here. See Wikipedia:AN/EW] Theopolisme _{TALK 16:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}

I would welcome a resolution, but one that is based solely on the evidence available. Although there is no official budget confirmed by the production company, then perhaps the term 'rumored' should be used if £8,100 is stated on wikipedia. Regarding the number of screens, there is no evidence at all to support the number of screens being 3, so it should not be stated as a fact on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.166.226 (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above. £8,100 should remain but only with a "(rumored)" and the 3 screens should be removed completely as there are no facts at all or evidence to back it up.

Again, please remember to sign your comments - anyhow, that's two of you - however, might I note that Bradswanson2010 claims that both of your are representing the same entity (which could, in some circumstances, be considered a WP:SOCK). Another note, I have requested page protection on these pages in question in order to potentially "quell the storms" for a bit and let you rationally figure this out. Theopolisme _{TALK 00:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)}

I, like Theopolisme, am a volunteer here at DRN. Just a status update on this and a couple of comments:

• The articles are fully protected until July 24, which means that only administrators can edit them.
• One of the primary disputants has been blocked until 12:32, 21 July 2012, so this discussion is unlikely to move forward until at least after that time.
• @All disputants: When the discussion resumes here it needs to do so strictly about the edits in question and whether, under Wikipedia principles, policies, and guidelines they are permissible here. Discussion about who the other editors are or are not, or about their biases, motivations for editing, points of view, or conflicts of interests must be entirely avoided: this noticeboard is for content, not conduct, disputes. In other words, we discuss edits, not editors.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the lack of verifiable sources, I would have to agree that "rumored" should be added to the budget, or the number itself should be taken out completely. Basic WP policy states that any information must be verifiable, and the current 3 links on the page are not pointing to anything discussing the budget, nor to any trustworthy source. Before attempting to claim that it is "common knowledge", I would recommend that Bradswanson2010 read WP:Common_knowledge. Acronin3 (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

General Welfare clause

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Foofighter20x on 05:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC). General Welfare clause (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? At the beginning, the article text was factually correct, though the section in dispute was poorly cited (an error I've corrected). It appears the crux of the dispute is that editor Esplainin2do did not or does not understand the context of stating that the GWC in the U.S. Const. does not confer upon the federal government of the U.S. a general police power. This is widely-held consensus among constitutional historians and lawyers. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Esplainin2do (talk · contribs) Foofighter20x (talk · contribs) It appears Esplainin2do intends to impose a hyper-narrow view onto the article in hopes of what I'm not sure. However, Esplainin2do's hyper-narrow interpretation is not entirely correct, as the secondary source cites I've inserted demonstrate. Esplainin2do chooses to view those sources as cherry-picked evidence, opting to rely upon primary sources instead, which I'm not sure conforms to WP:OR. Outside of that, Esplainin2do is being belligerent, antagonistic, and accusatory; put another way, I feel like I'm being trolled. I've tried to get Esplainin2do to go back to the status quo ante and build consensus, but time and again he's refused. Trying to work with him on this has not yielded fruit. 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=General Welfare clause}} --~~~~ 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 the talk page has not worked. I've even requested assistance from two other editors, but their engagement was highly transitory. How do you think we can help? Impose order. Provide guidance. Foofighter20x (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC) General Welfare clause discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 20, 2012 at 13:19 (UTC) Reason: Appears to be stale or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:19, 20 July 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.

Autobiography of a Yogi

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Tat Sat on 05:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC).

• Autobiography of a Yogi (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 is about a book that was published in 1946 and is in public domain. Instead of having the book's original cover, the page advertises a subsequent edition of the book published by Self-Realization Fellowship, one of the 5 or 6 Publishers of the same book. The trajetory of this book publication has many disputes and controversial issues since after the author's death, Self-Realizatin Fellowship made nearly one thousand changes in the original text and forged the author's signature. Red Rose supresses reccurrently all the contoversy from the article. There was even a lawsuit in which SRF accused Ananda, another publisher of the book, of violating its copyright . SRF lost the lawsuit: . "We hold that SRF was not entitled to renew its copyrights in books authored by Yogananda." - The legal case is posted in Wikisource. Thank you.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs)
• Sitush (talk · contribs)
• NestedVariable (talk · contribs)
• Tat Sat (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=Autobiography of a Yogi}} --~~~~ 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 discuss the changes made in the article but it is impossible to reach a consensus when there is sectarism. Also Red Rose provides innacurate information given him by SRF.

• How do you think we can help?

It would help to have an editor with experience in book pages who is also familiar with ethics in publication.

Tat Sat (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi discussion

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

• Tat Sat is jumping the gun here. The present dispute is fundamentally one concerning an image, it (the dispute) has existed for < 24 hours and whether Tat Sat realises it or not, I am pretty experienced and have no particular axe to grind with regard to it. I have asked for input from Magog the Ogre and also at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Use_of_a_book_cover_and.2For_frontispiece. While I foresee that somewhere down the line issues relating to this article will probably require attention from DRN, now is not the time. I propose that this request be closed as premature. - Sitush (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Tat Sat has reverted the article to more or less the version 3 years ago, as claimed by 2 other editors which, I agree, is not an improvement to the article. Tat Sat must engage in better communication (skills) on the talk page or here and as stated and make a case for the changes he believes should be made to the article and not revert back to older and poorer versions of the article.Curb Chain (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sitush and CC. Tat Sat needs to understand Wikipedia policies in terms of what constitutes to be reliable content. The article as it was 3 years back contained numerous irrelevant, unsourced and pov materials. Wikipedia is not a forum to present both sides of a conspiracy theory. NestedVariable (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Tat Sat and we are in the middle of negotiations and I believe we were coming to a logical, fair resolution for a book which at the moment has 6 different publishers with 6 different covers (with probably more in the future as the 1st edition revision is in public domain) that we need to represent in a fair manner. Tat Sat needs to learn how to be part of a collaborative group creating a article that is neutral and is properly sourced. This is premature and I agree with Sitush, Curb Chain & Nested Variables.Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly I cannot agree. While we were discussing the page in order to attain consensus, Red Rose kept editing and made TEN small editions. Please check this information, it´s true. I reverted the article and was threatened to be blocked, while nobody found anything wrong with Red Rose´s editions. We had agreed we would discuss the issues one by one before editing, since the trajetory of the book is controvert, and includes disputes and lawsuits. Red Rose suppressed all the controversial issues, considering only SRF´s points of view and using SRF as the paragon of truth. We cannot ignore that SRF forged Yogananda´s signature many years after his death (this technical term meaning "the creation of a false written document or alteration of a genuine one..."). This polemic point in question - one among many - impairs SRF´s credibility and contradicts the guidelines of Publication Ethics. The page as it is advertises SRF. That´s why I asked for WP:DRN. You cannot choose SRF´s cover in detriment of all the others presently in print and authorized by law. The book was published in 1946 WITH a cover that cannot be hidden nor kept from public knowledge because someone does not like it. This should not even be the object of discussion. We need the help of an experienced editor of book pages, aware of the ethics of publication. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You were warned because you were causing disruptive edits by reverting back even after multiple editors asked you to come to a consensus first. Take a look at WP:NOT. NestedVariable (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think it is important to point here that the other 3 people involved in this dispute - with all due respect for them - do not think the article is sectarian, since they edited it. I am the only one who disagrees. And Red Rose´s editions - literally hundreds of them - (please check the history of the editions) - are not considered disruptive. Thank you. -- Tat Sat (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• You have been advised on several occasions to be careful regarding your accusations and, indeed, not to personalise discussions. Yet you do it again now. Why? Please show me the diff where I say that the article is not "sectarian". I have explicitly stated that I have no axe to grind here and that things need to be discussed. I've made attempts to progress that discussion in various places, as have others. The only thing that is causing problems with that discussion is your reverts to what is indubitably an unacceptable version. You should note the Curb Chain - who is uninvolved - also considers that version not to be an improvement. Please take a read of WP:CONSENSUS. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Do not worry, Sitush, I have understood I am not to revert the article. Again, with all due respect, anyone who compares both versions will see that SRF´s point of view prevails in the present one. In fact, it is the only one; SRF´s cover illustrates the present page -- not the original cover of the book -- and all the controversy and disputes and lawsuits have been suppressed - together with a brief explanation of the differences in the content of the book before and after the author´s death. That´s why I say the page is sectarian. I am not accusing anybody personally. Perhaps I am sending the wrong input. I am trying to focus on the book´s trajetory as a literary and most controversial publication. And I agree with you that the version I reverted to needs to be edited. But at least it is not sectarian, since it contains relevant information which counterpoints SRF´s point of view. I am glad to acknowledge that you never said specificaly that the article "is not sectarian". I made this wrong presumption because you helped Red Rose to edit the page, insert SRF´s cover and remove a lot of content. I demand your pardon. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward, discuss changes first on the talk page and come to a consensus. Make sure you are not basing major content on primary research but secondary notable/reliable sources (Ananda or SRF related/affiliated sites or personal blogs/ websites are not considered neutral or notable source in regards to this topic as both of these two rival groups have interest in the content). Currently as the article stands, gets its content from notable secondary sources. Feel free to propose contents that adhere to the same principles. Take a look at other featured articles and see how the content is being presented. Do not create abrupt disruptive edits or make personal attacks against the editors. It's a community site, try to work with other editors (including Red Rose) collaboratively in improving the content. Glad to see you are open to consensus moving forward. Everyone has their own views about certain things but wikipedia is not the vehicle to express it. All information needs to be properly sourced. Thank You. NestedVariable (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• NestedVariable, thank you for your post, but the page as it is contains only information provided by SRF and favorable to SRF. Could you please kindly explain to me why is it so? Even the cover of the book is SRF´s, instead of the original one. I think it is relevant to know also what Ananda says and not only SRF. They are both accountable for what they say and they both publish the book, although different versions of it. Their books are sold at amanzo.com, Barnes & Nobles, etc. and people want to know why there are two version of the same book for sale. For instance, I think the page should contain SRF´s explanation for the changes in the book and the forgery of Yogananda´s signature, as well as Ananda´s comparison of the changes made in the text before and after the author´s death. These are relevant and most pollemic issues. What you are saying could be a fallacy to protect SRF from controversy. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with you. I think only anonymous sites could not be used as a means of reference. Thank you Tat Sat (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The cover of the book is under discussion in various areas. We will probably come to a consensus as per to what to do next. Please have patience. Getting to your next point, it is not important for wikipedia what Ananda or SRF thinks or says. All information needs to come from reliable secondary sources to ensure that we are maintaining Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as per wikipedia guidelines. If what is claimed by Ananda or SRF is true then there has to be some reliable secondary sources of information. Please take a look WP:IRS and WP:NOR. This will hopefully make wikipedia guidelines clear to you. Thank You. NestedVariable (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Again I insist that this discussion about the cover of the book should not exist. The book was published in 1946 with a specific cover and this cover is the original one. That´s all. Also when someone goes to buy a book of which there are 6 or 7 versions with different content and different signatures of the same author in different covers, he will want to know why. Of course we have to quote the Publishers and hear what they say. People will read the explanations and will form an opinion. It is not a matter of deciding who is right and who is wrong, it is a matter of information. Sorry, but I am obliged to disagree with you again. Besides SRF has sued Ananda for copyright violation and lost. The book entering public domain is a direct consequence of the results of this lawsuit which can be accessed at Wikiquote. That´s why I am asking for the help of an experienced book editor. The trajetory of this book is full of controversial issues and relevant information about them. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"Also when someone goes to buy a book of which there are 6 or 7 versions with different content and different signatures of the same author in different covers, he will want to know why"

Well, you are presuming wikipedia is a platform of advocacy. It's not. Follow the guidelines as per WP:IRS and WP:NOR. NestedVariable (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• This books is unusual because there is one current book and about 5 or so books printed from the 1946 version which is a total of about 6 different publishers. TatSat is suggesting that we take down the publisher SRF's cover and I agree to that because I think that all 6 publishers and future ones because there will be more, need to be considered on this page and since they are not present, we need to expand to include them as well. The page itself is titled Autobiography of a Yogi with no particular edition mentioned. So I am agreeing with one of TatSat's prior suggestions to just put Yogananda picture there instead. I have the same sepia type picture but with a better resolution I would like to add. Considering the unusual situation of having the first edition in public domain and therefore the number of publishers already in existence this seems like the only reasonable and fair thing to do.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I'm Mr. Stradivarius, a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. This doesn't give me any special power or privileges - my role here is to guide you towards a compromise, not to make binding decisions about content. I have read through the discussion here and on the talk page, and first I want to echo what Sitush has been saying about personal attacks. Personal attacks are never acceptable on Wikipedia, and if we are going to successfully resolve this dispute we need to stop them right now. From this point on, I would like all the involved editors to avoid talking about each other at all. Talking about the edits that another editor has made is fine, but speculating about another editor's motivations or affiliations is not. Can you all agree to abide by this for the duration of this dispute?

Now, about the content. I see two basic issues in this dispute - the first is which image we should use in the infobox at the top of the article, and the second is how we cover the controversies about the book in the article itself. (Let me know if there are any issues that I have missed.) I propose that we deal with these issues one by one, starting with the issue of which image to use in the infobox. After reading through all the suggestions for the image, the one that made most sense to me was to use the original 1946 cover. And when I say the original cover, I mean the cover of the very first edition that was actually available in the year 1946, not the cover of a reprint made later by another publisher who merely said "this is the original edition". To me, the original 1946 cover seems the most representative of the topic as a whole, and using it would avoid any problems about Wikipedia appearing to favour one publisher over another. Does everyone think that using the original 1946 cover is a reasonable suggestion? Let me know your thoughts below. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Stradivarius - This situation is unusual in that this 1946 1st edition book is in the public domain and there are at least 5 publishers offering this book each with there own cover. In the book offered by the 6th editor, subsequent edits were added as requested by the author and were not able to be added until many years later even after his death. This book is somewhat different from the 1946 versions so to use the 1st edition cover would not represent this publisher or for that matter the 4 other publishers.

Another important point is that one of the publishers created a duplicate of the 1st edition cover so by posting the first edition cover, Wikipedia creates an atmosphere of partiality or favoritism. I am under the impression that Wikipedia encourages impartial, neutral pages. The only way I can see to avoid this is post a picture of the author instead.

Also, as time goes on there are most likely going to be more and more publishers of the 1946 version.

Because of the issues mentioned above, I cannot give my consensus to post the 1st edition cover on this page. And as Sitush pointed out, pages don't need to even have info boxes, let alone a picture. Thank you for your time. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, and for letting me know your opinion. Just to be on the safe side, let me check that we are talking about the same cover. I was referring to the cover of the first edition, published by Philosophical Library, which you can see on this eBay page. Note that the description says "First Edition, First Printing with date of 1946 on copyright page, and no mention of subsequent printings." I don't mean any of the versions by Crystal Clarity Publishing (e.g. this or this), which I agree would be favouring that particular publisher. Is this the cover that you thought I was talking about? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for volunteering at this Dispute Resolution Board, Mr. Stradivarius (my favorite violin and cello brand). I´m glad to say you have not missed any issue. I agree the cover of the first edition should be used. Concerning this issue, if you go now to the "Autobiography of a Yogi"´s article you can verify that there are more wrong informations in the infobox, besides the use of a subsequent SRF´s cover of the book:

1. It says Self-Realization Fellowship is the Publisher of the 1946 edition. There are no doubts now that this information is not correct. The Philosophical Library - New York was the Publisher of the first edition. I have this original edition in my hands now - not a facsimile of it.
2. The ISBN belongs to a SRF´s later edition of the book. The first edition did not have a ISBN number. These erros affect the credibility of this Wikipedia´s article and should be corrected, not to mislead users. And there are other misinformations in the article, which we can discuss one by one.

Last but not least, when you look for the "Autobiography of a Yogi" at Google Search, there is an advertise of the Wikipedia´s article about the book. I am posting here the facsimile of the Internet page that appears in my Windows 7 Internet Explorer to illustrate what I am saying. You can see, with great eminence, Self-Realization Fellowship´s present edition´s cover of the book, sponsored by en.wikipedia.org. The same cover is being used in many coutries as a global brand by SRF. It does seem Wikipedia appears to favour one publisher over another in detriment of the original cover as it was published in 1946. What is also at stake, besides sectarism? A priceless propaganda for SRF´s later reprint of the book, using Wikipedia´s credibility and flawless reputation. Thank you Tat Sat (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

PS I would like to add a third issued in the infobox: The name in the book cover is spelled Paramhansa Yogananda - without the "a", not Paramahansa. Only much later SRF changed the spelling of the name and forged the author´s signature. This should also be corrected. I can upload any page of the 1946, the edition princeps but there are many facsimiles in the Internet, for free. It is easy to verify this information. Later editions and the explanation why they were published should be in the article itself, not in the infobox. First editions of famous books are so important that they cost a fortune. Thank you Tat Sat (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tat Sat that the infobox needs to be updated. This is an interesting and unique situation. We have the first three editions published by the Philosophical Library. There was another edition I found on worldcat, which says "Newyork: London: Rider" as the publisher. [[35]]. It's probably missing some information. In any case, before the author died, there were 3 editions of the book. At least one extra chapter was added to the third edition [[36]] when the author was alive. Subsequent editions were published by Self-Realization Fellowship (the organization author founded back in 1920). Then years later following the first edition entering public domain, Crystal Clarity (owned by Ananda - founded by Kriyananda, an ex-member of SRF) started reprinting the first edition. They also released further versions with bonus/extra materials. I am not sure how we are going to reflect all these in an info box while being neutral. It would be good to take a look at wikipedia guidelines as per situations like this. NestedVariable (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It was mentioned earlier, but just pointing it out, following Crystal Clarity other publishing houses have published 1946 (first edition) commercially. NestedVariable (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• First I want to thank TatSat for bringing this discussion to the dispute area where we can have a calm, fact based discussion. And I thank Mr. Stradivarius for asking that this discussion remain non-personal. On that note and in my defense I need to point out that the attacking words were not based in truth.

To answer your question, Mr. Stradivarius, I think you are talking about the first edition book published by Philosophical Library as requested by Yogananda shown on eBay. This cover is duplicated by Crystal Clarity (even though their version looks newer) as you have pointed out in your illustration. So to post the original would favor the CC Publisher. When you google Crystal Clarity Publishers Autobiography of a Yogi, this is where you are taken.http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/ Please notice the commercial links to purchase their products.

The subsequent editions I am referring to are the changes the author made himself including to his third edition, published in 1951, where he made significant changes — including even adding a new Chapter #49 and new footnotes. Some further revisions made by him after the third edition were not able to be incorporated until the publication of the seventh edition, which was released in 1956. So you see, this edition which included edits by the author, is different from his first edition in 1946. I hope this information provides more clarity on the subject. http://www.yogananda-srf.org/ay/Yogananda%E2%80%99s_Wishes_for_Later_Editions.aspx Here are links to some of the other covers involved because we need to represent them as well.

Sterling Publisher - http://www.sterlingpublishers.com/bookinfo.asp?na=9788120725249

Ebury Press - http://www.play.com/Books/Books/-/4330/3594/-/206143/Autobiography-of-a-Yogi-/Product.html

General Books - http://www.abebooks.com/9781153589826/Autobiography-Yogi-Yogananda-Paramahansa-1153589826/plp

Create Space - https://www.createspace.com/3639535

Of the books mentioned above the most common picture on the cover is the Standard Pose of Yogananda – The 1946 version published by Yogananda, Crystal Clarity, Sterling, General books and Self-Realization all use the same pose. So again I propose that we use the Standard Pose of Yogananda on this page and list in the info box that he is the author of this book.

Before we delve into more details on this page, let us first decide on whether we are even going to have an info box or not and if we are, what picture, then we can discuss the other things that need correcting. I would like to remind everyone that we were also discussing whether to even have a info box.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mr Stradivarius - I respectfully ask that we stick with one subject at a time - We were discussing what picture to use or whether there should even be an info box and if we keep adding more issues before this is settled it will bring confusion. Please let us stick to one subject at a time. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Another very important point is the third edition of 1951 that includes a new Chapter with many updates See this link for the details - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Autobiography_of_a_Yogi/Chapter_49 I just found a 1950 cover by publisher Rider - it too has the Standard pose on it - http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-yogi-Paramhansa-Yogananda/dp/B0000CHOJM/ref=sr_1_39?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342288326&sr=1-39&keywords=Yogananda%2C. Apparently this is a first edition published in the UK. When you go to this link be sure to scroll down to see the advertisers - (1) SRF (2) Crystal Clarity Publishers (3) Inner Path - An important note here is that Crystal Clarity & Inner Path are both business of Ananda's http://www.innerpath.com/ Ananda has branched out into many businesses.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Did some time consuming research and actually found 7 more Autobiography of a Yogi 1946 edition publishers. There are most likely even more as I basically searched the ones sold on Amazon and did not actually complete the search because of time - Please see list below:

• Aeterna Publisher ISBN 978-1444437737 http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Yogi-Paramahansa/dp/1444437739/ref=sr_1_40?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342325497&sr=1-40&keywords=autobiography+of+a+yogi
• BiblioBazaar ISBN 978-1426424151 http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Yogi-Paramahansa-Yogananda/dp/1426424159/ref=sr_1_29?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342325208&sr=1-29&keywords=autobiography+of+a+yogi
• Floating Press ISBN 9781775411451 http://www.ebooks.com/340572/autobiography-of-a-yogi/yogananda-paramahansa/
• Harmony Publishers in the UK – ISBN 9780955241277 http://www.harmonypublishing.co.uk/autobiography-of-a-yogi.html
• JAICO ISBN 978-8172246600 http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Yogi-Paramhansa-Yogananda/dp/8172246609/ref=sr_1_26?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342325035&sr=1-26&keywords=autobiography+of+a+yogi
• Kessinger Publishing ISBN 978-1419108433 http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Yogi-Paramhansa-Yogananda/dp/1419108433/ref=sr_1_53?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342326331&sr=1-53&keywords=autobiography+of+a+yogi
• Snowball Publishing ISBN 978-1607962892 http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Yogi-Paramahansa-Yogananda/dp/1607962896/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342326854&sr=1-2&keywords=autobiography+of+a+yogi+snowballpublishing

These two are paperbacks which at first glance seem to be from Empire or Grange but are actually from Crystal Clarity Publishers – when you click to view the book click on the back page to see Crystal Clarity information:

• Empire Books Paper back Crystal Clarity Publishers - ISBN 978-1619491250 http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Yogi-Paramahansa-Yogananda/dp/1619491257/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342327264&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=autobiography+of+a+yogi+Zingoora+books
• Grange Books Paper back Crystal Clarity Publishers – ISBN 978-1840137194 http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Yogi-Paramahansa-Yogananda/dp/product-description/1840137193

Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your further posts, everyone. The discussion seems to have veered off track a little - let's try and deal with the issues in this dispute one at a time, starting with the question of which image to use in the infobox. Someone asked which Wikipedia guidelines govern the use of infobox images, so let's look at that first. The particular guideline that is most relevant here is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Choosing images, especially the section on choosing images for the lead. Here is a quote from it:

It is very common to use an appropriate representative image for the lead of an article, often as part of an infobox. The image helps to provide a visual association for the topic, and allows readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page. For most topics, the selection of a lead image is plainly obvious: a photograph or artistic work of a person, photographs of a city, or a cover of a book or album, to name a few.

From this, it would seem that a version of the book's cover would be most appropriate; however, this advice is quite general, and the guideline allows us some leeway in interpreting it. As well as this guideline, there is the non-free content criteria. The most relevant criteria there is number one, "no free equivalent": this basically says that we cannot use a copyrighted image in the article if there is a free image that could do the job just as well. This means that we must be very careful in determining which images are copyrighted and which aren't, as it would be pointless for us all to agree on an image only to find out that we can't include it due to this criteria.

So, from these, it would seem we need to come to a consensus about which image best represents the topic as a whole, and we also need to make sure that we don't get caught out by the "no free equivalent" rule. It seems that we're all in agreement that the current image is not the most representative of the topic, so that is a good start. Red Rose 13 doesn't seem to want to use the original 1946 cover that I linked to above, so let's see if we can agree about another image. Red Rose suggested using File:Paramahansa Yogananda.jpg; this would not be as representative of the topic as a book cover, but does have the advantage of being neutral, and appears not to be in copyright. Tat Sat, NestedVariable, what do you think about using this image? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking through the research of Red Rose, it seems there are two first editions that were originally published. One by Rider with a green cover and the second one is by the Philosophical Library with a blue cover. Although the book is in public domain we don't know if the covers are as well. As per the court proceedings that Tat Sat provided earlier it says that the pictures are still copyrighted by SRF. In addition, as pointed out by both Red Rose and Tat Sat, we need to ensure we are not show casing any particular edition at the expense of other editions and numerous publishers. Now the blue cover seemed to have been reused with a few minor tweaks by Crystal Clarity and the book is distributed quite a bit. Therefore, being what discussed so far, to me it's not a fair contender. The second image that you suggested Mr. Stradivarius, is indeed in public domain and satisfies 'no free equivalent' rule. --NestedVariable (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The photograph Paramahansa_Yogananda_Standard_Pose.jpg is the one I am suggesting. It is now in use on the Paramahansa Yogananda page. It is a higher resolution image and the same on the PY page. Magog actually found this free content picture for me. We had a discussion with Sitush about another image I used that apparently turned out to not be free content and Magog found this one to replace with. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

1. We are talking about the first edition of "Autobiography of a Yogi" - edition princeps - not about licensed editions. The "Rider" licensed edition NestedVariable and Red Rose mentioned was published on October 25, 1949, three years after the publication of the book. All first editions are called so because they are one and only.
2. As you can verify in the infringement action´s US Government Archive of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and at Wikisourse, "the litigation war between two rival churches (Self-Ralization Fellowship versus Ananda Church) concerns copyrights". Quoting: "We hold that SRF was not entitled to renew its copyrights in books authored by Yogananda" - meaning the books which copyrights were detained by Yogananda. Also the photographs NestedVariable mentions were published in SRF´s magazine: "The final category of works in which SRF claims valid copyrights are not works by Yogananda but rather photographs of Yogananda and another religious leader, taken by various third parties and published in SRF's magazine". And this issue was considered "triable issue". You don´t have to be a lawyer to know that if the book cover was protected, nobody could use it. However, there are many facsimile publications of this edition princeps which use its very cover. There is no doubt this book -- its cover, its content, its photographs and illustrations -- is in public domain.
3. SRF´s cover that presently illustrates the article is copyrighted by SRF. It does not use Yogananda´s black and white photo of the first edition´s cover, but a full color hyperrealistic painting of Yogananda,, which is also copyrighted by SRF, based on the original one, which is in public domain.
4. The picture Red Rose is suggesting to be replicated and used in the book article is curiously considered the "standard pose" by SRF -- not by anyone else -- and it is not a photograph but an hyperrealist black and white painting of Yogananda, copyrighted by SRF and based on the original one. You just have to compare the original with SRF´s. The safer option is to use one of Yogananda´s pictures that appear in the first edition of the book, although all editions published by The Philosophical Library are in public domain -- if an article about a book should be illustrated with an image of its author, not of the book.
5. As everybody agrees, there are too many publications of the same book, so what makes the most sense to me is to use the original 1946 cover, not a picture of the author, because the article is about a book, not about its author. And Wikipedia already features an article about the author. Thank you. -- Tat Sat (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• All right, so it seems that Red Rose and NestedVariable would prefer not to use the 1946 cover image, and that Tat Sat would prefer not to use the portrait photo of Yogananda. So we have come to an impasse. However, all is not lost. Here is what I propose we do. First, we make sure of the copyright status of the 1946 cover (or maybe an alternative image that I found at http://www(dot)amazon(dot)com/dp/B004BHD9XS?tag=pulist-20 - remove the (dot)s) and of File:Paramahansa Yogananda.jpg. I know this has already been looked into, but there could still be issues depending on who took the photographs, whether they transferred their rights to the SRF, whether the photographs of the books themselves are under copyright, and so on. In my opinion, it would be best to carry on the conversation at the media copyright questions noticeboard until we find a consensus on what the copyright status of all of the images is. Then, after that, we hold a request for comments at Talk:Autobiography of a Yogi to get the opinion of as many uninvolved editors as possible. Once more people participate in the conversation, it should be easier to see what the wider Wikipedia community thinks is the best image to use. With this approach, some of you will end up being disappointed, but we will at least be able to make a definite decision. Would you all be willing to go through with this process, even if the result is that we don't use the image that you think is best? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am willing to go through with this proccess, of course. I think it is a great idea. And I will abide by a wider Wikipedia community decision about the best image to use. Wikipedia´s reputation for imparciality is flawless. However, I suggest that since there is a consensus that SRF´s cover is not an option, it should be removed by a Wikipedia editor as soon as possible from the infobox (leaving it without a cover image in the meanwhile) and the information about the Publisher of the first edition should also be corrected to "The Philosophical Library - New York". Thank you. -- Tat Sat (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Before we do that I need to add that Megog who is a Wikipedia photograph copyright expert actually found this free photograph for me so we are rest assured we are safe with it. We already went through a copyright process in regards to this pose we are talking about. It does not come from SRF as TatSat claims but is a free photograph. I don't think we should be making decisions on heresay or opinions here. Also, where are the guidelines for a Neutral page one that does not show favoritism to any one viewpoint. I think we need to review this before we proceed. In my opinion, once this photograph is decided it seems that Tat Sat has indicated to be doing the same thing with other issues, is that correct TatSat? If this is true, then I think we need help with creating a page of Neutrality and Wiki guidelines with perhaps adding an editor with an expertise in this subject would be helpful to resolve these issues. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Along with you Mr. Stradivarius, and another editor with specific expertise on creating a neutral Wikipedia page and when Sitush again joins this discussion, perhaps we can all come to a resolution - that is my hope hereRed Rose 13 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that as more neutral editors are involved, more we can ensure we are following npov stance. However, I am personally not a big fan of the voting phase to come to a consensus as from my prior experience it always turns ugly. Especially with situation like this one, we might expect unnecessary spamming. Although we will have to rely on that if everything fails. Regarding usage of the image, I would like to clarify my position a little bit.

1. This article is about the book, not just the first edition. Hence, there is no particular need to use the first edition cover. Also, as per the guidelines provided by Mr. Stradivarius, wikipedia does not suggest only the first edition cover or any cover of the book at all. There are indeed articles of books on wikipedia that contain just the picture of the author. To add to this complication, Crystal Clarity currently publishes a commercially distributed version, which has almost identical cover.
2. Although the philosophical library published the first three editions, numerous publishers later reprinted the first edition. Even Rider while the author being alive published the first edition. As per one of the links provided by Red Rose earlier, SRF purchased the rights to publish from the Philosophical Library and claimed released editions with changes that the author wished to be incorporated.
3. The suggested picture: File:Paramahansa Yogananda.jpg seem to appear on the cover of almost all editions. It is also verified to be in public domain. Therefore, this picture is a fair representation of the book, not any particular edition. NestedVariable (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mr Stradivarius, I have noticed when there is a dispute and a compromise needs to occur in order for a consensus, each person with an opposite stance can choose to take a step towards reconciliation and harmony. WP:Compromise I have taken that step by compromising and agreeing to the removal of the SRF book cover as long as no other book cover is put in its place. I am reaching out for the sake of harmony even though SRF publishes the only edition with all of Yogananda’s requested edits. [37] None of the book covers can represent all 13+ other publishers on this page. If TatSat’s chooses to consider compromising. Here are a couple of ideas:

1. Placing Yogananda’s photograph in place of the SRF book cover
2. Eliminate all photographs from info box
3. Eliminate the info box completely

In reality to have any book cover from any of the 13 publishers would show prejudice towards the other twelve. A reminder here that it is most probable that many more publishers will be doing the same thing and print the 1946 version in the future and we need to consider that as well. There are only two publishers from the list above that have copied the 1946 edition cover - Crystal Clarity & Jaico. If we can compromise and step towards reconciliation in this issue, we should be able to do it for the rest of the page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• A side note that relates to our discussion. The photograph of Yogananda that Megog found for me to use has been deleted in Commons by someone. Is that vandalism or what do you call it? I have tried to upload the file again but seem to be blocked from uploading a photo. Is that vandalism? I have the photograph on my computer any suggestions? Also it looks like a new editor http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shubha&action=edit&redlink=1 has uploaded a completely different photograph. Follow-up I found the admin who deleted it in error and I have notified him of his error. Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

  Could you tell us the filename of the image you mean? If you mean this image then it hasn't been deleted yet. All you need to do is to add the author and the source of the photograph. I.e. say which version of the book you got it from, and say who took the photograph if you know. And no, that's not vandalism, that is the Wikimedia Foundation protecting itself from copyright infringement lawsuits. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for letting me know - I will need to ask Megog to help me with this because he is the one who found itRed Rose 13 (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I found the source information needed and didn't realize that it was lacking the information - thanks again for your help.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Also, another thing that I noticed is that on the Autobiography of a Yogi page in Portuguese where TatSat also edits, is a standard or common pose photograph of Yogananda instead of a bookcover. It looks fine to me.[38]Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that this has appeared at WP:ANI in my absence, and I see that a lot of editors have been using the word "vandalism". I think you should all take a moment to reread WP:VANDALISM - you will find out that the definition is very strict. Just because someone does something you don't agree with does not mean that it is vandalism. Saying that other editors have performed vandalism, if they have not, is an example of a personal attack - "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" - and is only going to make it harder to resolve this dispute. Please think again about my advice on personal attacks above - we want to do things that will help resolve this dispute, not things which escalate it. Regarding the infobox image, I have left a post at the media copyright questions board. Let's wait for an answer to that, and then set up a request for comments. We can deal with the other content issues after that. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius - please can you comment on the proposal of not using an image or to use the photograph of Yogananda? You, Sitush & Nested Variable have brought up that in Wikipedia that it is not necessary to even have an image of the book or an image or a user box. This is what I am proposing here. What are your thoughts on this subject? Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius, I am glad to know you are consulting the media copyright questions board. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, been away for a few days. My position remains that if an infobox exists at all (most articles do not have them, IIRC) then the best option is to use an image of the 1946 1st edition/1st printing cover produced by the Philosophical Library, provided that we have an appropriate license to do so. It is definitive, it is original and it avoids all the back-and-forth about "my version is more representative/better than your version". That others later produced versions or even facsimiles of the PL first edition is a complete red herring. In the event that - as had been suggested at one point - that cover had no meaningful detail then we could use the frontispiece/title page for that edition. It really does not need a RfC: the problem here is quite clearly one related to emotions running in overdrive due to inexperience (hence, attacks, forum shopping, allegations of vandalism etc) + the usual chaos found in Indic-related discussions. There is no need to prolong the agony nor to inflict it on the wider community with a RfC.I can see consensus forming here if only we can get clarification of the image use issues.

Having a photo of the author is not a great idea, by the way: the article is about the book, not the person, and there is already enough hagiographic/promotional stuff lying around in related articles without unnecessarily adding still more here. I'll likely be pruning/merging some of those things in due course. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a procedural note: someone above apologises that they "cannot give my consensus" to use of the PL cover. Although it is nice when everyone agrees on an outcome, WP:CONSENSUS does not require it. While this process is not a vote, it also does not require the agreement of all involved parties. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Sitush as per we don't need consensus of everyone as long as we are following wikipedia guidelines. Regarding using a book cover, I already mentioned my views. Because it's a situation where many organizations are involved in printing/reprinting/publishing, using any cover might be misleading. Also, none of the covers might be in public domain anyways for us to use. NestedVariable (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Sitush, good to have you back. :) I agree that we could resolve this without an RfC, and if we do have one we certainly shouldn't keep it open for the full 30 days; in fact, I was thinking that it should probably be less than one week. My main reason for suggesting an RfC is that it would be a fair way of dealing with the situation now that it seems clear that the parties don't agree on an image.

To newer users, an experienced editor or two claiming that we must do X because Wikipedia policies and guidelines say "Y" and "Z" may not seem to have more validity than arguments based on, e.g. WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:ILIKEIT. However, if many experienced editors agree on an interpretation of the policies/guidelines, then newer users are a lot more likely to realise that the process is fair, and because of this are more likely to accept the outcome. Therefore we should see less recriminations and edit-warring if we have an RfC than we would see if we didn't. (As you might guess, I'm a fan of the essay Wikipedia:Process is important.)

Of course, we don't have to do this through an RfC; we could ask the other volunteers on the noticeboard to give their opinion, for example, and I'm open to other suggestions. I don't think we should be worried too much about "inflicting" this dispute on other editors, though. If we set out a clear, neutral summary of the issues, I'm sure it wouldn't be too much trouble for a few uninvolved editors to comment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello – A couple of points to help create a neutral summary:

• There are two versions of the Autobiography offered today. One is the 1946 version that is published by 13 publishers with 12 different covers (notice the links above) and more coming in the future. The second one is the complete version that includes edits requested by the author after the 1946 version up to the present. [39] The following statement can be found in the Publisher’s Note in the 1956 seventh edition. “In late 1953 Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF) bought from the New York publisher all rights in Autobiography of a Yogi.”(I have the PDF if it is needed)

• The issue isn’t about “mine is better than yours” the issue is that the Autobiography page should represent all publishers in an impartial way so that the reader has an impartial view. Also, placing the 1946 version cover[40] on this page favors the publisher Crystal Clarity that have copied the original version and is actively selling it. Here is a small partial list of Ananda websites involved in promotions and or selling directly: Innerpath, Crystal Clarity Publishers, Expanding Light, Ananda Worldwide and Swami Kriyananda on Yoga as a Spiritual Path. On this Amazon page the first book is from Crystal Clarity, the third book is from Self-Realization Fellowship and the fourth book is from Crystal Clarity even though it says Empire (click on book and then on the copyright page) [41]

• To create a neutral NPV page, here are a couple of options:

1. Remove the SRF cover
2. Use the historical photograph taking from the 1st version Autobiography – not the full cover
3. Use the frontispiece/title page of original edition -as Sitush pointed as a possibility
4. Use no photograph
5. Use no Info Box

Posting this in hopes of coming to a common ground and agreement by all parties.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't clarify a thing and is indeed mostly just repeating what you have already said. And where it is not, it muddies the waters. Who cares about the number of current sellers and/or publishers in this context? The issue is not that the article "should represent all publishers" nor about who sells it now. The article is about the book, and we adopt the first edition process quite frequently. It came as no surprise to me that Mr Stradivarius, as an experienced contributor, saw the sense in that.

Removing the cover defeats the object (and why do you only offer that suggestion for the SRF book?). Similarly, using just a portrait photo defeats the object (and just as well he isn't Mohamed, I guess). You have significantly distorted my reason for suggesting use of the frontispiece, which was intended to apply if the cover is bland (and I have no idea if the frontispieces vary in design or not, so we could be back where we started).

I am increasingly of the opinion that there is indeed an undercurrent of WP:COI here involving the various sects. However, since the author does not feature in the current list of the Philosophical Library, that first edition cover should address present-day commercial concerns. PL also has the appearance of being the only remotely mainstream publisher: the others all seems to be offbeat nutcases in varying degrees. That they feature on Amazon means nothing: so too do cranks such as David Irving, the Holocaust-denying "historian". - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I was stepping out in good faith in an attempt to suggest key points to be added to the neutral summary as Mr. Stradivarius mentioned and I assumed someone was writing. I apologize if my post sounded otherwise. My intention was to layout all the npov (in my opinion) options that already has been mentioned and open to us at this moment. I am definitely open to following whatever decision suits Wikipedia guidelines and come to a consensus with other community members. Thank you. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've brought the copyright matter up at the copyright board on Commons, as my post at the media copyright questions board has gone five days without a reply. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

16:10

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Indrek on 12:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC).

• 16:10 (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 dispute is over a part of a sentence, shown in bold in the quote below (word-wrapped and refs removed for legibility, original revision is here):

While the lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices,
has been seen as a positive, many consider 16:9 to be inferior to 16:10 for productivity-oriented tasks (such as Internet browsing,
editing documents or spreadsheets, and using professional design and engineering applications), which benefit more from vertical resolution,
rather than horizontal.

Urklistre's objections to this statement have, over the course of the dispute, been the following:

• That it's subjective [42] and misrepresents an opinion as fact [43]. I accepted that the statement may have been unintentionally ambiguous and misleading [44] and amended it accordingly [45]. Urklistre did not find this acceptable, claiming that, quote, "Just because some people consider that doesnt mean that it is considered" [46], and insisting on reverting to his version of the statement [47].
• That the sources aren't good because they discuss individual resolutions, rather than aspect ratios [48], which I refuted by quoting the relevant parts of the sources [49].
• That the statement contradicts an article on Lifehacker that discusses the effects of high resolutions and single vs. multiple displays on productivity [50], and this article by ProductivePractised.com which focuses more on the number and sizes of displays [51], which I believe have nothing to do with the subject at hand (the industry's move from 16:10 to 16:9 and the response to that move).
• That the statement contradicts hypothetical opposing opinions [52], which he never provided reliable sources for.
• That there's no room in Wikipedia for opinions [53] (which is obviously false).
• That the edit is overall a step backwards from the "more objective and simply higher quality" pre-dispute revision [54] (which contained little more than a verbatim copy&paste from a source, and had no representation whatsoever of opposing opinions).

I have made a number of suggestions to reword the statement in a way that addresses any legitimate concerns, but Urklistre either outright rejected or simply ignored all of them, including one version that was in response to his own sole attempt at compromise [55] [56].

Further, Urklistre was unwilling to refrain from editing or removing the disputed content until the dispute is resolved, immediately reverting back to his preferred revision after the temporary protection expired [57] and insisting that, quote, "Everything that there is no consensus about should be removed" [58]. He also implied ulterior motives [59] behind my recommendation (which was based on WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PREFER) to keep the article as it was when it was protected [60].

Some examples of Urklistre's conduct during the discussion:

• dismissing the sources I provided as "just opinions" [61], "[no] more valid than mine or yours" [62], "noob sources" [63], "noobs comments" [64], "not serious" [65], "neither relevant or significant" [66], "low quality blogs" [67] and containing "false statements" and "factual errors" [68], and the statement backed by those sources as "simply false" [69] and "a paradox" [70], without any supporting evidence or explanation
• accusing me of being biased [71] and deleting "research" [72], again without evidence or explanation
• aggressively telling me to "back off" [73]
• calling the whole discussion a "farse" (sic) [74]
• indicating intention to resume edit warring as soon as temporary protection is removed [75], directly below a comment from a moderator encouraging us to resolve the dispute through discussion, rather than reverting
• editing my comments without good reason or my permission [76] (a violation of WP:TPO), under the pretext of "equality", but with the apparent goal of disrupting my argument by removing emphasis from where I felt it was needed to accurately convey my argument
• lying about the status of the dispute [77]

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Indrek (talk · contribs)
• Urklistre (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=16:10}} --~~~~ 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?

Tried to discuss the issue on the talk page, filed an edit war / 3RR report, filed a request for a third opinion

• How do you think we can help?

By helping establish consensus on the following points:

• Reliability of the following sources (suggested by me):

• http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/1652880/time-ditch-awful-hd-1080p-widescreens
• http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2328932,00.asp
• http://vr-zone.com/articles/monitor-aspect-ratios--beyond-16-9-ipad-to-the-rescue-/13399.html
• http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_6.html
• http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1723060/gateways-displays-common-sense
• http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/golden-ratio.html

Top three are the ones I'd prefer to keep (per agreement with Urklistre to trim the number down to three [78]), all six are included for sake of completeness.

• Relevance and significance of the opinions provided by those sources (namely, that 16:10 displays provide more vertical space than 16:9 displays and are therefore better suited for productivity-oriented tasks) in the section of the article that discusses the move from 16:10 to 16:9.
• Whether or not the following wording (my last suggested version) accurately and without bias represents and summarises those opinions:

"some believe productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, to benefit more from vertical resolution rather than horizontal and thus consider 16:10 displays to be more suitable for such tasks."

• Reliability and relevance of the following sources (suggested by Urklistre):

• http://lifehacker.com/5616859/is-the-multiple+monitor-productivity-boost-a-myth
• http://productivepractices.com/content/monitors_and_productivity.php

Note: Urklistre has changed his argument a number of times over the course of the dispute, and I'm not entirely sure that he hasn't changed his mind about the above sources as well. Nevertheless, I thought it only fair to include them here.

• Pending the outcome of the previous point, the best way to incorporate the information from Urklistre's sources so that the views provided in them, as well as the views provided by the sources I suggested (also pending their approval as reliable and relevant), are both represented fairly and proportionately (per WP:NPOV).

Indrek (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

16:10 discussion

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

Template:Cue Hello; I am a regular volunteer here on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Thank you, Indrek, for your detailed introduction of the dispute. Before we begin working through your points, I would like to remind all of the involved disputants that no binding decisions are issued here. DRN is merely an informal process in which uninvolved editors (like myself) attempt to help disputants establish consensus. DRN is for content issues, not conduct. If you have conduct issues with another user that need to be addressed, the proper place for that is WP:WQA, but I think we can probably avoid that if we all avoid getting into personalities. Now, that being said - I would like to take some time and look at a few of the sources you provided above. I probably won't comment on the reliability of the sources yet; before I do anything, I would like to hear Urklistre's response to the above points. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Just a quick note, re the conduct issues I listed - I was simply going by the guidelines here that state that, quote, "when conduct is a factor in a dispute over article content, that's OK", and decided to err on the side of being thorough. I agree with you completely, though, that if we can resolve the dispute amicably and without escalating conduct issues to dedicated forums, that would be ideal. Indrek (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This thread has been one week without discussion. The dispute resolution process requires all parties of a dispute to participate. If one side is unwilling to discuss the problem here, this dispute may need to be filed at other venues (in my opinion, this dispute could probably be settled by a third opinion). If no further discussion occurs within 24 hours, this thread will be closed. Sleddog116 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've already tried requesting a third opinion. None was given. Unless you're positive that a second try will be more successful (or are willing to provide a third opinion yourself), I'd rather explore alternative options (WP:RSN+WP:NPOVN? WP:RFC?). Or can I assume that Urklistre's apparent unwillingness to discuss the issue means he has lost interest and backed out of the dispute? I guess not, but doesn't hurt to check. Indrek (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, looking at recent edit history of WP:3O, it appears requests are being handled much faster now than when I first tried. I'll give it another shot, then, unless of course this thread becomes active in the next ~24 hours. I've also posted another notice on Urklistre's talk page, in case he missed the first one. Indrek (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Robert Stinnett

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Bobjuch on 14:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC).

• Robert Stinnett (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 found this article randomly and noticed that there was criticism of one of his books that was sourced only from a user review on Amazon.com. I removed that as it doesn't belong in a biography in the first place, is potentially libelous, and belongs in the article "Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate". User TREKphiler apparently has strong feelings about this author and subject. He reverted my deletion twice. See the talk page.

I just noticed that user Penguin 236 reverted my deletion saying I had not explained why. I did explain in a comment on tha page saying to see the talk page and in detail on the talk page.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Bobjuch (talk · contribs)
• Trekphiler (talk · contribs)
• Penguin 236 (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=Robert Stinnett}} --~~~~ 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?

Explained in detail why I deleted the disputed content on its talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

Decide whether or not that content is appropriate.

Bob (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Robert Stinnett discussion

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

♠The ultimate source isn't Amazon. It's a PDF. The Amazon link has the PDF, since the site I found it on is one I can't find again. And I've explained that twice already.

♠As for the actual content, it's about the book, yes. Stinnett wrote it. It's what he's best known for. Therefore, mentioning at least some of the issues in it is necessary. Deletion of that is effectively censorship in favor of Stinnett, & not NPOV.

♠My "strong feelings" have nothing to do with Stinnett. They have to do with the fiction he's presenting as fact. He deserves to have it revealled as fiction. Deleting mention of it is also POV. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Trekphiler. The pdf came from (or has been copied to) here. This simply isn't a reliable source as it hasn't been published anywhere. Have you considered tracking down any of the published reviews and using those instead?

• Zimmerman, John. "Pearl Harbor revisionism: Robert Stinnett's day of deceit". Intelligence and National Security, 17:2, 2002, pages 127-146, DOI: 10.1080/02684520412331306520.
• Kahn, David. "Did Roosevelt Know?" New York Review of Books, Nov. 2 2000. (article, letters)
• Doenecke, Justus D. Review in the Journal of American History, 89:1, 2002. pp281-282. doi: 10.2307/2700894
• Jacobsen, Philip H. "A Cryptologic Veteran's Analysis of "Day of Deceit"", Cryptologia, 24:2, 2000, pages 110-118, DOI:10.1080/01611190008984235
• Jacobsen, Philip H. "Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor? No! The Story of the US Navy's Efforts on JN-25B", Cryptologia, 27:3, 2003, pages 193-205, DOI:10.1080/0161-110391891865
• Jacobsen, Philip H. "Radio Silence of the Pearl Harbor Strike Force Confirmed Again: The Saga of Secret Message Serial (SMS) Numbers", Cryptologia, 31:3, 2007, pages 223-232, DOI:10.1080/01611190701313940

If you don't have access to these you might want to ask at WP:RX. Good luck! GaramondLethe 10:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if reliable sources that contradict Stinnett are cited, this biography is not the place for a fight over the book. There is a huge article, "Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate", that gets into much more background and detail. That is the place, not in a biography. I put a link to that article in the biography. Bob (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Stinnett biography should include information about how Stinnett's career was affected by the various reactions to his book, including whether he responded to the pointed criticism. The many details of the criticism should be elucidated at the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate article. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 23, 2012 at 17:02 (UTC) Reason: Appears to be stale or resolved. —

I'm going to revert to my deletion unless there're further comments in the next few days. Bob (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

École nationale de l'aviation civile

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by 80.13.85.217 on 08:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC).

• École nationale de l'aviation civile (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?

McSly and Racconish are for this version : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=École_nationale_de_l%27aviation_civile&diff=502689914&oldid=502688867. I am more for this one : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=École_nationale_de_l%27aviation_civile&diff=502688867&oldid=502687945. The goal is to make this article a good article.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Racconish (talk · contribs)
• 80.13.85.217 (talk · contribs)
• McSly (talk · contribs)

We have started a discussion on the talk page of the 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=École nationale de l'aviation civile}} --~~~~ 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

• How do you think we can help?

By giving other opinions on which version is the best, by comparing with good articles on the same subject.

80.13.85.217 (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

École nationale de l'aviation civile discussion

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

Hi! I'm a volunteer here at the DRN, and I'll be attempting to assist you all in this dispute. My first question is simply, have you considered a Wikipedia:3 request? Theopolisme _{TALK 14:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)}

Hi. Thanks for your reply. That's exactly why I decide to go at the DRN. I hope it will help us. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion requested.— Racconish^Tk 18:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

To other editors, see also : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AÉcole_nationale_de_l%27aviation_civile&diff=502841727&oldid=502839435. I am very surprised, it is really against a calm, concise, and on topic discussion. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be that you want to go to Peer Review, because that is the way to get a Good Article. Do you want me to give advice at this stage? I'm a French speaker. C'est à dire que je sais traduire de français en anglais, pas dans le sens inverse. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course. All advice are useful. And also, what is Peer Review? Thanks a lot. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:PR. I will come over to the article talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 Clerk note: 80.13.85.217 opened a thread at AN/I, linked here. Theopolisme _{TALK 19:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)}

Thanks to both of you. To Itsmejudith, I will ask for a review. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

To Itsmejudith. I cannot start the page Wikipedia:Peer review/École nationale de l'aviation civile/archive1 because I don't have an account. It is written when I choose the topic "Social sciences and society" on ENAC's talk page. Please may I request your help? For my justifications, I would like to say that this is following the current discussion and because I think the article is not far from a good article. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

See here on suspicion of this - now blocked - contributor gaming the system. In any case, a third opinion on the dispute regarding ENAC will be welcome.— Racconish^Tk 21:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Disputes aside, the main proble with the article is grammar. The French historic present should become English simple past. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Just beware this IP is was suspected of gaming the system by requesting registered users to endorse his POV pushing.— Racconish^Tk 21:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

3rd opinion given. Article fixed. I think the case may be closed at this point.— Racconish^Tk 17:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 23, 2012 at 17:05 (UTC) Reason: Appears to be stale or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell

– New discussion.

Filed by CartoonDiablo on 19:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC).

• Thomas Sowell (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 editors are trying to remove a Media Matters source (diff) based on their POV and are trying to justify it on WP:Undue and consensus. The reasoning fails since it's minimally used once in the entire article so it can't possibly be considered Undue unless it also happens to not be an RS.

To give some background, we had a dispute resolution discussion about this same source earlier to which it was found that Media Matters is a reliable source and yet editors are trying to remove it on baseless grounds. (diff).

It's worth noting that removal of MMfA based on POV is not uncommon in the article (diff, diff, diff, diff).

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs)
• Arzel (talk · contribs)
• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs)
• Lionelt (talk · contribs)
• Hugetim (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=Thomas Sowell}} --~~~~ 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 it in talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

By determining:

1. If using the MMfA source constitutes Undue
2. If the editors are trying to exclude it based on POV and baselessly trying to use policies to justify it.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell discussion

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

This is the third time he's tried this, and he's already got two arbitration requests that have been declined. There is no consensus to add the information whatsoever, and CartoonDiablo is simply trying to use dispute resolution as a bludgeon to eventually get editors he disagrees with sanctioned. CartoonDiablo disengages from the talk page when he doesn't like the questions being asked, and does nothing to even demonstrate that the information he wants to put in is viable, never mind build any consensus. Compromise was attempted and didn't work. Enough is enough. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So I was disengaged (diff, diff)? And there is no comprimise between removing something for POV and not removing it; what you Arzel, Lionelt and others are doing is removing material because it doesn't fit your POV and are trying to find any baseless reason possible to do so (and might I add violating WP:NPOV). The fact is consensus doesn't give editors the license to violate Wikipedia policies. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You were disengaged for weeks, yes. As noted in the talk page. You've consistently violated policies in re-adding the information without discussion or consensus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Media Matters is a reliable source for facts and certainly a reliable source for its own opinions. However, if we want to say Sowell's comment "has been criticized by liberal groups such as...", we need a source that makes that observation. The DNC btw is not a "liberal group". This really belongs in the Thomas Sowell#Columns section, where we can combine praise and criticism. We need to avoid long criticism sections filled with anecdotes in all BLP articles. TFD (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

How is MMfA reliable, as it's a self-published, highly-partisan group? Furthermore, even if it is reliable, there is no consensus to include the criticisms by them and them alone, so why are we even having this discussion? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

See the for example reliable sources noticeboard "Media matters (25th time asked)".[79] You might also want to read the first 24 discussion threads and any ones that have been brought up since. TFD (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That link does not say that MMfA is a RS for factual information. One banned editor makes the stupid artgument that MMfA is equatable to FNC, it is not. MMfA, by it's own admission is currently dedicated to the destruction of FNC, there is simply no way in hell that such a source could ever be considered a reliable source for factual information. Arzel (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I forgot to include Hugetim but with his input there is no consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No consensus to add, yes. You've been trying to add it for a year and a half and have gotten pushback from countless editors. You still haven't quite gotten the hint. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

When did this dispute start and what was the state of the article then? If a third party affirmed it's inclusion, wouldn't you need consensus to remove the information, not to add it? Thing is that "countless" POV edits don't override policy, which is what we should be talking about. Hugetim ^(talk) 20:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears that CD first started trying to add MMfA in January 2011[80], and was reverted within a couple days. This has been a slow burn since then, with a couple flareups, and you actually appear to be the first person in 18 months to back him up on this at the article. Multiple users have argued against its inclusion, and CD, to this point, refuses to justify its inclusion per policy. I have asked him a series of questions regarding the content at the talk page, and he refuses to answer them. He's fighting a lonely battle and is actively forum-shopping to get the result he wants at this stage. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's also worth noting that Thargor has done disruptive edits that violate reverting due to no consensus (diff, diff) which hold no validity outside of being POV edits. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is "worth noting" at all. The purpose of this noticeboard is not to help resolve disputes about the behavior of editors. There are other noticeboards for that. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's done in the context of whether or not these are POV edits done with baseless justifications. As far as I can tell it's the only explanation for that as all. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of context, it is not appropriate to use this noticeboard to label Thargor Orlando's edits as "disruptive" in order to make your case in a content dispute. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is just an attempt to try and get users he disagrees with sanctioned. This is not an honest attempt to resolve the dispute, but a means to an end. We only need to assume good faith until there's evidence to the contrary, and when a user comes into a talk page and says "it will result in sanctions"[81] if we don't bend to his will, well... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thargor Orlando (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 July 2012

The MMfA website is a valid source for the opinions of MMfA. TFD (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so. That doesn't make them a valid, noteworthy, or reliable source for criticism of anyone in particular. Especially when the consensus is overwhelmingly against using it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The point of taking issues to this board is to get the views of experienced editors. That you and a few other editors who do not understand policies have formed a "consensus" is of no interest to me. And as explained, editors like you have challenged MMfA countless times and have failed to persuade anyone. TFD (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That you assume I do not understand policies has not been proven even a little bit. Even if MMfA is a worthwhile source to use - something that has not been established, mind you - that does not mean we have the consensus to use it here. This is not a discussion in good faith, regardless, as CartoonDiablo believes DR to be about building a case for sanctions against editors, not to resolve a dispute. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

MMfA has been declared a "valid, noteworthy, or reliable source" 25 times now. The issue at hand is whether or not the source constitutes Undue weight or whether the editors are simply using POV exclusion. As of yet, none of the editors have even tried to justify why it would be considered undue weight. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're seeing any consensus of any kind for your point of view there. It's undue weight because it's the bulk of criticism coming from one unreliable, hyper-partisan, self-published group. You lack the consensus to add it, nor have you justified why criticism from MMfA is noteworthy for inclusion in this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion but MMfA has been proven to be a reliable source 25 times now, unless you have another argument for why its undue then there is no validity to the claim of undue weight. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's hyperbole, actually, but there doesn't actually seem to be consensus there that it's reliable. And you still haven't shown the consensus for using it at the Sowell article, either. Or why it's noteworthy enough for inclusion. You avoid those questions constantly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised this is even an issue, quite frankly. The use of Media Matters for America as a reference is perfectly acceptable when used as an attributed primary source. Moreover, I think in this case the opinion of the organization is valid and useful, and doesn't fall foul of WP:NPOV. Sowell's views are very much outside the mainstream, and MMfA offers a useful critique to draw from. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't calling Sowell's views "outside the mainstream" POV in itself? Furthermore, if we can note the criticism without using poor or blatantly partisan sources, shouldn't we? Because we can on one of the MMfA sections CD keeps re-adding. Furthermore, if only MMfA is criticizing something, is it worth noting even if the consensus at the page is that it's not? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No it is not POV to call Sowell's views outside the mainstream, since NPOV requires us to distinguish between mainstream and non-mainstream opinion. TFD (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And how is Sowell outside the mainstream? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. And MMfA isn't "poor" or "blatantly partisan". All it basically does is report on right-wing media. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's the definition of blatantly partisan! That's literally partisanship! Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sowell's writings have been ignored in the academic community - he is not even mentioned in any of the economics textbooks I have seen. If his views reflected the mainstream then there would be no need for a Tea Party, etc., because the main parties would already embrace these ideas. The comparison with MMfA is wrong btw, the opinions of a writer and the factual nature of his writing are mutually exclusive. TFD (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what being "ignored" by the academic community has to do with much, but I'm unaware of him offering anything novel that would be published in such a way, either. You've not actually mentioned anything non-mainstream about his ideas, but I agree - the comparison with MMfA isn't the issue here, it's whether MMfA is a good source for the controversies in the Sowell article. To bring it back around, there are two controversies in the article - one that is noted by multiple third party non-self-published neutral sources, one that is only sourced by MMfA. We don't need the MMfA citation for the first controversy, and there's no disagreement that the controversy is worth noting. The question, then, is why do we need a controversy noted only by MMfA at all? What value is it? Why is it noteworthy simply because a hyper-partisan, self-published group notes it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

MMfA is not the only source for the controversy, it's also cited by the DNC as well as well as Politico and the Washington Monthly. And even if MMfA was the only citation then it be warranted by its virtue as a reliable source. Again the only issue for whether it's undue weight (which is what this dispute resolution is about) would be if MMfA wasn't a reliable source. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Last things first, the dispute is about MMfA as a source period. That you're complaining about some of the arguments against using MMfA doesn't change the dispute. As for the use of MMfA, there are two controversies listed: the Hitler comparison, which is sourced by plenty of neutral sources, and the race card comparison, sourced at the time of this dispute only by MMfA, but now also by PFAW, another hyper-partisan poor source. There's no question from anyone that the Hitler thing can and should stay - it's clearly noteworthy and can be sourced properly. The questions are: 1) why do we need MMfA for the Hitler comparison if we have neutral, reliable sources for it, and 2) why do we need the second criticism at all if only MMfA and extreme partisan groups notice it? It's not noteworthy enough, and it's not sourced well enough for inclusion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not you see it as a reliable source doesn't change the fact that it is and has been held as such for a long time; this also answers (2), because it is reliable the second criticism is warranted. If your only argument for undue weight is that it's not a reliable source then this discussion could have been over two years ago. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with CartoonDiablo on this. It's not a question of "why do we need MMfA" so much as MMfA is okay so we can use it. Thargor is suggesting MMfA be discarded as a source in preference to others because Thargor doesn't like MMfA. I'm sorry, but that just isn't a good enough reason to discard a notable reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm still trying to see where it's been held in any way shape or form. This "25th time" (which seems to be hyperbole) certainly doesn't show an consensus, and I'm suggesting MMfA not be used because there's no consensus for its use at the article and it's a poor source to use for unnoteworthy criticisms. Where is this consensus that it's a reliable source and that their criticisms are automatically noteworthy? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(out) Thargor Orlando, your argument makes no sense. You say we should not mention comments by MMfA, which editors have agreed 25+ times is a reliable source, yet you do not complain about mentioning comments of the DNC, which is not a reliable source. You have turned the discussion into something irrelevant. TFD (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

We're not using the DNC, we're using independent, reliable, neutral media to discuss what the DNC is saying. Their criticism is noteworthy. No one, to this point, has explained why MMfA's is worthy of note, nor have they shown the consensus that MMfA is okay - it certainly isn't clear at the page initially linked, and if "25 times" is not hyperbole, that it's a question so often should be a massive red flag that it's not actually a good source. Even if we assume MMfA is a good source, that doesn't answer why their criticisms are automatically noteworthy or demonstrate consensus to use them on this page and in this context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

MMfA is an often-quoted mainstream media source that has clearly won the approval of Wikipedia in terms of its reliability as a source. You don't want to see it used as a source because you perceive it has a "liberal bias". Well that's just too bad, Thargor. There's a clear consensus here that MMfA is fine as a source, and I suggest we can "port" this consensus over to Talk:Thomas Sewell where Arzel is busy carrying your torch. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice people are continuing to avoid the salient questions. Where has it "clearly won approval?" It's not that it has a "liberal bias," MSNBC and the Guardian have a liberal bias and they're fine - it's that they're a blatantly partisan unreliable source who's simple act of criticism is not nearly enough to assume that it's worthy of inclusion. Where is this consensus you speak of? Simply repeating it time and time again doesn't make it true. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? More people agree with CartoonDiablo's position in this thread than yours, and that position is backed-up by previous discussions about the quality of MMfA as a reliable source. Ergo, consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So his forum shopping worked, in other words. Can you stop avoiding the questions and answer them as to why you agree with CartoonDiablo, since he appears to be incapable of answering those questions himself? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I already said why I agree. I certainly think the opinion of MMfA on comments made by Sewell is at least as relevant as the opinion of Louie "more guns would've stopped the shooter in Aurora" Gohmert, who is clearly from the extreme right on the POV scale. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so MMfA, a hard-left partisan organization is "at least as relevant" a sitting Congressman speaking on the house floor? This is really your comparison? That's where you go with this instead of answering the questions posed? If you think you've answered them, show me where. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

MMfA is not a "hard-left partisan organization", and Louie Gohmert is definitely a hard-right partisan individual. You are letting your personal point of view affect your judgement in this matter. I can understand now why a frustrated CartoonDiablo brought the dispute to this noticeboard! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

MMfA is not a hard-left partisan organization? Per their own website, they describe themselves as "progressive," and they aim to deal with what they believe is "conservative misinformation." What part of that is not hard-left or partisan? The NYT calls it a "highly partisan research organization"[82], so it's fairly clear on an objective level. It's not a personal point of view thing - if someone was trying to add NewsBusters to an article about, say, Keith Olbermann, I'd have the same position, as they're a hard-right partisan organization of self-published people. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Progressive" isn't "hard left". Learn: Progressivism in the United States. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Progressives are the far left of the Democratic party and any source that has a dedicated objective of destroying conservative figures (as does MMfA) is not a reliable source, end of story. There is simply no way to logically argue that MMfA and their dedicated objective of destruction of conservative figures and FNC can be considered to be a reliable source for anything except their own opinion, especially within BLP articles. Now if an event recieves considerable coverage by actual reliable sources one could argue that you could pile on the MMfA critcism as well. However, if MMfA is the only one doing the criticism then it is not that notable for sufficient weight concerns. Arzel (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well said. But if we can have a criticism without having MMfA sourced to it, why use MMfA? The MMfA-only criticism was rightly removed by one of the editors on the opposite side of this, so we're making progress, but I see no need to continue using MMfA for the Hitler thing when we have plenty of indisputably mainstream, credible, neutral sources to use instead. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no point in continuing to discuss this with either of you. You're so blinded by your right-wing ideology you are no longer open to reasonable arguments or discussion. It's clear you'll do anything or say anything to scrub the Sowell article of criticism (including resorting to edit warring) and I don't want to get mixed up in that sort of behavior. Enjoy your time in the echo chamber. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with criticism, as long as it's well-sourced. Your need to resort to personal attacks is duly noted, however. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

MMfA and consensus

Let's take a look at the supposed consensus here. While the search function is less than stellar, a search at the reliable sources noticeboard brings up a number of discussions that talk about MMfA specifically. They are as follows:

• Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters: This is from 2010, and is probably the most detailed discussion. Clearly, there are a lot of feelings and beliefs about MMfA (and other groups like it), and there was actually an end discussion/vote that doesn't show much in the way of consensus for including anything like MMfA. In fact, a strict vote count shows the plurality saying to "exclude." Clearly, there's no consensus on the matter here.
• Media Matters (25th time asked): Not really the 25th time by any real count, it appears to be hyperbole as I suspected, but this discussion notes a few things, such as how MMfA was removed from a Fox News controversy article at the time for a lot of the same reasons I've opposed its inclusion above. The discussion certainly shows a consensus at that time that MMfA is not self-published (a point of view I disagree with, but it's in black and white), but not much of any consensus about its use overall. No conclusion appears to have been reached the way the conclusion appears to be reached regarding its status as to whether it's self-published or not, for comparison.
• Media Matters Blogs: Begins with one editor asserting a consensus that doesn't exist from my previous link above, and the discussion goes on from there. A lot of derailing from one editor asserting consensus over and over (sound familiar?) but there doesn't appear to be consensus there either.
• Media Matters and News Hounds: A short one noting the similarities between the two groups. The discussion is short, and thus of limited value, but the weight of the arguments again doesn't appear to be showing any significant consensus in either direction.
• Reliability of Media Matters: From a few months ago, a four comment discussion that dissolved very quickly into attacks. Another unproven assertion of consensus, nothing much of value to add.
• MMFA - Media Matters for America: This is from 2008, and outside of the WorldNetDaily derailment (and WND is a terrible source), the weight of consensus from this, at least, would indicate MMfA not being a good source. That's why we're not cherry-picking our boards here, though.
• Media Matters yet again: A short one from 2010, with limited input and no real consensus to speak of.
• User-generated blog posts and an unattributed Media Matters post as criticism of a peer-reviewed journal article: From 2010, one complaint with one piece of input referring back to previous discussions and the supposed consensus that doesn't appear to exist.
• Media Matters for America: From 2010, no responses.
• Media Matters for America, Huffington Post, and Newshounds: From 2009, most of this gets delegated to HuffPo's status more than MMfA, but I don't see a MMfA consensus here, either.
• Do these sources qualify as reliable sources?: From 2011. MMfA barely discussed, "editorial decision" comes up a few times.

That's all the section headings specifically about MMfA. There are other mentions here and there, but few that actually discuss MMfA as a viable/nonviable source in more than a passing statement. One place I decided to check afterward when doing this was the Biography of Living People Noticeboard. Some relevant findings there:

• Mocking a BLP at Media Matters for America: From 2008. More about an issue with Stephen Colbert than MMfA, but there are examples here of people's distrust of MMfA on BLPs and some editorial decisions not to use them (such as at The Obama Nation at that time).
• John Gibson (political commentator): From 2010, this actually mirrors the Sowell dispute quite well in many ways. One editor makes a good point that a bunch of involved people talking does not necessarily create a sitewide consensus, but the lean on this discussion appears to significantly want to treat these sorts of blatantly partisan "watchdog"-type groups the same and exclude them.
• Carl Cameron: From 2009, this appears to have a significant problem with using MMfA based on their blatant partisanship, using examples of other partisan-type sources.
• Coatrack, or valid criticism: From 2009, at least gives the appearance of being careful with MMfA as it's a primary source for criticism.
• Use of sources such as mediamatters and newsbusters In bios: From 2008, derailed early as the person in question was a banned user's sock, but the discussion seems to be against partisan sources in criticism pages (with a lot of dislike of criticism pages period, to be fair).
• Pamela Geller: 2010, a comment saying that MMfA shouldn't be used went unchallenged.

That's all the stuff that deals with MMfA specifically, and while I don't think this demonstrates a consensus for MMfA and BLP, the arguments at least seem to lean against MMfA. One thing to note, however, is that many times people were referred to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. CartoonDiablo tried to get the change approved there first and got stonewalled, thus the continued forum shopping, but not much of anything useful beyond that.

So at this point, the issue of consensus seems to be in significant contention. That there specifically does not appear to be a consensus one way or the other certainly doesn't mean that it's been proven time and time again as asserted above. That there seems to be significant issue with its use in BLPs is definitely worthy of attention. One thing that does keep coming up is the use of editorial discretion, and the consensus at the talk page for Sowell, even with CartoonDiablo's forum shopping, definitely doesn't show consensus for including MMfA as a source and may actually show consensus against doing so at that page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The question isn't whether MMFA is RS, the question is whether MMFA passes WP:UNDUE in the Thomas Sowell article. We're certainly not going to include every RS that has dicsussed Sowell. We have to choose which RS sources to include and exclude. That is the purpose of the article talk page. And IMO MMFA represents such a tiny itty bitty position that is does not pass WP:UNDUE.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The question is both, really. If MMfA isn't a good source, it's certainly not going to pass undue, but people seem to think that because it's supposedly a good source, it obviously passes undue. The purpose of this is more to note the flaw in that argument. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No, whether MMfA is sometimes a reliable source is not part of this particular dispute. That's because no one denies that MMfA can be a reliable source for the views of MMfA. Rather, it seems like the argument you want to make (and which Lionelt is making) is that only the DNC's views on Sowell's column raising the specter of Nazism should be cited in the article - or that, whoever should be cited, it shouldn't be MMfA. (But I do appreciate your helpful summary of the history of Wikipedia RS debate over MMfA - and I agree with you that the "25 times" claim doesn't hold up.) Would you be willing to agree that whether MMfA is an RS is not the issue, at least in this particular case? I think that could help us move toward agreement. -Hugetim ^(talk) 06:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You're late to the dispute, you weren't originally part of it, so you may be confused as to what it's about - the reliability of MMfA is also in dispute in the context of this article. With that said, it's not the most relevant part since it appears CD is the only person still hung up on Rwanda, and I was the one who originally put the Nazism-without-MMfA compromise in the article.[83] I have no issue whatsoever with the Hitler controversy being there, as it's well-sourced by neutral, independent observers as well as criticized by noteworthy organizations that are not blatantly partisan (as opposed to political like the DNC, who would be expected to respond and would be appropriate to add). Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the DNC is literally the definition of a partisan organization, so I'm not sure where you are going with that distinction. Do you have any other ways to explain what it is about MMfA that should exclude its views from ever being cited in an article about a conservative figure? Could you also be more specific about why MMfA should not be considered a reliable source for the views of MMfA? (Or, let's set those questions aside and discuss whether MMfA's view is worth citing in this particular instance, and I'm beginning to think maybe not.) -Hugetim ^(talk) 21:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The DNC is a political organization, and a noteworthy one at that. My issue is not so much that MMfA is not reliable for its own views, as even the most unnoteworthy conspiracy theorist would be, but that MMfA noting something is not, in and of itself, noteworthy. The DNC noting something, however? That's a different story, especially in response to a criticism/complaint/smear on the President, and especially one handled by nonpartisan sources with (theoretically) no axes to grind. I actually think we're all in agreement on this basic point, CD excluded. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The irony of this discussion (and I do appreciate the research and history for it) is that it excludes the most specific and most recent one, the one that is about this dispute and has had explicitly it is reliable:

• Acceptible Use MMfA is clearly an organization with a political slant. However, that does not mean that their opinion cannot be quoted in a Wikipedia article. Political-based articles routinely cite sources which have a political stance (e.g., NRA, PETA, NAACP). There have been at least 25 reliable source discussions about MMfA, and the general conclusion of the RS forums is that the organization cannot be used as a source of news, but that their opinion can be cited. The text cited above makes it clear that MMfA is a liberal organization, and that the comment in question is their opinion. The actual article comparing Obama's actions to Hitler's is referenced in Investor's Business Daily, which is a reliable source of news, and the paragraph also gives the opinion of two people supporting Sowell's publication of the article, thus ensuring the commentary is NPOV. Based on this, inclusion of MMfA is acceptible. (emphasis added) Debbie W. 03:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the same reasoning I used for the Rwanda criticism. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I did miss that, thanks for highlighting it. As Debbie W is a banned sockpuppeter, as the discussion was not about reliable sources and/or NPOV (which would have had volunteers skilled and interested in those areas), and the uninvolved person who is not currently banned referred it to those places? I wouldn't hang your hat on it. Even if we threw it into the pile, it still doesn't show a consensus in either direction for your position. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Debbie W wasn't banned for making that decision so the consensus is valid, as far as I can tell blocks do not disqualify consensus in dispute resolution etc. as long as it wasn't related to that decision/consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, but she's no longer part of the process, and you *still* haven't shown where that consensus is after being asked countless times. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus proposal

1. MMfA is a reliable source for the views of MMfA, which are admittedly progressive.
2. MMfA's views are sometimes noteworthy enough to be included in an article and sometimes not.
3. An incident only covered by MMfA is not noteworthy enough to be included in a BLP article, but coverage by MMfA can contribute to an incident being considered noteworthy.
4. To determine whether MMfA's views on a given incident are sufficiently noteworthy to include/cite, we take into account whether MMfA was mentioned in other coverage of the incident in reliable sources, though this is not necessary if it is one of the best sources for an incident for some other reason.
5. There is currently not consensus about whether MMfA is generally a reliable source or a questionable source for facts. It is not a self-published source.

I hope that these, taken together, are a set of principles we can all agree on and take back to the Sowell talk page to apply to the specific incidents in question. What do you think? -Hugetim ^(talk) 05:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't outright agree with number 2 mainly because of number 5. I'm not entirely sure number 5 is entirely accurate, but for the sake of compromise I wouldn't make noise about it. I'd make it more concise with the following:

1. MMfA is a reliable source for the views of MMfA.
2. There is currently not consensus about whether MMfA is generally a reliable source or a questionable source for facts. It is not a self-published source.
3. An incident only covered by MMfA is not noteworthy enough to be included in a BLP article, but coverage by MMfA can contribute to an incident being considered noteworthy. This does not mean that we need to rely on MMfA citations to make the case.

3 and 4 are basically saying the same thing, and since the crux of the problem is using MMfA when we have better sources, I'm not sure why we'd even need to leave those windows open period. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything suggested by Hugetim, although the fifth point seems to only be the case because of two involved users. Everyone else seems perfectly happy with it. - 76.124.173.41 (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(Using my original numbering) I don't see how you can disagree with #2 if you agree with #1. MMfA is a notable organization (which is why it has its own article). Thus it is at least conceivable that its views would be noteworthy in the context of another topic (at least as its opinion if not as fact). It seems like you reject my #4 for the same reason. Can you elaborate? -Hugetim ^(talk) 17:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Being a notable organization does not mean that everything they do is worthy of note, or that simple virtue of being noteworthy makes one also worthy of mention. I again contrast with NewsBusters, or NewsMax or WorldNetDaily, none of which would be considered acceptable as sources even though they are noteworthy organizations. To open that can of worms means to allow a partisan echo chamber to repeat the same things to each other, thus making them noteworthy for inclusion? Better to limit it to neutral, nonpartisan, reliable sources to avoid that trap. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The views of all those organizations are sometimes worth citing (though I agree they seem questionable as sources for facts, without endorsing the equivalence with MMfA you are implying). That's all I'm suggesting we agree on here in #2. While I can understand the desire for clarity and ease behind your proposal to just ban all citations of their views, that's not consistent with policy. We need to assess these things according to context. There may be some scope for specifying some category of topics on which we will not cite MMfA (e.g. conservative figures, though I do not agree with that proposal), but a blanket ban is definately not going to fly. -Hugetim ^(talk) 18:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, a blanket ban could never gain consensus simply by a little-viewed dispute board, either, and I'm more looking forward to getting to the end of this so I can go back to making my couple changes a week when necessary. Is it safe to say that, for this article, we're in agreement that MMfA alone should not be a basis for including a criticism, and that we shouldn't use MMfA if we don't need to? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Widely covered events which also have a response from MMfA can have the response that MMfA was also critical of the event.
2. There is no reason to use MMfA as a main source in almost any circumstance. If an event is noteworthy it will have recieved considerable attention in mainstream sources as to negate the need to even consider MMfA.
3. Some things that MMfA complains about will get picked up by mainstream sources, in which case (1) will apply.
4. MMfA itself is not sufficient to demonstrate weight for an event as they report on every minor conservative issue concievable. As a result MMfA must then either be considered reliable for one of the two scenarios (MMfA is reliable for everything, and conversely MMfA is reliable for nothing) or (Editors must use editorial judgement for what MMfA reports on as a noteworthy event, which falls back onto 1).

The simple solution is to not use sources like MMfA as a source, especially within BLP articles where they are predisposed to be critical of conservative figures regardless of the issue. To say that MMfA is critical of a conservative is like saying water is wet and adds nothing to the article other than to load up BLP articles with a bunch of undue criticsm from an organization which is doesn't like them anyway. Arzel (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

By that reckoning, to say Louie Gohmert is complimentary of a conservative is like saying fire is hot. I see a double standard here. A noteworthy organization has given a noteworthy opinion of a noteworthy person. Nobody would complain if it was the New York Times with the opinion, and MMfA is really no different. - 76.124.173.41 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that a sitting Congressman and the widely-considered "paper of record" is noteworthy in a way that a random highly-partisan website is not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As was covered earlier, MMfA is considered a reliable source so the only distinction is that the New York Times is a more reliable source but both count as reliable.

My proposal is this regarding the noteworthiness of MMfA:

1. MMfA is a reliable source for the views of MMfA, which are admittedly progressive.
2. An incident only covered by MMfA is not noteworthy enough to be included in a BLP article, but coverage by MMfA can contribute to an incident being considered noteworthy.
3. The consensus is that MMfA is a reliable source for information in general but to be covered in a BLP it has to pass 2.

As far as I can tell, 2 3 and 4 are essentially the same and are covered sufficiently by (Hugetim's) 3 alone. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

CD, I think the research is clear that there is no consensus for MMfA being a reliable source. Since you're really the only person who still has substantive protest (as far as I can tell), are you okay with us removing Rwanda and leaving Hitler w/o the MMfA cite? If so, we can move on. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm exhausted personally, and I'm going to try to stop responding awaiting third party mediation, but I do not want my silence to be misunderstood as agreement with the many unanswered points in this dispute, many of which I disagree with. I found this helpful for perspective: Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_discussion. -Hugetim ^(talk) 23:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'm also awaiting a third party response but I'm not OK with either because MMfA was found to be a reliable source (per the Rwanda section) and (as far as I can tell) Thargor is the only person who wants to remove it from the Hitler comparison. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You're still clinging to that even with the sitewide research showing a lack of consensus otherwise. At some point you'll have to accept the lack of consensus on this issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement

– New discussion.

Filed by IjonTichyIjonTichy on 23:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC).

• 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?

Disagreement on whether L. Susan Brown should be included in the 'See also' section. I believe the link should be included because, like the Zeitgeist movement (TZM), it seems Brown believes that the "monetary-market" economy must be replaced with a system based on equality among people, a moneyless and stateless system where e.g. exchange, barter, wage labor, private property and the profit motive would be eliminated. It seems that, like TZM, she believes the current socioeconomic system is structurally corrupt and unreformable. It seems that, like TZM, she believes an accumulation of monetary/ property wealth leads to centralization of power in the hands of a small elite. It seems that, like TZM, Brown believes the current wage-labor system must be abolished and replaced with a system in which people would be free to choose to perform voluntary activities and/or work fewer hours. Some of our secondary and primary sources (TZM documentaries, video lectures/ presentations, audio podcasts, newsletters, official blog, etc.) discuss ideas/ issues that seem very similar to sections of Brown's work. For example, Brown's essay Does Work Really Work? and the translation of the Globes article on TZM (to view the translation of the Globes article, please scroll all the way to the bottom of the page, which will take you to the translation of the TheMarker article, then scroll a little bit up, to view the translation of the Globes article.

This DRN is only about L. Susan Brown.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Tom harrison (talk · contribs)
• Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs)
• OpenFuture (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 discussed on the talk page. It seems Tom may believe the link seems too peripheral to be useful to the reader, and more likely to confuse than clarify the subject. It seems Earl may be saying there is no connection except the usual suspects of cross connected tangential, and he wrote something about a maze. And it seems OpenFuture may believe the link is completely irrelevant. (It seems these were their responses to a larger group of links that I suggested for 'See also' which included Brown.) diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff

• How do you think we can help?

Help resolve the dispute. Thanks.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement discussion

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

Can you provide details of a reliable external source that compares L. Susan Brown's beliefs to those of TZM? Or a statement from her making such a comparison? Without one, it is almost certainly WP:OR to suggest that they are linked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about the See also section, not the body of the article. The rules for See also are not identical to those of the body of the article. "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant." IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

True, WP:SEEALSO allows links that are only "peripherally relevant" - but it would seem to me that the onus here is for you to demonstrate this 'relevance', and I can't see how you can do this without either finding a source that makes the link, or engaging in WP:OR. Given that Brown is an anarcho-communist, and TZM says that it is neither anarchist or communist (as far as I'm aware), the link is hardly self-evident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of a source that mentions both TZM and Brown in the same source. If such a source existed, we would have used it in the body of the article, and thus there would be no need to include it in 'See also' ("As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes").

To me, the relevance is in the close similarity in their beliefs, not in labels/ tags such as 'anarchism' or 'communism'. Labels tend to shut-down and close discussion and exploration, while one purpose of 'See also' is to broaden and open-up discussion, critical thinking and exploration ("enable readers to explore topics ....")

And, of course, another, and important, reason to include the link is that it discusses ideas from a female and a feminist perspective. Given that almost all of the authors of our secondary and primary resources on TZM, as well as the majority of WP editors (including, it seems, the majority, if not all, of the currently-active editors on the TZM article) may be males. Given that many WP readers are females, it would be probably refreshing for them to browse our article on Brown and perhaps even read her article ('Does work really work'). [BTW my wife liked Brown's work. Admittedly not a very scientific experiment since it is based on a single data point...] Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that all comes firmly under 'opinion' - and if TZM has a problem discussing ideas from a feminist perspective, it certainly isn't up to Wikipedia to fix it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he's saying that Zeitgeist has a problem discussing ideas from a feminist perspective, merely that most of the sources on TZM are written by male observers, hence Wikipedia's coverage is overly masculine, and that a topic concentrating on a female perspective on many of the same issues would provide depth and context to the TZM article. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's coverage is overly masculine? What? That sounds like opinion also. I think the point is to determine if the Brown material should be added to the article. The answer is no. Why??, because if that can of worms is opened then we have to add Plato, Marx, The Matrix, John Lennon and many other things equally not connected. That may be my opinion but its based on there not being any connection between Zeitgeist and the women in question. She is not a member nor a spokeperson. Is not connected in any way. Maybe she is a resource for the Zeitgeist site? But the page article now is overly over weighted with links to itself. There is also consensus on the talk page among multiple editors that Brown is not a good add. The talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement is a good place to check on that Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The statistics (e.g. that most of WP's editors are male) are WP's own statistics. From Wikipedia: "When multiple editors contribute to one topic or set of topics, there may arise a systemic bias, such as non-opposite definitions for apparent antonyms. In 2011 Wales noted that the unevenness of the coverage is the reflection of the demography of the editors, which predominantly consists of young male with high educations in the developed world (cf. above)[52]" Not only Wales, but other senior WP executives as well discussed the serious problem of low participation rates by women editors. Please see this NYT article, and this NYT Debate involving 7 women writers and 2 men.

From the NYT article: "Jane Margolis, co-author of a book on sexism in computer science, “Unlocking the Clubhouse,” argues that Wikipedia is experiencing the same problems of the offline world, where women are less willing to assert their opinions in public." “In almost every space, who are the authorities, the politicians, writers for op-ed pages?” said Ms. Margolis, a senior researcher at the Institute for Democracy, Education and Access at the University of California, Los Angeles. ... "According to the OpEd Project, an organization based in New York that monitors the gender breakdown of contributors to “public thought-leadership forums,” a participation rate of roughly 85-to-15 percent, men to women, is common — whether members of Congress, or writers on The New York Times and Washington Post Op-Ed pages. It would seem to be an irony that Wikipedia, where the amateur contributor is celebrated, is experiencing the same problem as forums that require expertise. But Catherine Orenstein, the founder and director of the OpEd Project, said many women lacked the confidence to put forth their views. “When you are a minority voice, you begin to doubt your own competencies,” she said."

VanIsaac of the WP:WikiProject Writing systems is correct. Among our secondary sources on TZM, only the Palm Beach Post and the RT TV interviews were by women. The HuffPo, NYT, Globes, TheMarker, VCReporter, etc. are written by males, and Wikipedia's coverage is overly masculine. The inclusion of Brown’s expertise, deep knowledge and perspective is helpful not just for the sake of fairness, but, more importantly, because it provides a female perspective that would supply depth and context to the TZM article.

"Plato, Marx, The Matrix, John Lennon and many other things" are all irrelevant, because this DRN discussion is focused exclusively on L. Susan Brown. And WP: See also does not say anything about requiring 'See also' links to be e.g. a member or a spokesperson etc. If Brown was e.g. a spokesperson or a member of TZM, we would have discussed her work in the body of the TZM article itself, and included the link to the WP article on Brown in the body of the TZM article, obviating the consideration of including her in 'See also.'

(Lastly, please note that everyone involved in this DRN thus far, i.e., Andy, Earl, Tom, OpenFuture, VanIsaac, and myself, are all males.)

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"please note that everyone involved in this DRN thus far...are all males." How do you know that? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether a women writer should be included as a token representative of women in general to set a precedent of inclusion even though she is not connected to the subject? You can not provide a reliable external source that compares L. Susan Brown's writings or ideas to those of TZM? You can not add here a statement from her making such a comparison? Without that, it is WP:OR to suggest that they are linked. The Zeitgeist Movement talk page expands that discussion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Wikipedia does not engage in tokenism. We aren't going to include a link to Brown in the article simply because (a) one of our contributors thinks that she is vaguely relevant, and (b) she is a woman. Or to put it in plain language, IjonTichyIjonTichy, we don't give a damn about your opinions on Brown, on feminism, or on the lack of gender balance amongst Wikipedia contributors. If you can't provide actual evidence that Brown merits inclusion in the 'see also' list, she doesn't. Please stop wasting our time with nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I provided strong evidence that Brown merits inclusion. Her expertise, ideas, analysis and insights are almost identical to those of TZM. And including Brown in 'See also' would improve and enhance the article by providing depth and context. From WP:See also, Brown does not have to be directly related to TZM. And she is at least peripherally relevant. The inclusion of Brown provides critical thinking and enables our readers to explore, learn, and both broaden and deepen their knowledge and understanding. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy, may I respectfully suggest you read the NYT article and NYT discussion forum discussed in one of my earlier comments above. One of the main reasons that women are strongly discouraged from participating in Wikipedia is the atmosphere/ tone/ environment created by the use of language such as "we don't give a damn about your opinions," "please stop wasting our time with nonsense", and "bollocks". (This is not a personal attack on you. I learned by reading these two NYT articles and wanted to share with you.) Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

More bollocks. Time-wasting repetitive bollocks from a time-wasting producer of repetitive bollocks who repeats the same old bollocks repetitively, endlessly repeating the same old bollocks with the objective of repeating the same old repetitive bollocks repeatedly until people are tired of reading the same old repeated repetitive bollocks and give up trying to repeatedly argue against the time-wasting repetitive bollocks, allowing the time-waster to spin articles to support a viewpoint based on nothing but time-wasting repetitive bollocks. Repeatedly... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't arguing the point one way or the other, merely clarifying my interpretation of what you had written. I have only a tangential interest in Zeitgeist, and have never heard of Brown before this argument. I think if you want my actual perspective, it would be that See Also should be as inclusive as possible, and that you should only remove links from that section if it creates a possibly libelous connection in a BLP, or if the addition is vandalism. See also should represent those articles that could provide context to ideas and subjects of an article, and if an editor believes in good faith that an article will provide that context, it should be available to readers to make that judgement themselves. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 22:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

[84] segment from here wp:competence I think applies to IjonTichyIjonTichy He wants to add most of his interests from his Wikipedia user page and this segment of recent discussion [85] gives an example of his circular maze like arguments and repetition as if the sheer weight of this repetition will change things. The talk page shows overwhelming support that his personal view as demonstrated on his user page his opinions and original research are not appropriate for the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR would apply if I proposed to use L. Susan Brown to support a claim in the body of the TZM article, e.g. that the wage labor system is inherently corrupt and unreformable. But I've only included Brown in the 'See also' section and made no reference to her within the body of the article. If all WP policies applied exactly the same to 'See also' as they do to the main body of the article, there would not be a need for a separate section called 'See also'. WP policies for the main body are designed to, metaphorically speaking, narrow-down, limit and constrict the range of material eligible for inclusion in the main body. This relative narrowing, limitation and constriction is exactly one of the main reasons for the existence of 'See also'. 'See also' is designed to widen, broaden and open-up the range of material eligible for inclusion, relative to the main body of the article. (However, some limitations on 'See also' still exist, such as restricting it to links to other WP articles.) While the main body is designed to be relatively more exclusive, 'See also' is designed to be considerably more inclusive, to enable our readers to explore deeper and broader, to discover, investigate, examine, travel more widely, wander, delve into, and take a deep dive. To help our readers to enhance their knowledge and understanding of the context/ scope of the article (in this case, TZM's ideas and philosophy). IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Still bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This link would breach BLP policy. Completely uncalled for. Don't use See also to assert links that you can't show. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

How, exactly, would the link breach BLP policy? Thanks. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

By implying that there was a link between L. Susan Brown and TZM, other than the one in your head? Or can I add a link to David Icke to to the article too, because former goalkeepers who think the world is run by shape-shifting lizards are under-represented both in Wikipedia and in TZM (or at least, I hope they are...)? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There would be a breach of WP:BLP if we would have asserted in L. Susan Brown's biography that Brown is, for example, a member or a spokesperson or TZM. Including L. Susan Brown in the 'See also' section of the TZM article does not say or imply in any way, shape or form that Brown is e.g. a member or a spokesperson. Thus there is no breach of WP:BLP. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It implies there's a connection. And there so isn't. Now go and read some stuff about postcapitalisms or anarchafeminism or both. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Judith, I've read about postcapitalism and anarchafeminism. But I'm not sure what you mean when you use the word 'connection'. Are you saying there is no connection between the ideas/ philosophy of Brown and those of TZM? Because their ideas seem very similar. For example, her ideas about work in her essay and TZM's ideas in the Globes article, among other close similarities. Thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Put a cork in it. We aren't the slightest bit interested in your bullshit. You have just had a ridiculous complaint at ANI thrown out, and you are clearly lucky that your behaviour here didn't result in sanctions against you. Let it drop - find another way to promote your 'Movement' while pretending to be neutral. Apart from anything else, this is getting boring - you clearly have some intelligence, try to be a little more creative at least... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I second that. Ijon, when first crossing paths with you on the article and seeing your editing I suggested that it might be a good idea, because of your burning Zeitgeist passion, to write a book on the subject. If it is notable then you might have more influence in general than you will on Wikipedia as an advocate. On the plus side, because of your editing, the article came under very intense scrutiny and the article is now pretty good, as far as being explained neutrally. That despite the fact that you have been trying to make it into a sing-song version of nuggets of Zeitgeist official information with strong doses of your personal philosophy mixed in. So, in a way you have succeeded in making the Zeitgeist, at least more well known for what they actually are, not because of your editing but despite it. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since no new comments have been posted in some time, may I suggest that an administrator close this DRN. Thank you Judith, Isaac, Andy and Earl for participating and for your time and effort. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The "See also" section is just a place to park wikilinks to related subjects which really should be linked inline from prose in the article. If there's ever a dispute about a "See also" entry, you should propose an edit to the article to add the link inline, and make sure it has a reliable source supporting it. I agree that this DRR should be closed, primarily because that inline link proposal doesn't seem to have been tried. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by beer consumption per capita

– New discussion.

Filed by Erikeltic on 23:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC).

• List of countries by beer consumption per capita (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?

Anyone's comments are welcomed here. [86] Basically there is a debate on a little-edited page's talk page about what the default sort should be. Should we have it setup alphabetically or by number? My position is stated on the talk page, but to restate it here -- the article is about the per capita consumption (a number) of beer. It seems reasonable that rather than sort the list of countries by where they fall in an alphabetical listing, it should be done by the number reflected in the wiki's content. That's how it's been for six years, until this week [87]. In addition one of the other editors involved has now included a mini "help document" within the article to help the poor average reader sort the information properly. As you can see here [88] and here [89] there seem to be some ownership issues going on here. I invite anyone willing to please comment. Thanks.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Erikeltic (talk · contribs)
• Jbening (talk · contribs)
• Timeshifter (talk · contribs)
• Elockid (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=List of countries by beer consumption per capita}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

• How do you think we can help?

I invite people to weigh in on the article and to help explain how changes are applied. WP:BRD isn't being followed and the clear examples of ownership I listed above are making it very difficult to discuss the issue rationally.

Erikeltic ^(Talk) 23:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by beer consumption per capita discussion

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

I think the list should be ordered by per capita consumption when the reader first opens the page, because that is what he will expect to see. And I don't see why the list would be any harder to maintain in this order than it would be in alphabetical order. Wahrmund (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a remarkably premature resort to dispute resolution, regarding an issue of very little concern to anyone. The user who has called for resolution here was the only person writing on the article's talk page in favor of his position. So far, I've seen no evidence (there or here) that he has grasped the logic of the arguments being advanced against his position. If bringing the discussion over here can somehow cause more substantive discussion over on the article's talk page, then so much the better. But I've already articulated on the article's talk page what I think is the shared position of Timeshifter and myself, so I see no need to reiterate it here. Jbening (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess you missed the part where you should have read that Wikipedia isn't a democracy. The bottom line (and this is why we have the ANI open to combat the other issues) is that between you and Timeshifter taking turns reverting 1-2-1, the consensus, which has stood for six years, can't be restored without engaging in the edit war you guys started two days ago. That's it. (period) So, while you can call these "drama boards" and what not, the basic reason I came here is to request additional third party editors to comment on the discussion. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 01:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum for opinions on content. Try WP:3O Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:30, "If more than two editors are involved, 3O is not appropriate. Please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard." We have more than two editors involved in this issue, so that's why I came here. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 01:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You know when I saw the headline of this DR I thought it was someone not happy that their country was not listed! My immediate thought was simply have to 2 tables one by per capita and then another by country a-z, as soon as I got to the article page, I soon realised I could order the columns by clicking on the little headers in the top row, I really dont see a problem as it can be reorded a-z if desired. As Wahrmund said above, the reader expects to see the breakdown by per capita as that is what the article is titled, same problem could exist either way depending how the article was titled but you can sort by clicking in the header row so I see no issue here, leave it as is and if needs be, put a note that it can be reordered by clicking on the header row for those that dont know or see what the little arrows indicate. Webwidget (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Arranging a list alphabetically without rankings is much easier to maintain than a list with rankings. It is sometimes a huge pain to update numerical lists, especially large ones. The problem with using an alphabetical list is that readers tend to prefer having a numerical list. We do have a method of sorting the table numerically by pressing the sort button but most readers from what I've seen are unaware that they can sort numerically. There is no indication that such a feature exists. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

War on Women

– New discussion.

Filed by CartoonDiablo on 01:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC).

• War on Women (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 dispute is over whether it's an "attack" phrase or used as a "pejorative" in the lead. As it currently stands there are no reliable sources calling the phrase an "attack" phrase nor a pejorative. The editors' reasoning is that because it can be used to attack people (as an RS would say) that the lead it should say it is "used as an attack."

This violates WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV because it infers that the phrase is used solely to attack people when no RS makes such a claim. By that logic the phrase can mean policies that "attack women." The obvious mainstream interpretation is that it's simply a phrase used to describe policies. As well the editors have claimed consensus which cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policies.

For comparison, the phrase Feminazi has four sources claiming it's a pejorative and doesn't claim to be an "attack" phrase or "used to attack" feminists. This by comparison has no sources for either. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs)
• 24dot (talk · contribs)
• Morphh (talk · contribs)
• OSborn (talk · contribs)
• Kilopi (talk · contribs)
• Lionelt (talk · contribs)
• Arzel (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=War on Women}} --~~~~ 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 it on the talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

Helping to decide whether or not the phrase can adequately be called an "attack" phrase, a "pejorative" etc. or whether its just a description of policies.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

War on Women discussion

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

Note: The thread in question is Talk:War_on_Women#.22Attack.22.2F.22Used_by_democrats.22_in_lead. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for reference the lead that I proposed would say:

The War on Women is a political phrase used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures to restrict women, especially with regard to reproductive rights.

Right now the consensus is to add that it's a "pejorative" that's "used to attack" without any RS for either claim. The fact is no reliable source has ever claimed that it's a pejorative or that it's solely used to attack Republicans. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll note that CartoonDiablo removes the qualifier that specifies this is an opinion, suggesting as a statement of fact that the initiatives restrict women. Of course, opponents would argue that they promote life, protect religious freedom, and that the entire thing is fabricated. Right or wrong, point is, it's an opinion that needs to be qualified. Morphh ^(talk) 13:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll also note that sources have been provided and the majority of sources use the term as a charge against Republican policies. This is, however, not good enough for CartoonDiablo, as they don't specify that the term can be used "solely", "only", "exclusively" to attack the policies. As if one side proudly proclaims they voted for the "War on Women", which CartoonDiablo argues just describes a group of policies. I'm open to other language. I'm not married to the exact terms "attack" or "pejorative", but I do think we have to describe the combative charge implied by the term's use, which is supported by such use in reliable sources. The term by itself charges wrongdoing against women and Republicans are the recipients of that charge. In the vast majority of cases, someone invoking this term in political discourse is attacking certain policies as wrong. Morphh ^(talk) 13:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of the sources say its done to restrict or limit women; including the pro-life and religious arguments would be under WP:Due and WP:Fringe, obviously there's a place for them but they are not the mainstream definition of the phrase.

That aside, sources do not call it an "attack" anymore then they say the policies are an "attack" on women, to show either you would need sources just like how the Feminazi article has four sources for the claim that it's a pejorative. What they say is it's a description of policies, you can "attack" someone with that description or it can be used to "attack" women but neither supersedes the intention to describe the policies.. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I briefly stated my position on the talk page where a rough consensus seems to be emerging and don't intend to add much to it here. The term is usually used by Democrats to criticize Republicans, and sometimes used by non-Democrats or to criticize non-Republicans. Despite CartoonDiablo's protestations, I have still never seen the term used to portray whoever is alleged to be waging the war in a positive or neutral light. I don't much care which sources are used (several have been suggested on the talk page) and am open to negotiation on the exact wording so long as it doesn't misrepresent the typical usage as attested by multiple sources. Kilopi (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources for the lead, (UniteWomen, NOW, Melinda Gates, GOP women etc.) are Democrats, claiming such would be WP:NPOV. That aside, that would be your (Kilopi's) interpretation of the phrase but there is not a single reliable source claiming that the War on Women is a pejorative or used solely to attack Republicans which is what the lead is claiming.

As far as I can tell, the lead now is a misrepresentation of the phrase. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo claims there are no sources to support calling "War on Women" a pejorative or attack phrase, but The Hill, National Journal, Politifact and FactCheck sources provided on the Talk page all characterize the phrase that way. CartoonDiablo dismisses these claiming that War on Women is not used exclusively in a pejorative context but I have yet to see any other usage (to clarify: I recall hearing other usage but it was still as a pejorative and it was not regarding the issues the rest of the lede discusses) and regardless this is by far the main use.

CartoonDiablo's proposed version biases (diff) the page. As I remarked on the Talk:, the context of the phrase being a pejorative is extremely important to maintaining a NPOV. CartoonDiablo later went on the claim on the Talk: that "I don't think that would be proper because it's almost universally accepted that they are policies that restrict women, not just "charged" with doing it" which is quite non-neutral.

This has gone round and round and the consensus from the Talk page is that the phrase should be characterized in the lede as a pejorative and/or attack phrase. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 20:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

None of those sources claims the phrase is pejorative or that it's solely used to attack women, what it claims is that the phrase has been used in the action of attacking someone which isn't any kind of justification since any phrase can be used to attack anyone.

By that logic these sources would warrant defining the phrase as an "attack on women":

• What's Behind the Conservative Attack on Women? - The New Yorker
• Reproductive Health Laws Prove GOP 'War on Women' Is No Fiction - U.S. News & World Report
• The Campaign Against Women - The New York Times
• War Over Women Comes to White House - ABC News
• GOP 'War On Women' Loses Momentum In The States - Huffington Post
• Melinda Gates hits out at 'war on women' on eve of summit - The Guardian (this source is actually used)

Does that mean the War on Women should be defined as an "attack on women"? No it doesn't, but neither should it be defined as an "attack" on Republicans or a pejorative especially when there's less evidence for doing so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And secondly, consensus doesn't allow for violating Wikipedia policies and by defining it in the NPOV way it is right now that's exactly what the editors are doing. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken, those articles are using the phrase as a pejorative. They are instances of the pejorative being used. Incidentally, those are opinions pieces rather AFAIK more journalistic pieces like the Politifact source. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 20:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The ABC News, Huffington Post and Guardian articles are not opinion pieces and none of the sources you cited claim it's "pejorative"; that is your interpretation of how the articles are "using the phrase" which would amount to WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV.

Likewise in none of the articles I posted can it be deduced that it is an "attack on women." What the obvious mainstream opinion of the sources is that it's a description of the policies, it's neither an "attack" on Republicans nor is it an "attack" on women; to use either is to use WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Even in the sources that are not directly using the phrase (the non-opinion ones) the sources are reporting on others using the phrase in a pejorative fashion. As I stated on the Talk, the Politifact source mentions "... the left’s "War on Women" attacks against Republican [Romney]". At this point we are simply rehashing the discussion that has already taken place on Talk:. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What "fashion" the sources are reporting on it is based on your (OSborn's) interpretation, not the actual sources. By that logic, the other non-opinion ones are using it in a "fashion" which says that it amounts to an "attack on women." Unless a reliable source explicitly calls it a pejorative or says it's primarily used to "attack" Republicans then your interpretation of it isn't any better than mine. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Do the sources contradict the phrase being a pejorative? They are simply the other half of the lede sentence, "[pejorative phrase] argued to [restrict women]". OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's obviously an accusation being made. There's nothing biased in stating that fact. It's also an accurate accusation, as revealed by even three female GOP politicians objecting to their own party's restrictions on women's rights. There are plenty of sources to use for such wording. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

To OSborn, do the sources contradict that it's an "attack on women"? The fact is it's a judgement call on your part, not on the source. Unless a source explicitly states it's a pejorative or an "attack" then your engaging in WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV.

To Brangifer, any phrase can be used to accuse anyone in a given context but that doesn't mean its exclusively used as such. If you were to infer from a source that it's a pejorative based on that (as opposed to it explicitly saying that), then it would be your interpretation not the source's. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As has been demonstrated several times now, reliable sources do characterize the phrase as an "attack" and as nobody is coming forward with sources which contradict, I think we've settled that the phrase is in fact an attack and/or pejorative. There is no synthesis here. This is a claim which has been clearly stated in several sources. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

CD, I'm not sure what your objections really are here. Your arguments are confusing, as if there's a hidden agenda, or am I missing something? I'll AGF and assume you've got a good explanation. I don't want to misunderstand you, so I'll just ask you.

Are your objections purely based in policy, i.e. to avoid a SYNTH violation? Fine! Then all we need is to find how RS describe the use of the phrase. It really make no difference if it's objective fact or an opinion, since we document opinions here. We can even attribute it if that will help. Right? There are many descriptions, including "attack" and "accusation", and numerous variations that are synonyms. We can just pick a couple good quotes from RS (using the words) and be done with it. If you disagree, then say so. In the mean time other editors can start searching for good examples and proposing them after you reply.

....or is your disagreement based on an attempt to somehow shield the Democrats (I voted for Obama, and likely will again) from appearing to "attack" their rightful opponents, the GOP? There is no point in that. Avoiding that makes the Dems look like cowards. Tell it like it is. The GOP is up to no good when they attack women's rights in their attempts to take us back a couple hundred years. It's just a matter of how it's described, so don't be afraid to document that the Democrats are defending women by attacking the GOP's war on women, because that's what it is, and even female GOP senators agree.

....or is it some other problem? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

To OSborn, no they do not (and no they haven't). Reliable sources say it's both an "attack" on women and an "attack" on Republicans, that is because the action of how the phrase is used is not necessarily the definition. You could "attack" anyone using any phrase but that would not change the definition of it.

To Brangifer let me rephrase myself, there is not a single RS that defines the phrase as either a pejorative or an attack, editors are using SYNTH by interpreting the action of how the phrase is used as the definition when it clearly isn't. For War on Women to be considered an attack or pejorative it would need to be like the Feminazi article where it is defined by reliable sources as a pejorative or attack, and not just used in the context of one. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hello. I am a volunteer here at DRN. Please note that the purpose of this noticeboard is to request dispute resolution and seek assistance from outside editors -it's not an extension of the article talk page. You are all free to continue discussing the issue on the talk page until a volunteer opens the discussion - if it hasn't been looked at in a few hours I'll do it myself, but please cease discussion for the time being. It makes things difficult for us because we have to read through a wall of text to understand the dispute and this takes longer. Thanks for your patience. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 07:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Question - I'd be willing to help get consensus on this. Starting with the word "pejorative": that is a very loaded word, and it does need reliable sources to justify its use, particularly in the first sentence of the lead. At first glance, it looks like the lead would read just fine without that word: "The "War on Women" is a pejorative political phrase used to describe Republican Party initiatives ...". So, editors that want to include "pejorative" need to provide some strong sources that use that word or a close synonym. If the sources are few or weak, it is better to omit the word from the lead, and instead go into detail about that issue (that is, is it pejorative or not?) in the body of the article. Could some editor please post quotes from sources that use "pejorative" (or a close synonym) to describe WoW? --Noleander (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. As the sources currently state, the phrase is just a description with no mention of it being a pejorative or an "attack" outside of being used as one (which is done for different reasons on both sides). My point with SYNTH is editors are trying to use sources which do not define the phrase is pejorative or an attack but use it in the context of one to try and show it as an attack or pejorative.

As far as I can tell, no RS has ever defined War on Women as an attack phrase or pejorative. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the first couple sentences of any article are typically used to define the topic of the article, so any descriptive adjectives need to be strongly rooted in reliable sources. Absent that, the "pejoartiveness" of the WoW phrase should be discussed in the body, not the lead. But let's wait a couple of days and see if any sources turn up. --Noleander (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Synonyms that demonstrate (quotes) the way the term is used

There is no need for editorial synthesis to find the descriptions used in RS. Here are some references which contain such descriptive words (bold emphasis added): -- Brangifer (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

An accusation

• Accusations of GOP's war on women are not 'for no reason', The Rachel Maddow Show, NBC News, April 14, 2012

• Dispatches From the War on Contraception, Slate, Amanda Marcotte, July 18, 2012

• "With all the angry denials earlier this year from Republicans who have been accused of conducting a war on women, you might think that those same Republicans might just lay off that war until after the election, if only to suck the momentum out of their critics' narrative."

A description

• John McCain: 'War On Women' Is 'Imaginary,' 'Conjured' By Democrats, The Huffington Post, Laura Bassett, 04/26/2012

• "Democrats have increasingly referred to the "War on Women" over the past several months to describe the GOP's sustained legislative focus on issues that affect women's health and rights. An amendment to a sweeping transportation bill pushed by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) would have allowed employers to deny women contraception coverage for any moral reason. Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) vetoed funding for rape crisis centers last week, and several GOP governors supported legislation that mandates medically unnecessary ultrasound procedures for women who are seeking abortions. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), meanwhile, recently repealed the state's equal pay law."

• (The one above lists several of the various ways in which the GOP have been attacking "women's health and rights".)

• The War on Sex: The Contraception Controversy's Hidden Agenda, Ruth Bettelheim, Ph.D., The Huffington Post, 03/6/2012

• "This controversy has been described as a war on women. It may be that, but it is also, and perhaps more effectively, a war against sexuality itself."

• GOP tried to make most of supermajority, Alia Beard Rau, USA Today, 5/6/2012

• "Abortion-rights and women's-rights groups rallied against what they described as a war on women at the Arizona Legislature -- and nationwide."

On another note, who started using the phrase? The answer is here! -- Brangifer (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Brangifer: Could you explain the purpose of the lower sources under "Descriptions"? (The "accusations" examples do support the notion of pejorative a bit, so I'm not questioning them). Is the purpose of the Descriptive examples to show that sometimes the WoW term is used in a non-pejorative sense? --Noleander (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. They are used as examples of it being called a "description". It's a very neutral term that doesn't really serve any purpose, in the sense that it doesn't describe the motivation for using the phrase. It's obviously a term that's being used to attack GOP legislation. It's a direct accusation. In that sense it's obviously a pejorative term, but we don't need to use the word "pejorative", when we already have RS that use the term "accusation". We don't have to use it in the lead, although the lead would be rather "duh" without it. The motivation for using the phrase needs to be stated in the lead, and "accusation" and "attack" are found in RS. (I still don't get why CD is talking about "defining" the term. That's unnecessary. We can safely ignore that, or at least treat it as another issue unrelated to this one. In that sense it's become a straw man which successfully sidetracks us from dealing with this matter at hand.) -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Copying from talk, 24dot provided:

The Hill, July 2, 2012—"The [Nancy Pelosi] memo is just the latest part of the Democrats' long-running attack on what they consider the Republicans' "war on women."" National Journal, July 10, 2012—"When it comes to waging the "war on women" attack on Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the Obama campaign is pushing the envelope."

Kilopi provided Politifact Democrats and labor leaders are giving this a high profile, mirroring the left’s "War on Women" attacks against Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. and FactCheck It was Romney who first attacked the president’s economic policies as a “war on women,” citing specifically the fact that 92 percent of the jobs lost under Obama were lost by women.

Only the National Journal source has ever been disputed (as an opinion piece.) I have yet to see a source which directly contradicts these sources. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct. We could use the word "attack", using RS. The phrase is indeed used as an attack on the GOP's War on Women. So we could say "attack" or "accusation". Either one is backed by RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The only reliable source that supports it being an "accusation" is the slate article but again that's not a definition, it's an action or context in which the word is being used.

And again to OSborn, Politifact and FactCheck are not defining the phrase as an attack, it's mentioning the action that some are using it as. By that logic we would have to include this:

Attack on Women

• War Over Women Comes to White House - ABC News

• "Lisa Murkowski, speaking about reproductive rights, telling a Chamber of Commerce crowd in Alaska that "it makes no sense to make this attack on women."

• GOP 'War On Women' Loses Momentum In The States - Huffington Post

• "This year, the legislators here have seen a huge increase in vocal opposition to some of the things they're doing to attack women's health care and their access to it," he told HuffPost.

• Melinda Gates hits out at 'war on women' on eve of summit - The Guardian (this source is actually used)

• Anti-abortion campaigners in the US have seized on comments by a Harvard professor, Lant Pritchett, who attacked Gates for counting women who have not expressed a desire for contraception as needing it.

• "War on Women" - American Civil Liberties Union

• The "War on Women" describes the legislative and rhetorical attacks on women and women’s rights taking place across the nation.

My point with this is not that it is an attack on women, it's that it follows the same logic, unless an RS explicitly defines it as an "attack" or pejorative (of which none have) then we are to assume it is a description. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Forget about "defining the phrase". That's irrelevant to this discussion. We're seeking to find words that describe the motivation behind the use of the phrase. It's used to accuse and attack (both pejorative terms) the GOP, first by Democrats, and it's been picked up by others. It was started by a very high-ranking Democrat.

Secondly, you're mixing the GOP's counter attack (using the same Democratic phrase, which is the subject of this article) into this discussion. That will only confuse things. If you want to deal with that, start a new thread. They use it in a totally different way, but also as an attack/response, and because the Dems used it first, it's a counter attack. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Idea - How about rephrasing the lead to something like:

The War on Women is a phrase used to describe conservative initiatives in federal and state legislatures that are perceived as limiting women's rights, particularly reproductive rights. The phrase is often used by feminists or liberals when attacking or criticizing conservative positions.

That removes the "pejorative" from the encyclopedias voice, and uses "attack" in a manner that is more consistent with the sources. --Noleander (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That would also require putting in the opinion that it's seen as an "attack" on women. It's why I think the best solution is for using a neutral description:

The War on Women is a political phrase used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures which are seen as restricting women, especially with regard to reproductive rights.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course we can just state that the Dems say the GOP is waging a war on women, but that says nothing about the spirit in which they're doing it. They are justifiably upset and created the phrase as an attack on the GOP. Read this article which describes its creation and history. It was started by a Democratic Representative, and then became widely known when Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz became the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. It became THE attack phrase used by the party against the GOP's legislative actions that attacked women's health and rights.

I favor that the lead (after inclusion in the body) uses descriptive word(s) that show RS consider it an "attack" and "accusation". -- Brangifer (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Mylo Xyloto

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Victor Lopes on 21:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC). Mylo Xyloto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? A few days ago, I added a review from the Brazilian edition of Rolling Stone at the Mylo Xyloto album article. However, the editor mentioned below removed it, saying it was "pointless and stupid". I've added it back, but he kept removing it, stating also that the source wasn't notable (even though it is the Brazilian edition of one of the most important music publications of the world) and also said there was no need for it since there was already a review from the main Rolling Stone magazine (although the reviewers and the opinions were different). Some IPs also seemed to disagree with the content I was trying to add. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Jak Fisher (talk · contribs) Victor Lopes (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=Mylo Xyloto}} --~~~~ 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? After I realized I was edit warring, I created a section at the article's talk page and informed the user about it, but neither him nor other users have shown any interest in discussing the matter in the past three days. How do you think we can help? I just want someone to clarify if adding more reviews in a two-paragraph critical reception section is wrong, even if written in another language. There is nothing here that suggests I shouldn't add that content only because there are already other reviews, and I assume there's nothing to discuss regarding the notability or the verifiability of the source. Even though it is said in the end of that project page that English sources are preferred, I've only added that material because it was saying something quite different from the other ones. I know few people may understand it, but I'd like editors to assume that I'm editing in good faith, that is, I'm adding correctly translated material written in my mother language. Victão Lopes I hear you... 21:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Mylo Xyloto discussion Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I hate to be so cynical, but I doubt that this request will do much good. It should, actually, be closed because there has been no discussion on the article talk page, which is generally required before requesting content dispute resolution (and I may still do so). The bigger problem is that Jak Fisher has almost a thousand edits here at Wikipedia and has never, ever, posted to a talk page or anywhere else on WP other than in articles and has only occasionally even given edit summaries. There is no set Wikipedia procedure to address that situation. You might make a request for page protection at WP:RPP or complain about him for continually reverting without edit summaries or discussion at WP:AN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC) PS: While I don't think that your proposed edit is either particularly useful or particularly objectionable (but I'm no expert on which reviews are appropriate for inclusion and which not), Wikipedia rules say that when an edit is objected to that it is the obligation of the proposing editor to either not make the edit or to obtain consensus for the addition (see this policy. You might want to try an request for comments to get consensus for inclusion of your edit. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Ok, thanks. Would WP:THIRD be also a good possibility? Victão Lopes I hear you... 02:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC) No, I'm afraid that all content dispute resolution processes here at WP require talk page discussion first. If you'd like to just get an opinion just about whether the review comes from a reliable source you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard, but that's not going to gain you much against the silent reverters. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:25, 20 July 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.

Stephanie Adams

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. – New discussion. Filed by Hal 9000 Jr. on 23:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC). Stephanie Adams (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 currently an excessive amount of contentious posting taking place on Talk:Stephanie Adams. The primary bone of contention seems to be over her teaching a Learning Annex course on "How to Marry Rich," the tone of which seems to suggest disparaging intent. Without relevant amplification, what's the point of inserting this information? And if maligning Stephanie Adams isn't the intention of those who support the insertion, then why are they so dogged in their attempts to add it? Admittedly, I visited the page because I'm a fan of the subject, and I was floored to find Armageddon on the talkpage. Obscenities and personal attacks are being hurled back and forth throughout, and no Wikipedia admin has done anything to bring this flagrant lack of professionalism to a halt. Please make a determination on this matter. Hal 9000 Jr. (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) Fasttimes68 (talk · contribs) Errant (talk · contribs) Hoary (talk · contribs) Milowent (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=Stephanie Adams}} --~~~~ 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? None but to contact a Wikipedia admin for conflict resolution. How do you think we can help? Make a determination on the matter. Hal 9000 Jr. (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Stephanie Adams discussion Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. 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.

Date Windowing deletion proposal and Shadowjams misconduct

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. – New discussion. Filed by Fresheneesz on 02:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC). [[Date Windowing]]  Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? User:Shadowjams has repeatedly ignored WP:Assume good faith and WP:Speedy when marking pages for deletion and interacting with myself and other (completely unrelated) users. You can see clearly from his talk page that he completely ignores my attempts to discuss his deletion proposal of Date_windowing, and only responded after I started investigating his conduct with other users. I listed a few cases on his talk page where he has made incorrect edits and then either ignored the users who have come to his talk page to discuss them, or wasn't cooperative with those users. I responded in detail on my talk page. This user is badgering me because I nominated an article they created. They then dug through my edit history to find some supposed faults of mine. I've responded multiple times to them on my talk page and they're just going around in circles with the same claims. Shadowjams (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC) I did mention your response to my "badgering". However, the only things you really responded to were the diffs I enumerated. You simply ignored my comments about your afd, you ignored my point about non-notability, you ignored all my points about how you ignore *other* users as well. As a matter of fact, your response here again ignores the fact that I said "he completely ignores my attempts to discuss his deletion proposal of Date_windowing" - which is as a matter of fact, what started this whole thing. Fresheneesz (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Shadowjams (talk · contribs) Fresheneesz (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=Date Windowing deletion proposal and Shadowjams misconduct}} --~~~~ 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 attempted to talk to him about his proposal for speedy deletion on the talk page of the article, I've attempted to talk to him about his afd on his talk page, and I've attempted to talk to him about his conduct toward other users on his talk page. How do you think we can help? I'm wondering if I'm perhaps misunderstanding the policies of assuming good faith and creating speedy deletions, and if not, informing me how I can deal with a non-cooperative administrator who I believe is hurting the wikipedia community. Fresheneesz (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC) As said below, I'm not an admin, nor have I claimed to be one. Shadowjams (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Fine. You're certainly involved enough though. The point here is not whether or not you're an admin, my concern is about your conduct. Fresheneesz (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Date Windowing deletion proposal and Shadowjams misconduct discussion Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. While it doesn't really effect the discussion here, it should be clarified that User:Shadowjams is not an admin. Monty845 02:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC) You're right on both accounts. I assumed that he was based on the fact that he has rollback rights and uses special tools. Fresheneesz (talk) 09:14, 19 July 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.

Sikorsky S-76

– New discussion.

Filed by TeeTylerToe on 21:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC).

• Sikorsky S-76 (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 s-76 is a Sikorsky helicopter created at the same time (a year later) that Sikorsky built the S-70. The S-76 uses the same general drivetrain, although owing to it's civilian focus it doesn't have the armor or crashability features of the s-70, so it can use shorter rotors, smaller engines. While the editors patrolling the article allow vague mentions of similarities between the two helicopters, they will revert any mention that the blades are of the same composition, and airfoil, the rotor head is the same, the bearing of both the main and tail rotor is the same, and the transmission is of the same design. This information is supported by references, but they refuse any mention of the information, and insist that the references do not support the information... I cannot reconcile the contents of the references, and any statement denying facts about the composition of the rotor, the air foil of the rotor, the main rotor head, the main rotor bearing, the transmission, or the bearingless tail rotor.

An impasse has been reached.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• TeeTylerToe (talk · contribs)
• Ahunt (talk · contribs)
• Fnlayson (talk · contribs)
• Kyteto (talk · contribs)
• YSSYguy (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=Sikorsky S-76}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

• How do you think we can help?

Break the impasse

TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-76 discussion

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

• The comment under discussion on the talk page was that the S-76 was a civil version of the S-70 which the dispute overview doesnt mention, none of the other editors agreed with User:TeeTylerToe that the S-76 is a civil version of S-70 but nobody was disputing that some of the technology is the same as would be expected from the same manufacturer. User:TeeTylerToe added a statement to the article which was not that clear but stated that the two did not have the same engines, rotors and engines, the changes were reverted hence the talk page discussion. No reliable sources were provided that state the S-76 is a civil S-70 and original research by looking at photographs will show they are different helicopters. I dont see any impasse or a dispute. MilborneOne (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• There is no dispute or impasse to be resolved. User:TeeTylerToe proposed changes to the article and provided references that showed that his proposed changes were factually incorrect. The unanimous consensus of the other editors working on the page was to not include his content as per WP:V, but he included it anyway and was reverted. He seems unable to accept that his counter-factual POV is not acceptable in an encyclopedia, refused to accept consensus and has also refused to drop the matter. Even after the Talk:Sikorsky S-76 discussion was closed he tried to continue it on his own talk page and when that resulted in an admin threatening to block him for POV-pushing, here we are now. This has now gone from mere POV pushing to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing against an established consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• The above says it much better than I could ever. This is a case of an editor who refuses to listen and is tendentiously editing to push his point of view, based on original research, against verifiabile reality. TTT, WP:CONSENSUS does not mean "agreeing with me". Please drop the stick before you are blocked for being disruptive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I do not know why I have been listed as "involved in a dispute". A discussion was being held on the talk page, I provided my (civil) opinion on this issue once, and have not returned since - I have not fought for a perspective, nor have I participated in the discussion but on that one instance - Providing an opinion on the issue to help achieve a healthy level of participation towards consensus is not, in my opinion, a dispute, unless having an opinion that isn't entirely identical to one other editor's is now grounds for labelling as disputing. Kyteto (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Contrary to MilborneOne's assertion, my edits were factually supported by references. Also "they look different" has no bearing on the similarities in the drivetrain of the two helicopters.

Contrary to Ahunt's assertion, the edits were factually supported by the reference.

None of the editors arguing against the edit seem willing to make any counter-argument that details any one fact that is not supported by the references, yet they repeatedly insist that there is a disagreement of fact. What exact factual error is there in the edit?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• COMMENT: Uninvolved third party here, pointing out for TeeTylerToe to read WP:Synthesis, which states that "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.(Jimmy Wales has said of synthesized historical theories: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 6, 2004) "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." The general consensus amongst the regular editor has spoken up, we all agree that you have a case of your own original research to argue here, even the history books is against you. What you represent is nothing short of WP:Fringe theories. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no synthesis. The sikorskyarchives reference is the source of everything in the edit. The second source is simply there as a secondary source. Other editors keep disputing the facts of that edit which is why there are two references.TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • TTT, when everybody else is saying you're wrong, you might want to at least consider that maybe the problem isn't them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
      • You've read both the sikorskyarchives page and my edit. Are you now for the first time entering a claim that the edit represents a synthesis between the two links? Maybe the reason that I still make my argument is because I know that 2+2 isn't 5, that the edit doesn't represent synthesis between the two sources, and that the edit isn't contradicted by the reference.
      • If you ask several people from different religions how the universe was created or something like that, the truth isn't some amalgamation of each of those responses.TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
        • "the edit isn't contradicted by the reference." That's not the problem though, the issue is that you're trying to insert a conclusion that isn't stated or wholley supported by the reference. Simply because the reference "doesn't disagree" isn't enough, it actually has to agree/state the fact you are trying to place in the article, else you would be stretching what it is actually saying. And considering that is direct quotes from the company's CEO that DO contradict this stance, there are sounces that have a direct opinion contrary to what you have concluded. Kyteto (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
          • "the edit isn't contradicted by the reference." - is a completely fallacious argument. If that were valid you could insert the text "the S-76 and S-70 are the same aircraft" and cite a book on the subject of Elephant Taxonomy using that argument. As per WP:V you need to cite a reference that supports what you are adding, not one that doesn't contradict it. As it stands we have references cited here that do contradict what you are trying to insert. - Ahunt (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• (Edit conflict) The background to this dispute seems to be that TeeTylerToe doesn't want to acknowledge that the two helicopters are completely different, which is patently obvious to all except for him. He has fixated on similarities between the drivetrains of the two types as being proof that they are the same type, whereas even if the drivetrains were identical, that fundamentally does not make them the same because the airframes are completely different - a fact which he seems determined to ignore, or doesn't understand. I suspect the latter because of a comment he makes on his talk page: "If the only difference between the ch-53 and the ch-54 is the fuselage, I would say they should be considered variants of the same type of helicopter". This is the wrong end of the stick - if the only thing the CH-53 and CH-54 have in common is the drivetrain, they must be treated as distinct types.

The actual text of the particular edit (leaving out the refs) is as follows: The mechanical differences between the s-70 and s-76 include weaker engines, smaller rotors, and the orientation of the tail rotor was changed. While they share transmissions of the same design, it's unknown if the s-76's with less powerful engines share the exact same model of the s-70, though with the increases in engine power the s-76 has gotten, it's possible that if there were differences in the transmission model, those differences no longer exist.

The sentence "The mechanical differences between the s-70 and s-76 include weaker engines, smaller rotors, and the orientation of the tail rotor was changed" is absolutely true. "Weaker engines" means "different engines produced by different manufacturers"; in the case of the S-70 General Electric and in the case of the S-76 four different engines of much less horsepower by three different manufacturers, none of which are General Electric. So, not the same. "Smaller rotors" is self explanatory; so, not the same. "The orientation of the tail rotor was changed" means that on one helicopter it's on the right side of the tail rotor pylon and on the other it's on the left; which means they are fundamentally different because, with the rotor turning in the same direction for both types, the tail rotor gearboxes must turn in opposite directions (in the same sense that the wheels on the left side of your car turn in the opposite direction to those on the right side); so, not the same.

The sentence "while they share transmissions of the same design, it's unknown if the s-76's with less powerful engines share the exact same model of the s-70, though with the increases in engine power the s-76 has gotten, it's possible that if there were differences in the transmission model, those differences no longer exist" is a mixture of falsehood, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. "While they share transmissions of the same design" is incorrect; for the reason stated above for the tail rotor gearbox, while for the main rotor gearbox it is not true because of the different power absorption requirements and because the S-70 transmission is designed to run without oil for 30 minutes and the S-76's is not; so, not the same. "It's unknown if the s-76's with less powerful engines share the exact same model of the s-70" just means that TeeTylerToe doesn't know; while "with the increases in engine power the s-76 has gotten, it's possible that if there were differences in the transmission model, those differences no longer exist" is OR and SYNTH, in that TeeTylerToe thinks it's possible the differences no longer exist.

It is pointless to include the two sentences in question in the S-76 article, unless one is pushing the POV that the two types are the same, otherwise why mention the information at all? The S-76 article clearly states that it was derived from the S-70, so there is no need for the two sentences. There is no impasse. YSSYguy (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• A "weaker engine" says nothing about the manufacturer of the engine, only that the engine is less powerful. It is factually correct to say that the s-76A has weaker engines. It is also factually correct to say that the s-76A has smaller/shorter rotors.

What I meant with my edit with respect to the transmission is meant to convey that both the s-70 and the s-76A use a bull head main transmission rather than a more traditional planetary gear transmission. That said, I believe YSSYguy is overstated the changes required to move the tail rotor from one side to the other. Whether the transmissions were the same, or are the same now or not does not change that they use the same design.

I don't know why editors like YSSYguy are pushing an agenda of suppressing information about similarities between the S-76 and the S-70 whether one is derived from the other, or whether one is a variant of the other.TeeTylerToe (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Your argument is that since they use the same engine and drivetrain, they are related. This is textbook WP:SYNTH. By that logic, I could say that a 1969 Chevrolet pickup is the same thing as a 1969 Chevrolet Nova, since they both use the 350 small-block Chevy engine and a four-speed manual transmission. The opinion of everyone here but you is that you are editing the article, including the statements of the helicopters using similar/identical drivetrains, to push your POV that these are related models of helicopters. Please listen, drop the stick, and stop pushing this issue, as there comes a point where POV pushing becomes disruptive, and disruptive editing leads to blocks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • That does not relate to the edit in question.TeeTylerToe (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

For more than a week, in an article and on four different Talk Pages you have put forth the opinion that the S-70 and S-76 are one and the same, starting with the inclusion of the S-76 (and S-92) in a list of S-70 models (this edit marking my first involvement) and then the suggestion that the two types' articles be merged. Then you initiate the whole rigmarole here on this page, and eventually state that all you wanted to do was say that both "use a bull head main transmission" instead of another transmission design. If that's all you wanted to say, why didn't you say it? YSSYguy (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what bearing that has on this discussion, but I wanted to create a single article discussing the mechanical design of the s-70. The rotor composition, and airfoil, the forged aluminium rotor head, the elastometric main rotor bearing, the bull head transmission, and the bearingless tail rotor. Because there were 6-9 articles all covering variants or derivatives of the s-70, and all of the covered the same shallow overview, and none of them had any decent depth, and if any one article did have decent depth, it would have been information that belonged in each of those 6-9 articles.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment from (involved) editor. That the S-76 uses technology first used on the S-70 is not in doubt. This does not make one a version or derivative of the other however. Reliable sources all treat the S-70 and S-76 as completly different types, while there is a statement on the S-76 talk page from the then Sikorsky president that the S-76 "...is not a derivative aircraft in any sense of the word". Reliable sources do not refer to the S-76 as the civil version of the S-70, and neither should the articles in question.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is this even an issue? Look at these two web pages:

http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/sik_s-70.php

http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/sik_s-76.php

Pretty clear, I would say. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Er: WP:AVIASTAR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The standard for a link used in a talk page discussion is not the same as the standard for a citation in an article. In fact, Wikipedia:External links tells us to discuss links that may violate copyright on talk pages. You can't do that without telling people what the link links to. For the purpose of this discussion all that matters is whether the pictures at aviastar.org are pictures of the rotorcraft in question. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the different way references have been interpreted by parties in this case, it probably would be worth clarifying what you mean by Pretty clear.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I mean that they are about as alike as Chaka Khan and Jackie Chan. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What bearing does the matter of the type certification of the s-70 and the type certification of the s-76, or the matter of whether the S-76 is a derivative of the S-70 or a variant of it have to do with this edit?TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Because this whole thing started as your insistence that the S-70 and the S-76 are the same helicopter, that you continued insisting for quite some length. Due to this your edits stating that the S-76 uses the same drivetrain as the S-70 can only be seen as the same thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have just made this edit, which re-arranged some of the existing copy and which includes the following new material: Sikorsky's design work on the UH-60 Black Hawk was utilised when developing the S-76, which employed the same design- and construction techniques; and aerodynamic features; for its main and tail rotor systems as the UH-60. I believe this is no mre than a re-wording of the information in the source used (here) and gives an appropriate amount of weight to the limited similarities between the two types. YSSYguy (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TeeTylerToe - you can note that it is considered very bad form to bring a dispute here and then when this doesn't seem to be going your way to try to edit war on the article page to get your own way. If you keep this up you will likely be blocked from further editting. - Ahunt (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Focus on the Family

– New discussion.

Filed by Still-24-45-42-125 on 03:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC).

• Focus on the 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?

There is disagreement about how much we can say about why the SPLC considers Focus on the Family to be anti-gay. My view is that our citations support the three stated reasons, while those who disagree claim that synthesis is involved. Note that the issue isn't whether the text belongs there in general, just whether the citations are sufficient.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Still-24-45-42-125 (talk · contribs)
• Belchfire (talk · contribs)
• Wtmitchell (talk · contribs)
• 72Dino (talk · contribs)
• Roscelese (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=Focus on the 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?

It's been discussed on the talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

It would be helpful if someone neutral would comment on whether the citations support the statements.

Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Focus on the Family discussion

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

• Editor Still-24-45-42-125 (and also as his IP, 24.45.42.125) is borderline edit-warring to defend this sentence from the lead of the article:

It is listed as an anti-gay group by the Southern Poverty Law Center due to its promotion of discrimination against LGBT people, promotion of scientific ignorance, and misrepresentation of research.

A quick check of the source will show that this statement cannot be defended without doing OR or without a new source, and certainly not via a direct quote of the present source.

Still-24-45-42-125 maintains that this is a well-cited summary, and evidently is not familiar with what constitutes OR or SYNTH, or CONSENSUS, and ironically has "decided it would be interesting to learn how Wikipedia resolves conflicts caused by people who blatantly ignore citations."

Per discussion and pending promulgation of new sources, the consensus version of the sentence is "It is listed as an anti-gay group by the Southern Poverty Law Center due to its promotion of discrimination against LGBT people," based on WP:MOSINTRO and WP:MOSBEGIN. While there may be support for Still's version further down in the article, without a valid inline citation the allegations of "promotion of scientific ignorance, and misrepresentation of research" should not be stated in the lead. Efforts to explain policy on the Talk page have failed, and now we are here.

Admins should also be aware that Still (under his IP) was reported for edit-warring in the last 48 hours (but was not blocked), and that I was the editor who reported him(?). Belchfire (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Quotes? - Can some editor provide quotes from the source(s) which discuss the SPLC's view/categorization of FOTF? --Noleander (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry... forgot to give you a reflist tag. Belchfire (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is what the major source (the SPLC) says:

"Below are profiles of a dozen of today's most influential anti-gay groups. Groups designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are marked with an asterisk: … Focus on the Family [does not have an asterisk] ..... No one has spread the anti-gay gospel as widely, or with as much political impact, as James Dobson .... On Focus' 47-acre campus in Colorado Springs, some 1,300 employees battle against gay rights, sex education and women's rights ... Dobson's radio show, dispensing homespun parenting advice along with jabs at "the militant homosexual agenda," ... As early as 1989, Dobson came under attack from a fellow conservative evangelical, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who accused him of "reprehensible" and "homophobic" use of false information about how AIDS is transmitted. But Focus began to really flex its anti-gay political muscles in 1992, when Dobson used his radio show to turn Colorado's anti-gay Amendment 2 (see Holy War) into a fundamentalist cause célèbre .... Among the scores of anti-gay commentaries, stories and products on FOF's Web site is a Dobson essay that strikes a typical note: "Moms and Dads, are you listening? This movement is the greatest threat to your children. It is of particular danger to your wide-eyed boys, who have no idea what demoralization is planned for them." Another article claims that "the homosexual agenda is a beast. It wants our kids." .... According to a 1997 book by former FOF staffer Gil Alexander-Moegerle, Dobson once said, "Communities do not let prostitutes, pedophiles, voyeurs, adulterers and those who sexually prefer animals to publicly celebrate their lifestyle, so why should homosexuals get such privileges?" ....But none of this cut into Dobson's effectiveness as he successfully spearheaded the national campaign against gay marriage in 2003 and 2004 (see Holy War)."

--Noleander (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why I wasn't included in the list of involved editors, as I've been involved both in editing the page and in the discussion on the Talk page. What the source listed here shows is that, yes, Focus is listed as an anti-gay group (the source itself is a list of "profiles of a dozen of today's most influential anti-gay groups"). But it presents a lot of statements about Focus, and does not state which subset of these facts is responsible for the inclusion. I don't even see any claim of misrepresentation of research by Focus on this page; there is a mention of false facts regarding AIDS, but I don't see any claim that it was incorrectly attributed to research. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the material from SPLC above (in yellow quote box), I think the sentence in the lead is not very accurate. There is no discussion of research; and the material about false information about AIDS is from Koop, not SPLC. My suggestion would be (1) to remove the specific mention of SPLC from the lead; (2) the lead should have a broader statement that "several groups consider FOTF to be anti-gay" or similar; and (3) the existing material about SPLC down in the body should be reworded to more accurately paraphrase the SPLC source. --Noleander (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Eeeerm...I believe posting that large a quote is probably a copyright violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to replace that long quote with a link, here it is:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/spring/a-mighty-army#10

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have some vague POV opinions in this area, but I don't think that they impinge on this discussion. To see my opinions re resolution of this discussion, see [90]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

In that link provided immediately above by Wtmitchell, the IP editor says "Thanks. I'm not opposed to moving some of the details a bit lower in the article, but like you, I'd rather let the more regular editors tackle it. I just saw that it was deleted for lack of citations, so I provided the citation. " So maybe there is consensus that the SPLC-specific material can be removed from the lead, and just left in the body (where it already is). If that is done, however, it should be replaced (in the lead) with a brief summary of what critics say about the organization (based on WP:LEAD's requirement that the lead summarize the entire article; plus WP:BALANCE etc). --Noleander (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

We should only mention what the SPLC says specifically on FoF, or uses in its definition of anti-gay groups. However it should be mentioned in the lead, because tghe SPLC is the most authoritative source for categorizing these types of groups. TFD (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the SPLC has a monopoly on identifying anti-gay groups. But even if it were the foremost authority, that kind of specificity is best done in the body of the article. So, the lead should be generic: "FOTF is considered to be anti-gay by several organizations". Then, in the body: "SPLC considers FOTF to be .... Group A considers FOTF to be ... Group B considers ....". --Noleander (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hart of Dixie Season Splitting, List of Episodes

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by B.Davis2003 on 07:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC). List of Hart of Dixie episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Hart of Dixie (Season 1) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Hart of Dixie (season 2) (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? Other users do not think it is appropriate to split up the article in seasons. Have "claimed" that articles for TV shows should only be split after 4 seasons..... I feel that by splitting up the article it provides the reader with more understanding about the season and gives them extra information of features such as DVD Details. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? B.Davis2003 (talk · contribs) Drmargi (talk · contribs) QuasyBoy (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=Hart of Dixie Season Splitting, List of Episodes}} --~~~~ 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 of List of Episodes How do you think we can help? Provide an opinion and explanation and resolution. B.Davis2003 (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Hart of Dixie Season Splitting, List of Episodes discussion Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Way too soon for this. The discussion on the talk page was started (by me) a few hours ago to head an edit war off at the pass. The discussion there is ongoing, and I will discuss there. --Drmargi (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC) I am a dispute resolution volunteer. Since the discussion hasn't been ongoing very long, I recommend the course of action suggested here by Drmargi - that you discuss the matter further on the article talk page(s). If that discussion does not result in consensus, by all means feel free to return here. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 23 July 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.

Harvard University (Notable people)

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Bdb484 on 13:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

• Harvard University (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 problems revolve around the Notable people section. At this point, the most relevant issue is the question of whether the information in this section should have citations. I deleted the section because it was completely uncited and included a lot of BLP information. ElKevbo reverted, objecting on the grounds that " some of it is common knowledge and trivially verifiable." I redeleted per WP:BLP and began a discussion at the talk page. Eeng rereverted shortly thereafter, saying that WP:BLPCAT trumped my reading of BLP.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Bdb484 (talk · contribs)
• ElKevbo (talk · contribs)
• EEng (talk · contribs)
• Hot Stop (talk · contribs)
• Fat&Happy (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=Harvard University (Notable people)}} --~~~~ 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're still locked in at the D stage of WP:BRD. I would typically go next to WP:3O, but we're already at five opinions, so my experience tells me that they'd likely decline the request on those grounds.

• How do you think we can help?

We could use a few more eyes and thoughtful opinions.

— Bdb484 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Harvard University (Notable people) discussion

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

Why would one need citations when listing notable alumni? Where would the citations link to? Electric Catfish 15:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What always bothers me about these lists is the lack of citations to show that people qualify for the list. So the citation would link to proof that the person is an alumnus. It's no good saying it's already in the subject's article, as we know we can't use Wikipedia articles as sources and that references can come and go in articles. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As it would on any other article, the citations would link to a reliable source supporting the claim that the person is a graduate or faculty member. For instance, Steeler Nation has a section on "famous fans." While I think this information is unencyclopedic, restricting the list to names with sources has helped to keep the list from growing out of control. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

We need to discuss the general policy on this at WikiProject Universities. I need time to think about it as I have only just encountered the objection. The vast majority of university and college articles have lists of notable people, and they hardly ever carry references at that point, but most entries are verifiable. We sometimes have had questions about individuals. I know that ElKevbo is careful about these matters and would keep spam entries out. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should or should not be the subject of a policy change discussion, but for the time being, I agree with Dougweller. WP:V couldn't be any clearer: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." That applies to all parts of WP. This has been challenged (and I can find nothing that says that the reasons for a challenge must be stated, indeed a bare revert without even an edit summary is a sufficient challenge; about the only insufficient challenge would be one which itself somehow violates policy). It must therefore either be sourced or removed. WP:BLPCAT is clearly inapplicable. WP:IAR can be used to create a local exception to WP:V, but to use it, you have to get consensus, and you don't have it. Even if you did, IAR consensuses tend to be pretty fragile since consensus can change. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

BLPcat days the same rules applies for lists. Hot Stop 18:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The crucial phrase is "material likely to be challenged ". Are we worried about Isaac Newton's listing at University of Cambridge? Are we worried about Alan Bennett's (living)? What I suggest is this. We don't need to go into a big dispute here.The WikiProject guidelines will be rewritten to make it clear that all these lists, and paragraphs where it is prose, need inline citation. We will all work on improving the articles. We will add citation needed templates. And where including someone living could possibly be disparaging, we will remove the person's name and leave a message on the article talk page. It will take some time to clean it all up, but we can do it, assuming good faith and working together. Even with BLPs, though, 90 per cent of the time the person is proud to be included as an alumnus and the university is proud have their distinguished alumnus mentioned. At the WikiProject we will advise editors to consult BLPN if there is any doubt at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

But the policy does say, "challenged or likely to be challenged". I think "challenged" is pretty crucial, too, or it wouldn't be in the policy. "Likely to be challenged" is irrelevant if it has, in fact, been challenged. (And I'd also like to just note in passing that anything decided at a WikiProject, such as Universities, cannot under WP:CONLIMITED create an exception to policy, unless the policy-making procedure in WP:POLICY is followed.) I fully agree that there's no need for a big dispute here, because there's no room for a dispute: Once the nonsensical appeal to BLPCAT is disregarded, the matter is solved by WP:V. If anyone wants to start an effort to change policy, that's up to them, but it's not needed to settle this dispute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything has has been challenged counts with likely to be challenged. However, I'm not going to be deleting whole sections where it is more appropriate to tag. I checked some of our FAs and they do have inline citations for most or all alumni, thank goodness. Some major university articles that aren't yet FA lack the inline citations, and this has not been challenged, mainly because few people would object to being listed as a Harvard or Cambridge alumnus even if it were an error. I also suspect that many lists have been copied or migrated from the universities' own websites, and while this is not ideal, a university is in principle RS for who studied there, Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, is it possible that the information has actually been sourced (through an External Link to the university website), just not cited inline? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I wouldn't delete the section, either, and wholly agree that the best practices version is to tag and wait a few days, help look for sources, and then delete whatever hasn't been sourced, but policy clearly says that it's acceptable to just go ahead and delete. @Jorgath: Policy requires an inline citation once the material has been challenged. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(1) While I'm sure he meant well I wouldn't call Bdb484's summary a good representation of the discussion that I, and three other editors, have had with him about this at some length on the article Talk page. Out of respect for that effort I ask that people read that discussion [91] prior to commenting and, as a start, address the arguments already made there.

(2) In particular, I'd like to know why my reading of BLPCAT is "nonsensical".

(3) I don't understand how itsmejudith can predict that WikiProject (presumably Wikiproject University) guidelines "will" be changed in such-and-such a way.

(4) Anyway, I belive this is simply a question (though not necessarily a simple question) of interpretation of BLP, with applicability well beyond any one project -- e.g. listings of "notable residents" of cities and towns. If the discussion is going to expand beyond this one article then I suggest it be transferred to BLPN.

(5) But first, I repeat, please read the discussion linked above and speak to the arguments there.

EEng (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I will look at the article talk pages in detail. The reason I can predict that the article guidelines will be changed is that I know that WP:UNI is a fantastic project and is going to follow overall policy. If members of the project feel that the wider guidelines are incorrect, fhey'll take it up in the right places. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Everybody agrees we should follow policy. The disagreement is over exactly what BLP policy requires in this case. I'll be interested to hear what you think after you've read the talk. EEng (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC) P.S. What is "WP:*!* OS"?

@EEng: Perhaps I've missed the point about BLPCAT (it wouldn't be the first time I've ever missed a point). Are you saying that BLPCAT says something about whether or not sources are required or are you citing it for something altogether different? (I get that whatever it says appears to apply to lists as well as categories; I don't contend that it doesn't. I haven't looked at the question of whether it applies equally to embedded lists in textual articles as well as list-only articles, but I'm willing to assume for the time being for the sake of argument that it applies equally to both.) If you contend that it says something about providing sources, what is it that you say it says? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC) PS: And, yes, before you ask, I have already read the discussion at the article talk page. — TM 00:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone might want to notify the Schools WikiProject as well. See, for example, List of Old Wykehamists. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I added to the article structure guidelines that list items must have inline citations, especially BLPs. If this is insufficient, please let the project know. I'm off on wikibreak now. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That list of Wykehamists illustrates some problems, but it also introduces a possible solution.

Problem 1: If permitted to, such lists will grow like weeds into sprawling, uncited messes. (See also List of people from New York City or List of University of Oxford people) Including this many names on the "people from" sections of any of these pages would obviously be inappropriate and create some WP:UNDUE problems by making it look like the most important thing about the college was the people who went there. (It's not exactly a "notable people" list, but for an example of lists done right, see (The Hollywood Blacklist.)

Problem 2: If someone just wants a list of people affiliated with a place or institution or whatever, they cannot typically rely on Wikipedia lists because it is not practical for them to click through every single link on a page like this. If we want Wikipedia to be reliable, we have to put the citations on the pages where the information is, i.e. every page.

I think this demonstrates the need to treat these pages differently. It might make more sense to have a "Notable people" section on the page itself, but with stringent criteria to keep the list from growing out of control or creating the undue weight problems -- for instance, limiting the section to people whose affiliation with the institution is, in and of itself, notable. That would require coverage of the link between the two-- not just mention of it -- in reliable sources. That would keep the list down, but the section could also include a hatnote to "List of people from X," where anyone's name could be added, assuming it was accompanied with a citation. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Disruption in Serer religion

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Tamsier on 14:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

• Serer religion (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?

On 14 July 2012 User:Eladynnus tagged the Serer religion as WP:POV without an edit summary [92] and left a message on the article's talk page suggesting the Serer culture is not as sophisticated as being portrayed here, see POV issues discusion. In that discussion, they also accused me of deliberately presenting inaccurate information and said they needs a French speaker to evaluate all Serer articles and sources. Apparently they had an issue with some images which are actually Serer pictographs. I have told them in that discussion (several times) to be bold and edit the article if they have alternative reliable sources. Instead, they have resulted in edit wars with me by placing tags here, here and here. Even an administrator in that discussion told them their tagging is unjustified, yet they still continued placing tags. I even added an additional ref to the section they take issue with just to keep the peace [93] (better seen here) but their actions have continued (see diffs above). Note also that since this issue started an IP all of a sudden appeared from nowhere and placed a speedy deletion template on the Serer religion article [94] which I have removed here. As of todate, Eladynnus has made no attempt to edit the article other than placing tags (see their contribution history [95]). Apparently, they are waiting for a French speaker to evaluate all Serer articles and sources (see the discussion above). I've told them I have never heard of that, and Wiki's articles cannot be hijacked in that way. The article is fully referenced and they are free to go through the references. With respect, if they cannot read French, that is their problem not mine. Please would someone intervene in this because this issue is getting out of hand. Note that I have also posted a message to another editor [96] who mistakenly reverted my edits without seeing the previous reference I added, and saying my edit summary was contradictory to the templates I removed [97].

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Tamsier (talk · contribs)
• Eladynnus (talk · contribs)

Eladynnus should be bold and improve the article if they take issue with a section and introduce RS. I have repeatedly told them to be bold and that I do NOT own these articles and anyone is free to edit them. However, disruption and drive-by-tagging of Wiki articles is not encouraged.

• 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 [98].

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

When I first saw their tags and the discussion they opened up in the article's talk page, I have repeatedly told them to assume good faith and be bold and improve the articles if they have other reliable sources that supports their claim [99]. So far, they have made no attempt to improve the article other than tagging it. I have also added an additional source regarding the images they take issue with just to keep the peace [100], but as you can see, they have added back the POV and disputed fact templates on the article [101].

• How do you think we can help?

With respect, these tags do not belong to this article. All the previous disputes with actual contributors to this article were resolved. If Eladynnus believes otherwise, they should be bold and edit parts of what they take issue with by adding RS to support their claim. I have told them this many times which they have not done. Wiki articles cannot be hijacked, or waite for a French speaker who may or may not turn up to do their work for them. As such these templates should be removed and Eladynnus should be made aware that what they are doing is disrupting the project. They can go through all the Serer related articles under Category Serer people and evaluate them. I have no problem with that, but kidnapping them (per their remark on the disccussion above and elsewhere) is not permitted per Wiki policy.

Tamsier (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Serer religion discussion

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

First of all, you don't need to specify an edit summary when tagging articles. Electric Catfish 15:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Electriccatfish2 for your feedback. Perhaps you don't have to but it is considered good practice, wouldn't you agree? Tamsier (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually did include edit summaries in all of my subsequent restorations of the tags 1 2 3. Eladynnus (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Eladynnus, do you believe the entire article is non-neutral, or that specific sections are? If sections, which ones? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that all of Tamsier's articles are written in a sunny "they believe this-and-this" style which is reminiscent of D&D supplements. The Serer religion article is a good example of this style. I also think that he is attempting to "Sererize" articles about Senegal and The Gambia by "laying claim" to certain ethnic groups, inserting references to the Serer wherever possible, exaggerating the importance of Serer articles by rating the pages himself, and trying to make general discussions of Senegal specifically about the Serer (here). I think the article needs to be rewritten, but due to its sprawl and the way that Tamsier insults those he disagrees with I don't see that happening. Eladynnus (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a situation where an {{expert-subject}} tag might have been more appropriate. Although Tammsier seems to have expertise on the Serer, would you mind standing back and letting another expert evaluate this case as a solution to the dispute? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jorgath for your contribution. I have absolutely no problem in standing back and letting another review the whole article and any Serer related article as far as I am concerned. In fact, the more the merrier and I have told Eladynnus that in the article's talk page. As far as I can guage with any degree of certainty, Eladynnus's objection is the Serer pictographs (images). Although they have placed the POV template at the top of the article indicating they take issue with the article (as well as the fact template under cosmology section), I'm yet to ascertain what they find to be POV, perhaps Eladynnus can explain. But as far as standing back, absolutely no problem. The more editors and eyes the better. Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Great! Eladynnus, would getting expert eyes on the article be an acceptable resolution for you? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be good, but I also believe that Tamsier's activities need to be closely monitored by third parties as he has been banned in the past for sockpuppeting and attacking other editors. Eladynnus (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to invite Drmies to this discussion before anything is done as he has interacted with Tamsier in the past and may be able to shed some more light on this subject. Eladynnus (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Drmies supported the original removal of the tag because my most immediate issue was with a section detailing "raampa", a writing system which I and JSTOR had never heard of, and which only had a crank's site as a source. Since the NPOV tag is not for that sort of issue, it was probably right that it be removed at that point. Later I articulated my NPOV concerns more clearly and found the appropriate tag for the raampa dispute, but Tamsier seems to believe that any tags are vandalism and has been posting threats, insults, and ultimatums on the talk page ever since. As you can see from my links above, I've had to restore these tags several times (including once where he didn't mention it in the edit summary 1). Eladynnus (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see that Tamsier has added a tag to an article which was only written by me, Peasant leagues (Brazil). Judging from the nasty comment on the talk page and his own attitude toward tags, I can hardly believe that this was done in good faith, although I'll be happy to develop the article further before removing the tag. Eladynnus (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please leave the behavioral issues off of this; the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for content disputes only. If you have concerns about Tamsier's behavior, there are other forums for that. As for your other concerns, I believe that an expert evaluating the page would of course evaluate the raampa aspect too. Below is my proposed resolution. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Jorgath makes a good point. Eladynnus, comments on Tamsier are not for this venue, even though I have plenty of problems with Tamsier's behavior. Tamsier, if you wish to improve our relationship, start by dividing these long sections into shorter paragraphs, s'il vous plait. ;)

  I have no expertise on the subject matter and not much interest, right now, to become an expert, but allow me an observation: I don't see yet that anyone has addressed the language issue and I'd like to state the obvious. Tamsier is obviously correct in pointing out that not knowing French is not their problem. Whatever the French wiki does or does not do is irrelevant here, but citations are citations, no matter which language they are. Having read over the entire talk page again, I find it striking that none of these POV accusations actually state specifically which statement(s) or section(s) or image(s) are supposed to be not-neutral. If the taggers which to make a case for the tags, they should start by making a case for the tags, rather than just play "revert" with an original unexplained tag. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution

I propose that the POV tag at the top of the article be replaced by an {{expert-subject}} template with appropriate parameters filled. The in-section tag should be left in place so as to help guide any expert(s) to the locus of the dispute. Both of you would then step back from the article until such time as expert attention has been given to it. Would this be acceptable to both of you? Drmies hasn't yet weighed in, but would you be OK with this resolution too? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I have no problem with that. Tamsier (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Sure--I don't see much of a problem with that either provided that there is some specificity to it, and that someone on the talk page explains exactly what the problem is. Funny thing is, for all I know Tamsier is somewhat of an expert here. If the only problem is "does this French source verify the information?" then I find the argument for the tag rather weak. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If that's actually the only problem, I read French nearly fluently. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I would love to hear what the actual problem is. FWIW, I'm a talented and experienced French kisser and if properly imbibed can recite Boris Vian. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment - I'm just saying yes here to keep the peace, although I agree pretty much with Drmies observations. I see no justifiable reason for tagging this article but if others think otherwise, then there is no problem.Tamsier (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• I support this. Eladynnus (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You were asked a question above as to what you find to be POV or non-neutral about the article. Do you want to address that in the relevant section? I'm sure it will help others including myself because I still haven't a clue other than your objection with images.Tamsier (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• I have changed the tag over as per the proposal. I'll leave this open as to Eladynnus' answer to the POV question for a little while, although I encourage them to post that to the article talk page instead/as well. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Jorgath--let me propose something here as well. If there are no specific indications of where and how the article is not partial (indications that cannot be derived from opinions about Tamsier or extrapolations from a set of other articles), then there shouldn't be a tag at all. I want Eladynnus to put his money where his mouth his, if you'll pardon my French. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I looked at some of these articles a while ago and was not happy about what seemed to be exaggerated claims. I certainly saw some interpretations by French authors being put forward as fact and made some minor changes, which Tamsier agreed to. Specifically these were archaeological interpretations of prehistoric artefacts deducing that they showed certain aspects of religion existed much longer ago than any would be expected, and from my studies of English speaking archaeologists I know that these interpretations would in many cases not have been entertained by them.(Sorry, this is a clumsy way of putting what I see as the problem). I would guess that the problems I saw exist elsewhere in related articles, ie interpretations being put forward as fact. A large part of the problem may simply be that only one archaeologist has studied these cultures, and that archaeologist may have an approach that other archaeologists would not share. There's really no way around that except to make sure that the articles make it clear these are interpretations. Of course, there may be criticism of Gravrand somewhere which would be useful. An example of the problem I see is States headed by ancient Serer Lamanes. Gravrand here is basically saying that Serer culture is 10,000 years old. I've read quite a bit of archaeology, and I've never seen a claim that an existing culture is anywhere near that old. Claims that the concept of reincarnation can be shown to have existed that long ago I find equally dubious. I don't know the solution to this, although it would be nice if there were any other experts besides Issa Laye Thiaw, Cheikh Anta Diop and Henry Gravrand. And for the record, I don't consider that Alan Rake, used at States headed by ancient Serer Lamanes as a source for this long time depth, to be a reliable source and I'm bothered that a non-archaeologist would be used for this. Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
      • With this edit[102] Tamsier added considerable content. Specifically, he wrote "They were settled people at the time of the Neolithic Era, about 10,000 years ago". This is cited to page 50 of this book[103]. Can someone else comment on whether the source backs the claim, as I don't think it does. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
        • The Kingdom of Sine is claimed to be much older than the 14th century, see for instance Timeline of Serer history. The article says it was renamed in the 14th century. However, other sources contradict this. Islamic Society and State Power in Senegal: Disciples and Citizens in Fatick by Leonardo A. Villalón[104] calls it "One of three Serer kingdoms to emerge between the

fourteenth and the sixteenth centuries". And "A nomadic caste: the Fulani woodcarvers historical background and evolution M Dupire" - Anthropos, 1985 - JSTOR "In the case where a non-centralized society became a kingdom in the past (13th century), as among the bilineal Serer of Sine". I'm not convinced I don't see POV problems, specifically presenting a time depth as fact when other sources don't suggest this. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Alan Chambers (Exodus International)

– New discussion.

Filed by Lionelt on 07:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC).

• Alan Chambers (Exodus International) (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 editor is adding a LGBT category to Alan Chambers. Chambers has not self-identified as LGBT and this is a violation of WP:BLPCAT. The editor has violated WP:BRD and seems determined to edit war. On the other hand, even though I can claim the 3RR exemption I will not edit war with the editor.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Lionelt (talk · contribs)
• Bemorej (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=Alan Chambers (Exodus International)}} --~~~~ 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?

Pointed out the BLP violation to the editor on the article talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

Remove the LGBT category and warn the editor in no uncertain terms that BLP violations will not be tolerated.

– Lionel ^(talk) 07:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Alan Chambers (Exodus International) discussion

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

I am a dispute resolution volunteer. Adding a category like LGBT to a person who has not openly identified themselves as such is a violation of WP:BLPCAT, part of the WP:BLP policy. But it seems to me that the place this should be going is to the BLP noticeboard, where you can get more eyes on it to specifically deal with any violations of the BLP policy. If there's some other content dispute going on, we'll be happy to help with it, but a BLP issue is what they specialize in. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am also a DRN volunteer. It seems that there are 2 citations regarding the LBGT statement. There is one that is reliable and one that is not. On Wikipedia, we must be very careful with what we say about living people in BLPs. If it was no sourced properly, it would be a violation of WP: BLPCAT and it would be removed. However, it is fine to put that in if it is reliably sourced. Also, I see edit warring going on. I have issued warnings to the editors involved, but if the reverts continue, I will report them to WP: ANEW and the editors who reverted will likely be blocked. Electric Catfish 13:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

List of conspiracy theories

– New discussion.

Filed by Validuz on 13:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC).

• List of conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

I changed a word that wasn't a NPOV from "canard" to "conspiracy" in this sentence: "A related conspiracy is that Jews control Hollywood or the news media." Dougweller immediately reverted the change and posted on my page threatening to block me from being able to edit the page. Ironically and hypocritically, he claimed I was the one not being neutral. "Canard" means false, as obviously does "myth." Neither are NPOV when referring to conspiracy theories.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Dougweller (talk · contribs)
• Validuz (talk · contribs)

What concerns me is that I believe he's an administrator. I don't know how that could happen with someone that doesn't know that stating "a conspiracy is false" is not a NPOV.

• 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=List of conspiracy theories}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Once I've been threatened, I'm not sure what to do past edit wars.

• How do you think we can help?

Explain to him what NPOV means, because he clearly doesn't know. This seems to be a reoccurring theme when it comes to anything to do with Israel.

Validuz (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

List of conspiracy theories discussion

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

I gave him an NPOV warning, not the same as a threat to block him. He didn't simply change canard to conspiracy theory, he made that sentence read read " A related conspiracy is that Jews control Hollywood" - which looks as though the article is asserting that there is a Jewish conspiracy. He also added "by pro-Jewish groups" to "Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory"saying in his edit summary "The cited references are only from pro-Jewish organizations" - which is simply not true, check them out. After rolling him back I looked at the paragraph again and changed 'canard' to 'myth' (as used elsewhere in the paragraph) and added sources saying 'myth' which he reverted to his earlier version, "A related conspiracy is that Jews control Hollywood or the news media" which looks like pov wording. Note that a number of sources do use the word 'canard' [105] and that he was blocked for edit warring over exactly this last year (when it was pointed out at the now deleted article that there were sources for canard.[106] Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dougweller's latest edit-summary "changing it to conspiracy makes the article read as though there is a Jewish conspiracy" makes a good point, and I disagree with Validuz's edits that simply saying "conspiracy" is acceptable here. That simple wording implies that the conspiracy itself is real, not just that others believe it to be so. The "conspiracy theory" is what's real (per WP:V), and it's not POV to declare it as such (unless you have WP:RS that the conspiracy is real). Given that it's apparently debunked however, it's not even POV to declare it as such (calling it a "myth" or "canard", again per references). NPOV doesn't mean we omit stating verifiable positions on issues. DMacks (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Verifiable positions? From partisan sources? It's fine if you want to quote them, but I don't see how stating an opinion as a fact is okay under NPOV. In fact, that seems like the opposite of okay. Validuz (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• [ec] Comment from innocent bystander: What we have here is a failure to communicate, a matter of English. Dougweller indeed reverted two edits, here, and was correct in doing so (the edit summary explained it). Changing "canard" to "conspiracy" (not "conspiracy theory) makes it a real thing, so to speak. Moreover, "by pro-Jewish groups" (whatever those may be) suggests a partiality, and Holocaust denial is seen by lots of different groups as antisemitic. Then Validuz again (incorrectly) changes what is now "myth" to "conspiracy", without explanation, after which Dougweller again reverts, with an explanation in the edit summary. Now, should Dougweller have issued a level-3 disruption warning after Validuz's first effort here? Probably not--but I'm guessing he thought he was dealing with an antisemite who was proposing that the Jews in fact do control Hollywood; I think, and I think this is validated by subsequent discussion, that the problem is with Validuz's English. I hope this is the case, anyway. Drmies (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • After reading Dougweller's comments: I have not delved in the history of this editor. Drmies (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Some of this may just be poor writing, I don't know. I was probably affected by edit summaries such as "Fuck it. Not going to bother wasting time on several intellectually dishonest far left wing ideologists trying to push their agenda." and the earlier NPA warning (as well as the appearance, from the adding of 'pro-Jewish' of possible anti-Semitism), perhaps this should have been level-2, but given that he was blocked on the same issue before I still think Level 3 was justified. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

His previous block was per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive84#Validuz. Repeating behavior anything like what led to an AE block is certainly grounds for jumping right to level3. I don't know if the current edits are exactly within the 1RR of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, but the same failure to understand NPOV in Jewish-related topics and EWing the same ideas as last time surely comes close. DMacks (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I just realized you are correct with the "conspiracy theory" part. I should've added "theory." I apologize for that. However, it still doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't be called outright false. That's not NPOV. Validuz (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology here. But tell me, would you also say that we can't call the moon landing conspiracy theory false? And I can't figure out why you didn't change " Antisemitic canards continue to circulate. In medieval Europe it was widely believed that Jews poisoned wells, had killed Jesus, and consumed the blood of Christians in their rituals (despite the fact that human and animal blood is not kosher)." Why can't we call something that is false false? NPOV doesn't mean being neutral, after all. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)