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
New Mexico State University and University of New Mexico	Closed	Alamo NM (t)	5 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 5 hours
Genesis creation narrative	Resolved	Violoncello10104 (t)	4 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 hours
Algeria	New	Lord Ruffy98 (t)	2 days, 10 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 9 hours	Lord Ruffy98 (t)	14 hours
Eudora (email client)	Closed	Hugh Turdmuncher (t)	2 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 4 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 19:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by PeterEastern on 21:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PeterEastern (talk · contribs)
• Trackinfo (talk · contribs)
• Anmccaff (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Two long term editors (myself and User:Trackinfo) are not able to work constructively with a recent contributor User:Anmccaff even after very very long discussions on talk. Since backing off from the article he has made changes which he is convinced are accurate and which we believe to be lacking balance. Further discussion on talk has only convinced us of the need to seek outside help.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the article talk page. Conversations on his talk page. Backing off from the article for a number of weeks to give him space to develop it in peace.

How do you think we can help?

Anmccaff is certainly very knowledgeable and committed, I respect him for that, however I am coming to the view that he is unable to work constructively with others to create a balanced article.

I would like you to first provide an outsiders perspective on the situation and then make recommendations to the individuals concerned as to how to proceed based on experience with similar situations elsewhere.

Summary of dispute by PeterEastern

I have been editing WP since 2007, and using this username since 2009. I became aware of this article back in 2010 following a visit to Detroit which led to me adding a comprehensive history section in the Transportation in metropolitan Detroit article. The General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy article at that time claimed that Detroit was one of the affected cities (which is wasn't). The more I looked into this article and the subject generally, the more confusing it seemed. The article was poorly written, poorly source and subject to frequent POV arguments, however virtually everyone else who wrote on the subject in books and on the web also seemed to be pushing one POV or other or unawarely peddling a myth as fact. It became a bit of a mad mission of mine in late 2010 to create a definitive document in WP which would get as close to the truth was was possible. Given that not everything could be discovered so far after events that were not well publicised at the time, I did what I could and created a 'myths and mysteries' section to itemise those claims that could not be substantiated. My clear conclusion, was the simplistic stories on both sides are too simplistic.

As a transport profession and academic I am well aware of all the other reasons for the changes towards the car and was pleased with the article which seemed to tell the story in balanced way by early 2011. Over the years since then I have kept an eye on it, while taking care to not dominate, and had a principle, that whenever the article was changed, even where this was clearly in a negative direction, that I would try to create better content rather than simply revert. The article is very well used, with some 100,000 page views a year and was not majorly challenged in those years.

In the 7 years I have edited WP I have never had to resort to this sort of dispute process. I have my scars for sure, battling with Defacto on issues relating to road safety was tough, and he has subsequently been permanently banned from WP, but I learnt from him that some of the best WP work is done when working within the rules with people we opposing views. That worked well until recently.

Regrettably, with Anmccaff I concluded that it was impossible to get to a conclusion on anything. His use of talk pages, his abrasiveness and obtuseness, his habit of dropping discussions half-way through and starting another one was too difficult. In parallel I noted a reduction in the number of people engaging with the article, and indeed other articles on WP, to an extent that I find concerning. Anyway.. on 17 November I concluded that for my sanity and to ensure that I was not part of the problem, that I should disengage from the article and see what happened. Until Trackinfo made his post on talk on the 24 Jan I didn't once even look at the article or what was being done to it.

I am not sure how we move forward. I realise that this board is a place to discuss content and not individuals, but I feel that it is important to have put the above on the table and say that the most serious issue is that communication between the parties interested in this article has broken down and I am not confident that it can be repaired. From here on though I will discuss only content and take advice on how to deal with personality issues separately if necessary.

My concerns with the article are very much the same as those of Trackinfo. I note the inclusion of phrases such as 'Conspiracy theorists emphasize ...', 'While conspiracy theorists focus on ...', 'While Quinby's instrumentality is a keystone of many conspiracy theories...' and 'Tellingly, conspiracy minded authors do not discuss...' which Anmccaff added and would no doubt defend but which I oppose.

There are then the unprovable generalisations such as 'Most transit scholars say that..'.

However I am as concerned about the addition for a huge amount of detail in the Background and Early Years section which is a distraction and will turn people off of article which should be about the 'conspiracy', and not the history of streetcars more generally. A great way to neutralise an article is to add irrelevant content, and I am concerned that that has happened here.

Conversely, having provide a lot of relevant new and very pertinent information on talk here, he has chosen not to add it to the article in the past 2 months.

For the record, you can see a summary of changes made, mainly by Anmccaff between 17 Nov and 24 Jan here.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TrackInfo

This article has suffered from lack of broad attention, even I have failed to monitor it daily. Since Peter Eastern's one man defense of the content of the article was put on hold, Anmccaff has taken full control of the article, rewriting the article with his POV. Going back to his initial contact here he has started off with what seems like a prejudicial tone toward the original content of the article; Everything you know is wrong. What concerns me is the subtle writing in wikipedia's voice, to push his POV wishing to refer to this as an urban legend, essentially making this a lecture as to how what was the previous version of this article is discredited. Each interaction in Talk has been confusing at best, with his demand to call things matching his opinion as "facts" while existing knowledge is debunked by these "facts."

After writing my disgust at the direction of the article, I started off trying to fix the article, to make it more neutral at least in wikipedia's voice, removing "as well as to urban legends and other folklore inspired by these events" and peacock phrase like "popular" that are intended to hype credibility. I couldn't even get past the lede when [1] [2] these were reverted in less than 10 minutes. So essentially this foretells that Anmccaff is taking ownership of this content.

I expressed my concern that the conspirators have a commercial interest in making this negative publicity go away. I'm not the only one to bring this up, going back to the first talk archive, there are clear efforts to push POV dating back years; the Cato Institute, non-credible, Koch brothers funded corporate shill, is identified as leading this cause, which would be consistent with the various corporations wish to rewrite history. They can't make the actual conviction go away. That was made by people who were involved at the time. This is historical. Nobody here was involved in 1949. We all are dealing with third hand accounts. We shouldn't just examine this from our recent perspective.

The lede is quoting Guy Span (c.2003) saying Bradford C. Snell (c.1974) "fell into simplistic conspiracy theory thinking, bordering on paranoid delusions" which certainly serves to discredit him. An accusation like that in a WP:BLP would have to be much better sourced.

So I had to ask; who is Guy Span? Anmccaff's response, like so much of his communication in talk, is less than coherent, but it does not mount anything positive to say about this non-notable individual's credibility to be the authority on this subject. Span's own claim is that he was the editor of the blog where this was posted, so its a self-source. Looking down the references, Span is quoted and sourced some 15 times in the article. Removing the peacock term calling Span "noted" is one of two clean ups I have successfully made. The other one was a spurious (empty) heading "Cracks in the Facade" which is about as POV oriented a title as can be created.

I also called out a factual error regarding San Francisco's continued use of ground level streetcars, which I personally documented as recently as 2010, again my edits were reverted. So it is clear we do not have a collegial attitude happening here. This is a clear effort to push this POV. Trackinfo (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I am quite frustrated with this progress. As you can clearly see how one user completely dominates and overwhelms the conversation. Neutrality is up against a single purpose POV pushing account. There are too many threads to track down. For each response there are ten new answers without any sense of coherence. Well there is one coherent thought, pushing the POV that all of this story is a myth; that the conspirators had no fault in the results; they were just making sound economic decisions. From their point of view, they did make sound corporate decisions, to push their (admittedly inferior) technology and to kill the competition. They did this successfully. This is not just based on trends in purchase decisions. The act of removing the ability of alternatives to compete, the removal of the tracks and easements served their interests well. Those decisions were made by people the conspirators put in place to make those decisions. We've had 60 to 80 years pass since those decisions were being made. That's a lot of time to produce a lot of revisionist data and opinions. From the perspective of wikipedia neutrality, we should not be reporting just one side of the issue while making exceptional efforts at rebuking the others. Trackinfo (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Anmccaff

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

There are fairly deep divides here not merely on matters of opinion, but of matters of fact as well; it would be useful if any volunteers had decent access to a library in a major US or possibly Canadian city, or an academic library focused on ground transportation. I think the article is loaded with weak references -several self-published- selected to fit a pre-existing narrative, and edits made to "balance" whenever the factual underpinning of the selected story was weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs) 22:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As you can now see, the recent time line of this dispute goes as follows:

Petereastern announces he will be taking a break from the discussion, but will be keeping an eye on it, checking in from time to time.Anmccaff (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I make a series of changes, all of which I would be happy to defend as main-line thinking by transit scholars. They were made slowly over time, to allow questions and input. After a few weeks....Anmccaff (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Trackinfo posts an emotion-laden jeremiad, mainly denouncing one of the sources, implying that both the source, and anyone who would use them, was probably in the pay of GM, roughly. He also announces that he can't find references to a writer who is using a blatant pen-name. I will pass over the irony of someone posting as "Trackinfo" denouncing a pen-name, but "Petereastern" could have easily enlightened him on some of the reasons, good and bad, why someone active in an industry during a time of consolidation might not want to write a column that dissects controversial parts of that industry's history openly under his own name.Anmccaff (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

He also edited out a reference to tunnels on the SF Muni system, claiming it was inaccurate. (It wasn't, and isn't, but it was ambiguous. Simply changing "used" to "use" fixed that.) Again, the talk page was laden with stuff that, in another forum, might be actionable.Anmccaff (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Petereastern, the person who had selected and (over-)used the source Trackinfo so objected to, returns(?), claiming he had not, in fact, kept an eye on the board as he had promised, and suggests that the correct thing to do is to post the article as disputed -and remember, Trackinfo was questioning a source that Petereastern himself used extensively - and begin a formal dispute here. That is to say, faced with someone denouncing his work, Peter egged on an obviously over-exited person to start a dispute.Anmccaff (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I asked on the talk page -originally the wrong talk page- if someone could recommend exactly where to take up a dispute.Anmccaff (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter then cited here two works which disagree rather strongly with the tack he had taken with the article, one of which, it transpires, he hadn't even read. After reading it -and remember, this article is a staple of the discussion, he announces, roughly, that the article needs a complete revision...something I have stated for several months now.Anmccaff (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have any questions, I can add links to each of these points. Can you recomment where these issues should be brought up?Anmccaff (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Coordinator's note: Hi PeterEastern. I am not taking this case, but there are a couple of things that need to be fixed. First, could you specify exactly what the disputed changes are? It's rather difficult to have an orderly case if no one is sure what exactly is being disputed. Second, please notify all parties by putting {{subst:DRN-notice}} on their talk page. Thanks. --Biblioworm 02:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Will do. By way of context, although I have edited WP for many years, this is the first time I have actually been involved in this process. PeterEastern (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Biblioworm, to what extent do you want discussion here, now, before an actual DRN volunteer takes this on?

And, perhaps more importantly, is there any more manageable way to notify interested parties? There are a great many more people than us three involved here.Anmccaff (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have now added the requested details above in a new section 'Summary of dispute by PeterEastern'. PeterEastern (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, I am a DRN volunteer and I am opening this case for discussion. Please do not comment about motivations or behaviour of other editors. This is a content based discussion. If after this DRN one or more parties wish to question the behaviour of another editor, then Administrators Notice Board is one option. If the parties would prefer to discuss issues of consensus, this is not the proper forum, again I would suggest the Administrators Notice Board. Please answer the inquiries succinctly. Questions which are not raised in initial discussion may be raised by the parties after some basics are out of the way. I do ask that each of you respond to each inquiry. This is a structured process to try to bring the parties to an understanding if not agreement. --Bejnar (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Stalled

Volunteer comment: This case appears to have stalled. No one, including the moderator User:Bejnar has not commented for 5 days. Unless there is further moderated discussion soon, this case will need to be closed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Do you have any specific comments or questions about what was posted, and can you recommend where to take it from here?Anmccaff (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to get your moderator back on the case to either moderate/continue the discussion or to summarize and close the case. I have not read the case. Has there been any progress or resolution? Why has the discussion stalled? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think, based on the comment by one editor, that the editors have stalled on the case because they are waiting for the moderator to return or for a replacement moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, we can't exactly drag the moderator back in in here, and he may have excellent reasons to be elsewhere. (Or he might have just looked over the whole mess and run off screaming to Tierra del Fuego. On second thought, I suspect that might count as an "excellent reason," too.) As for why it has stalled, I would say it is partly because it doesn't belong in here in the first place. The main points of dispute go well beyond sources.Anmccaff (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I raised the issue on talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard here a few days back, and did an update this evening as requested. PeterEastern (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay. I'm back. --Bejnar (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 1

Please list the five facts in the article (or recently in the article, Oct. 2014 to date) that are most contentious. --Bejnar (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe my dispute is with facts. Frankly, I do not know enough of this historical information from personal knowledge to state what is a true fact and what is false. I was not in those boardrooms in the 1930's. My objection is with the directed conclusions from this information, the structure of the writing to guide a specific narrative from the information presented. A lot of people present a lot of theories and can post revisionist statistical information about what occurred before the conspiracy and after the conspiracy. Everything may or may not be a factor. Did the conspiracy's thumb on the scale cause events to occur, did it hasten what was already set in motion, did it embed its result more firmly for decades? Nobody really can know the answer, so wikipedia should not be drawing a conclusion that one set of facts are valid and others are discredited. Trackinfo (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As Trackinfo said, facts are thin on the ground. We have claims and simplistic conclusions aplenty, mainly in two flavours to suit ones politics. If I was to boil this issue down to one disputed fact, it is that the impression that the article gives currently that the conspiracy theory is a folk-tail and myth. What I believe we should be saying is 'actually, it wasn't that simple, there were many contributing factors to the decline of the streetcars in the USA'. Personally, I am reassured when people from both sides complain that the article being biased away from what they know to be true! PeterEastern (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

When I began my efforts to clean up this "tone" issue, the first thing I removed was the deliberate, discrediting, lede statement of this being an urban myth. Its immediate reversion stated volumes as to what resistance I was going to get from the opposition and set this dispute in motion. Trackinfo (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Trackinfo. I know you are frustrated, so am I, but let's take this slowly and focus on the questions being asked. I think we have captured our view of the disputed fact in this article above, and are agreement that there is only one of these. PeterEastern (talk)

Inquiry 2

Please list up to five of the most unreliable sources in recent use (Oct. 2014 to date) in the article, together with one sentence for each as to why it is unreliable. If any source has been discussed at the Reliable sources noticeboard please so note and provide a link. --Bejnar (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to make a slightly nerdy distinction in relation to reliability of sources before we respond to this. The subject of this article is the conspiracy (or not), and is not the history of streetcars int eh USA per se. As such, I think we would agree that the official 1974 Senate Hearings documents are a reliable source for the subject, and also for what was said in the hearings of that year.

I am also reasonably confident that we will agree that we need to be very cautious in regard to treating the claims made by individuals during the hearings as evidence of what happened 30 years before the hearings as facts in themselves, and in particular we have agreed to discount claims made by Snell in this regard. What we are short of are sources that we can rely on for what actually happened during the period 1938-48 and what the key players did and did not do in that time.

Have I captured the distinction correctly and is that useful?

-- PeterEastern (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

For fear of being repetitive from my statement above, but answering the request that followed: I am not questioning any specific source (possibly save Guy Span). I am questioning the directed conclusions by the writing style of the article giving positive weight to some sources while discrediting others. What we have here are largely a set of opinions based on some limited statistical information. Even in their day, governmental agencies did not know how to track this information, so their franchise fees were based on loose flat fees. Nobody really knew what was going on, obviously. If they could have foretold the future, they would have made different decisions. We have a lot of opinions of what would have happened, or what was already happening. The factual existence of this conspiracy interrupted that normal flow of events. The directed revisionist opinion here is to ignore the conviction; that the guilty parties did nothing wrong and the billions they have made in subsequent profits at the expense of our society were just what would have happened in the normal course of human events. That conclusion is what I object to. Calling this a myth or an urban legend dismisses the entire story. It is almost worse than having the article deleted. It is intended to make this bad publicity go away as something to be forgotten. Trackinfo (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

---

• Lovearth.net Site of Mark R Elsis: There isn't a single conspiracy theory he doesn't support. Holocaust denial to Pearl Harbor and 911 conspiracy theorist, his websites cover them all. Cites Guibault and Snell.Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We only rely on loveearth as an accurate source of what Snell said in 1995, 'Snell, Bradford (1995): The StreetCar Conspiracy: How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit'. We have already agreed this and other works by Snell should only be used as evidence of what Snell, who is notably for the subject said, not as evidence of what happned. I have just noticed at least one place where we take what is written as fact and would support a rewording to say 'Snell says...' or an alternative source or remove the content. Given that Snell writes from a conspiratorial perspective, is it not to be reasonable to reference such a site as evidence? PeterEastern (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What is there about Elsis or Snell that suggest this is an accurate rendition of something he said earlier? Remember, Snell goes on, to this day, about the fines in the NCL case, even though he was required to insure that the sentencing judge's reasons were included in the '73 hearings. That strongly suggests mendacity or a very poor memory. (Moreover, haven't you noticed that Snell's "approved" versions of his words are all published with footnotes stripped? Odd, that.)Anmccaff (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Anything by Louis Guilbault: Self published; one on the "cites" given here is, in essence, a copy of a letter to the editor. Has published a vanity book on the subject.Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that we cite him only once (cite 17 currently) for a minor point of fact that we can surely get from other sources. If this bothers you then I would support your replacing it with an alternative. PeterEastern (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Um...no. Take the damned thing out. It's a series of lies, and it's self-published, what makes you so certain it expresses accurately any "point of fact?"Anmccaff (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Anything by Brad Snell: Snell has a deservedly low reputation on questions of fact, and repeatedly made assertions which are either outright lies, or a sign of a very poor memory. (Snell repeatedly comments on the small size of fines levied against the NCL defendants, yet the Senate subcommittee papers make the reason for those token fines clear, and Snell was himself made directly responsible for seeing that was in the record, which must have stung.)Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in my 'nerdy distinction' above, we have already agreed that what Snell says is notable, but is not reliable; it therefore depends on how he is used. Some time back I did a pass through the article when I attempted to remove all uses of Snell as a reliable source of facts. Have I missed anything? If so then do please fix it. PeterEastern (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Modern Transit" and Akos Szoboszlay. (at least on this subject.): Very, very close to self-published work. Blinkered partisanship, with obvious errors of fact.Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that we were using it as a source. It is only listed in 'external links' for 'Conflict of Transportation Competitors'. As such I don't this it is relevant to this process. PeterEastern (talk)

I'm not sure if it is in the current version, but it was certainly in the older; I removed in over your vehement objections, if you remember. If you don't, look here: [[[3]] and [[4]].

• Black, Edwin (2006): "10". Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives. St. Martins Press. A well-known writer of sensationalist potboilers; often takes Snell et al at face value.Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I can't see anywhere where we use this as a source. It is only listed in 'further reading'. PeterEastern (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Aside, of course, from [H*tler's Carmaker] Now there's a nice, balanced reliable source.Anmccaff (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Fellmeth, Robert C. (1973): Politics of Land: Ralph Nader's Study Group Report on Land Use in California. Grossman Publishers. pp. 410–14. Assumes facts rather than investigating them. (The other side on this argument here likes this work so much it was put in the "further reading" twice.)Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I can't see anywhere where we use this as a source. It is only listed in 'further reading'. PeterEastern (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

...twice.Anmccaff (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 3

Please list up to three of the most important reliable sources for the article. If you can narrow it to one that would be best. --Bejnar (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No.no.Ten thousand times, no. There isn't a single, reliable source that will cover a wide enough sweep here.

A first pass has to start with Hilton and Due, whose work Snell mis-cited.Anmccaff (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Responding to Amnccaff Are you saying that there is no reliable sources at all for this?!

Personally I am supportive of all the main sources used in the 'Footnotes/Citations' section as reliable sources as long as they are used appropriately. I have not reviewed all of the 'Notes' sources. The only source that is being challenged on talk at present is Span, Guy (2003) where there is a view being expressed that he is self-published and working under a pseudonym. This blew up only after I withdrew from the article so I have not followed the conversation in detail. What I would say in support of Span is that his work was hugely useful to me when I did my makeover of the article in 2010 in that his writing was one of the most accurate and balanced explanation of what had happened that was available to me at the time, other than Cliff Slater. It is my recollection that much of what he said as fact has subsequently been verified from other sources but I am happy to be proved wrong.

Breaking sources down, I think we should all agree that we have some excellent primary sources, notably transcripts of the 1951 court case and the 1974 Senate hearings. As noted above Snell is a fine source for what Snell said and claimed, but not of fact. I would suggest that Bianco, Martha (1998), Slater, Cliff (1997) are probably our best tertiary (or are they secondary?) sources. I would want to review the Span discussion on talk before discounting him as a good source.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 3a

Editor Anmccaff stated: There isn't a single, reliable source that will cover a wide enough sweep here. Given, for the purposes of this inquiry, that no single reliable source covers all the territory, what are the most important reliable sources for the article? Editor PeterEastern has already answered this question above. --Bejnar (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Both Slater and Bianco are good sources, but they disagree totally with the point of view User:PeterEastern and User:Trackinfo write from. They are, however, only as good as a short paper can be in discussing a very big topic. As a quick guide to the actual history that is easily accessible on the internet, Slater, "Guy Span", Bianco, Stan Schwartz, and, oddly, Tom Wetzel together make a good start. (You have to make minor allowances, since that list contains one old-line commie, and someone whose experiences with conspiracy true believer's calls for new trolleys has pretty well soured him on public transit.) Van Wilkins piece is also useful. To really get at the meat of it, though, Bob Post's work and Brian Cudahy's are preferable and provide a good many primary source refutations of some of mistakes of fact which were in the article. Demoro is also good, but was a reporter, not a scholar, and his work sometimes reflects that. (He refers throughout his book on the Key system to "Frank Teasdale," which is how he heard the name, not "Teasdel" as it was actually spelled.) Post, Demoro, Cudahy, and Hilton are not widely available online without some digging. The various house and senate hearings on antitrust in '55(?) and the '70s are both available online, as are the hearings that led to the current system of federal support of transit. Hilton, although he concentrates on the earlier interurban systems, gives a great deal of insight into streetcars as well, and is worth reading for that if you find a copy avaiable.Anmccaff (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

For the next pass, Bottles, Adler, and Gregory Thompson's The Passenger Train in the Motor Age, which covers a parallel topic, the fight between road and rail in California, would be helpful, and are all easily avaible online.Anmccaff (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, this might be the place to mention what I see as real problem the article has had for many years: it seems to be taken as a given that good sources will be available, easily, on line. On this, and on some other topics, Wiki creates its own pool of sources, where tertiary sources based on Wikipedia itself reinforce the notion that there's only a limited amount of information available.Anmccaff (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 3b

Are there any objections to Bianco, Martha (1998) or Slater, Cliff (1997) as reliable sources? If so please state the basis in one sentence.

No objections. One could quibble that the source we use for Slater, Cliff (1997), including the claim that it was published in Transportation Quarterly, is a self-published. There is however ample separate evidence from good sources that it was. Transportation Quarterly is again a bit elusive, but it's publisher, the Eno Center for Transportation, appears to be very solid indeed. PeterEastern (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Anmccaff answered above that they were acceptable. --Bejnar (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreement 2

In almost any context within this article a cite to Bianco or Slater that supports the point at hand is acceptable. --Bejnar (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 3c

Are there any objections to the works of Snell as reliable sources for the fact that Snell made certain statements? Keep in mind WP:RSOPINION and WP:INTEXT. If so please state the basis in one sentence. --Bejnar (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

No objections. PeterEastern (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

What "works of Snell" have been presented? Except for the official Senate subcommittee stuff, everything has passed through another set of hands, or through Snell's hands again.Anmccaff (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: I do not understand your comment. In some versions of the article Snell was cited for his opinion. Do you object to citing Snell for that purpose? --Bejnar (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A few points: First, aside from the Senate hearings, which are now, since I got back on the article, fully available, there are no completely sourced works of Brad Snell used in the article. Next, Trackinfo and PeterEastern were using, among other things, a third-hand (at least) version of something Snell probably wrote in the 1990s, sourcing it from a notoriously conspiraphilic, unreliable website. There is nothing in the article that counts as something Snell admits to, and some publisher stands behind - the Senate subcommittee expressly disavowed it. All of the "works of Snell" used in the article are about the equivalent of a newspaper clipping.

As for Snell, personally, as a source, what he said obviously has to be taken into account while discussing the aspects of this matter that are essentially folklore, but that must be done in a way that gives him his proper weight as a knowledgeable expert....which is to say, next to none.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Trying to bring this inquiry to a satisfactory conclusion. Are you saying that we have now sourced a reliable first hand version of 'Snell, Bradford C. (1974)' within US Senate (1974)? For the avoidance of doubt, are you also happy with us using Snell, Bradford (Autumn 1995) as a source for what he said in 1995? Finally, are there any other primary sources we refer to for Snell's views or should refer to? PeterEastern (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Openlibrary? No, not at all, the Open Library source is incomplete, and is stored as images. Snell's words began in part three and continued in part 4a; your cite only gives part of part 4 proper. The Hathitrust [5] source is not only more complete, but is searchable. The Coachbuilt stuff is acceptable until a better source comes along, I think, but it lacks any sequelae in the original source. There are a good many more online sources of Snell material, but I'm not sure how germane they are. For instance, the transcript of "Taken for a ride" (very appropriate name that...) includes some Snellery.Anmccaff (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreement 1

There seems to be agreement that Snell may be cited for his opinions, but not for the truth of the matter asserted. Wikipedia does not follow the best evidence rule, but prefers secondary sources to primary ones, WP:Reliable sources. However, primary sources are allowed. --Bejnar (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 4: original research

Wikipedia:No original research provides The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged ... and The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research;.

Is each contentious conclusion in the article supported by a reliable source? Please list any (up to five) that are not.--Bejnar (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

--

Bear with me on this response, which although not exactly answering the question is I think is a useful observation to make at this point.

I have just read Bianco, Martha (1998) from top to bottom for the first time and I think it is an excellent and very well presented explanation of why streetcars declined and why GM keep getting the blame. Slightly embarrassed that I have not read it before, but there was a lot to read and it was only referenced at one point, in the Roger Rabbit sentence, and appeared to an article about Roger Rabbit and popular cinema and not the serious academic paper on the subject that it is. I wish I had read it a lot earlier, and I would now put it forward as the single anchor source that we could use as the basis of a review of the article that you asked for above.

To be clear, it doesn't refute the allegation that GM was heavy handed - to quote: "for GM and other bus manufacturers and suppliers to be successful in developing a market for diesel buses, they had to carry out an aggressive campaign to do so. Such a campaign required working together to foreclose competitive technologies – i.e., electric vehicles." But does suggest that GM keeps getting blamed for reasons more to do a desire for a neat simplistic story with good guys and bad guys than reality: "As this paper has suggested, the emergence and reemergence of the GM conspiracy myth has coincided with periods of urban transportation policy crisis, as were evidenced during the urban strife of the 1960s and the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s. The retrenchment of the federal government toward urban transportation policy during the 1980s only served to fuel the agenda of citizen activists, particularly among environmental groups (page 20)."" PeterEastern (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that Ms Bianco agrees with the technology foreclosure thesis.Anmccaff (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It closes with the observation: "In this regard, the compelling nature of the myth’s villain – the General Motors Corporation – speaks volumes. If we cannot cast GM, the producer and supplier of automobiles, as the ultimate enemy, then we end up with a shocking and nearly unfathomable alternative: What if the enemy is not the supplier, but rather the consumer? What if, to paraphrase Oliver Perry, we have met the enemy, and the enemy is us?" Not 100% happy with the word consumer, rather than the more nebulous 'citizen' or 'policy-maker', but this is a great single resource packed with referenced materials that have not made their way into the article.

My view is that this article, which has not been reviewed substantially since I did the major makeover in 2010 could do with another major review. I do also think that the balance should be adjusted more towards the idea that GM is a convenient scapegoat for a policy failure with major and long term consequences to this day, We should however avoiding whitewashing GM's aggressive motorisation policies. Ideally it should be a medium to tell the middle more complex story about a failure of policy during a period of rapid technologic transformation. Bianca (1998) would be the anchor for this. I would also like it to include more about the 'traction interests' and other additional content highlighted on talk by Anmccaff recently.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The interested reader will note that "PeterEastern" recommended as a a reliable source Ms. Bianco before actually bothering to read her; the talk pages drip with similar examples of unfamiliarity with well known sources.Anmccaff (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

In direct response to the question, there is nothing that screams out at me as OR, other than possibly the unsupported generalisations referring to 'conspiracy theorists' that I mentioned 'Summary of dispute by PeterEastern'. PeterEastern (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Once you have read the suggested reading, you will see that "unsupported" is inaccurate.Anmccaff (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@PeterEastern:, you say that to object to unsupported conclusions, but when asked for same, replied possibly the unsupported generalisations referring to 'conspiracy theorists' that I mentioned . Could you be specific? List specific ones that are unsupported. @Anmccaff: One problem seems to be that there is more objection to behaviour than to content. Please do not comment on the behaviour of other editors. This is not the forum for that. --Bejnar (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bejnar.

In the 'Early Years' section I don't think it is justified to say "Conspiracy theorists emphasize GM's connections to the New York transit market". The source associated with this sentence makes no reference to conspiracies or conspiracy theorists that I can see. And then later in the same section the term is repeated in "While conspiracy theorists focus on the involvement of Hertz". No source offered. Finally there is the phrase "Tellingly, conspiracy minded authors do not discuss GM's work on the other side of the Hudson". The word 'tellingly' bothers me, as does the unsourced generalisation of 'conspiracy minded authors'. PeterEastern (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Before we discuss this further, what reliable source do you have that ties this to any form of GM conspiracy at all? There's ample references -some now freely avaiable and listed on the article's talk page, that make a very strong case that bustitution was driven by politics, economics, social forces, and the legalities of franchising. Why not just take the section out, if you don't have a credible reliable source for it? No sourcing questions then. Right now, it draws a tacit conclusion not supported by evidence; isn't that what Wiki calls "original research?".Anmccaff (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As requested, I was simply responding to the question in relation to the current article, highlighting issues I saw with the current text and the sources used to support it. For the record, I note that you added the 'conspiracy minded authors' text with this edit. If you are not able to support the claim we should take it out. PeterEastern (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out, there are no reliable sources provided that link NYC's bustitution to GM, aside from the fact that GM was a major owner of Yellow; there simply aren't any credible cites to support the idea that, say, Hylan was a GM stooge. The (political) movement against street traction in New York predates GM.Anmccaff (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

What suggests this section should be here, except for studying folklore?Anmccaff (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sign... Again you are widening the conversation and avoiding the issue I raised. I suggested that the phrase 'Conspiracy theorists emphasize GM's connections to the New York transit market' needed to be supported by suitable references or removed. My view is that to retain it one or more reliable sources would need to provided that in aggregate demonstrated all aspects of the claim, including A) the people you refer to are correctly referred to as 'conspiracy theorists'. B) that these people 'emphasise GMs role in NY'. To include the later the source would need to demonstrate that these people made more of the NY system than other systems, not simply listing NY alongside others. The source would in my view also need to demonstrate that the emphasis was inappropriate, and not simply included because it was somewhere that is better known than other places and therefore a better example. Finally the phrase would needed to the tested for WP:SYN if multiple sources were used. In particular that they demonstrate convincingly and that the people who emphasis NY are indeed conspiracy theorists. Note that in this response I am simply reflected back the WP rules required to support any content in WP. I am not taking a view on this subject. Can we focus down on my issue and are you able to find suitable sources? If not then I suggest we have to conclude that it is WP:OR. PeterEastern (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

For the descriptor "Conspiracy theorists?" "Pro-conspiracy theorists rely on Snell and look like idiots." Span, pt.1) "Like Snell and other conspiracy theorists, Kay blames GM and its subsidiary, National City Lines (NCL), for the replacement of popular streetcars with unpopular motor buses." Bianco [6] Slater doesn't, though. Pity.

For that it is common among conspirophiles? I suspect a laundry list of cites are available there, no?Anmccaff (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

For the idea that pro-conspiracy (is that a better term, maybe?) advocates use Snell, I'd think a handful of examples might make the case; maybe start with Icke. How many examples would you want?Anmccaff (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In the next section headed 'Edwin J. Quinby' we have the statement that "While Quinby's instrumentality is a keystone of many conspiracy theories, the federal government had begun investigating some aspects of NCL's financial arrangements as early as 1941". This is to my mind un-necessarily pointed and there is no sourced offered for the first part of this. Why not simply mention that NCL's financial arrangements had been investigated in 1941 in the appropriate place in the timeline, and then mention Quinby activities and the response to his activities at the appropriate point? PeterEastern (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Bejnar, I'd ask that you do a simple Google search -or whatever search engine you prefer, and see the number of conspiracy-minded citations you get for "Quinby" and "streetcar," and then do a quick vocabulary test to see how many of them relate or trace back to the Wiki article during the time PeterEastern and Trackinfo assumed ownership of the article.Anmccaff (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, my observation was simply that the article did not contain a reference to support the claim. If you can find one then add it to the article. If not then should the claim not be modified? I am resisting responding to your continued personal attacks, but I will note that I have frequently encouraged you to edit the article rather than simple highlight the shortcomings as you see them on talk, and since Nov 17 withdrew entirely specifically to avoid any accusations of ownership. PeterEastern (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Also forced to respond; I made the accusation of ownership toward Anmccaff because it is his single person redirection of this content that is at issue. His childish "but you did it first" accusation is without merit. My contribution to this article is microscopic compared to the massive amount of this content (over 60Kb) built over more than a ten year period of time by dozens, perhaps a hundred different editors. My interest is in protection of that community effort vs the one man takeover of content. Trackinfo (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that you equally(?) often suggested that my input should be reverted on sight, this is hardly a compelling argument, but this isn't the place for either discussion.Anmccaff (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

With respect, if this is not the place for such a statement then why make it! Are you able to now respond tom the particular issue I raised and provide the requested reference to support the text. Such a source would need to justify the association of both points and avoid WP:SYN, ie the sources would need to justify the reference to the 1941 case in association with a claim about 'conspiracy theorists' and Quinby. PeterEastern (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably worth also noting the reference 3 which explains how a number in the lead is calculated which includes the explanation "Conspiracy theorists put the number as high as 100". No source is given to support the term 'conspiracy theorists'. PeterEastern (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

DNB Volunteer: This would be better stated as [Source] puts the number as high as 100. with a FN. --Bejnar (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, if one had a reliable source.Anmccaff (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I am confused. As the person who apparently introduced the 100 system claim, are you now saying that you are unable to substantiate it? If not then should we not remove it? PeterEastern (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If you look back to the time I entered, or re-entered the article [[7]], you will see the "100 system claim", which is at the point that you and Trackinfo appear to feel the article should be reverted to. This is your claim, which has also metastasized to the internet.Anmccaff (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sigh (again)... It is true that I did introduce the 100 system claim initially (I had forgotten to be honest), but I allowed you to remove it and it was gone when I withdrew. You then added it back without a reference and are now (again) dragging up history rather than providing the requested reference to support your wording. However.... I have done a little digging and the claim is in Snell (1974). Yes... I do agree that Snell is often wrong, but there is the source that I used originally and that could also be used to support a tweak to the wording to read "Snell claimed that 100 systems in 45 Cities were impacted (Snell 1974)". Would that not wrap up this issue to everyone's satisfaction? PeterEastern (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. It's incomplete and claims to be "from the original government report"-as we know, the government explicitly disowned it. As I mentioned before, it's telling that Snell's stuff is usually released without footnotes.Anmccaff (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Overall we have something that seems much angrier and less neutral and balanced in it presentation of the facts than I think is helpful. For sure, lets have an article that lays the facts out, and if the fact suggests, as Bianco expresses so well, that GM is more of scapegoat for what in hindsight were policy failings at the time than a villain then we should say so. However, if people have been passing on misinformation, which many certainly have done in this case from time to time, then we should highlight that, but not then label them all with the term 'conspiracy theorists', which is a pretty offensive term according to the urban dictionary entry for the subject [8]. PeterEastern (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

See #Inquiry 6. --Bejnar (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 5

Objections to Guy Span as a source? --Bejnar (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

None when it is clear that some of his work is off-the-cuff journalism, the most recent examples of which are published in a fairly open forum that adds no weight to them. Speaking from personal observation (I've run into him elsewhere, and have spoken with him,) he is very knowledgeable about the subject, but I seriously doubt he cracked open a book -or really needed to, much- for some of these articles for "Bay Crossings," so minor points of fact should be cross-checked if possible, and I disagree with him on a couple of them, but he's a reliable source.Anmccaff (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As I have noted already, I found his writing to be authoritative, full of detail and convincing. Where he is making specific claims he is clear about this, and where he is making educated guesses or speculating he is also clear. Where I have been able to checked his claims, I have found them to the accurate. Bay Crossings, who published the article have been in business for 15 years. Always worth cross-checking as mentioned above, and I would be interested to hear about any errors in the two documents that Anmccaff is aware of. PeterEastern (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've already mentioned a couple on the articles talk page, but looking at "Paving the way for buses," I can see, just offhand, an easy ten points of fact that are wrong, or oversimplifications when applied to a narrower point. I think this would be better handled on the article, unless we want to double the size of this discussion. (Assuming, that is, that either of is here after this runs its course.)

For a few examples, Span compares Insull's collapse to Enron's, (wrong on several levels); implies that Flint/GM/Kettering trained traffic engineers had a large effect nationwide, and glosses over the fact that, far from being an independent institution, it was founded by Kettering himself; simplifies the symbiotic relationship between power generation and traction; misrepresents Quinby's naval status; oversimplifies the impact of Davis-Bacon and inflation on relative prices, conflates YMAC with GMAC; conflates GM's real attack on marginal trolley systems with an "attack on transit"...well, the list could go on.

That said, it's an excellent small piece, most of what I've mentioned above is because of the limits that being a small, accessible piece impose.Anmccaff (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• PS-the Span piece also seems to give the cite for Slater (Transportation Quarterly 51, No.3, 1997) when discussing a related piece by George Hilton (which seems to be in TQ 52 no.3 1998, a year later.)Anmccaff (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Are we then in agreement that the hard facts referred to in this article can be used where we can't find a better one, but that any musings and inference should probably not be used? PeterEastern (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The opposite, nearly: a good overview, but particular facts should be cross-checked.Anmccaff (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In which case I think you are saying that it can't be used as a reliable source, because one has to be able to rely on a reliable source. Is that right? PeterEastern (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a useful overview. Most such, in my experience, are not good about particulars, and even more so when some one tries to extrapolate from them. Creating valid generalizations and applying them blindly to particular cases is what makes several of Cato's papers so interesting; it's one thing to state a general rule or trend; it's another to insist that every specific example follows it.Anmccaff (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 6

Does the use of the term "conspiracy theorists" in this article constitute a violation of WP:NPOV? --Bejnar (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

[W]e should ... not then label them all with the term 'conspiracy theorists', which is a pretty offensive term according to the urban dictionary entry for the subject [9]. -- PeterEastern (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

What an interesting choice of cite. I think both the OED and the AHD use slightly less colorful definitions defining "conspiracy theory" as "the theory that an event occurs or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties, specifically a belief that some covert but influential agency is responsible for an unexplained event"" (OED) or "A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act."[[10]] and both give "conspiracy theorist" as a derivation needing no further explanation. Wikipedia's Conspiracy Theory might also be a good starting point. The "Urban Dictionary," barring discussion of adolescent slang or recherché sexual practices, is not, as we will no doubt discuss at some later step in the dispute process.

That said, how would you describe "advocates or believers in a conspiracy theory," which is how all of your favored sources, Bianco, Slater, and Span, appear to see them?Anmccaff (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think the term not only violates NPOV, it is clearly inserted to discredit certain sources and alternative ways of thinking about the subject. Wikipedia's voice should not be picking sides. Present the evidence, clearly, coherently and with neutrality, the readers should be able to define what makes sense and what does not. Neutrality is what I strive for in this article. Trackinfo (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Conspiracy theorists is not the only offensive, demeaning phrase used in the article. As I accused in the beginning of this controversy, the problem has been peppered throughout the entire article almost like it is pounding one POV home. Trackinfo (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• I do agree that the urban dictionary is 'colourful', but would you not agree that it does indicate that the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' comes with enough baggage to make it's use inadvisable in this case? Personally I would only use it for ideas where there is overwhelming and convincing evidence available that is believed by the vast majority of the population, but which is ignored in favour of a far less likely version by a small minority. Would you also not agree that the phrase is confusing given that GM et al. were also convicted of one conspiracy, and indicted but found not guilty of another? As such, can we agree to drop the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' and use something more neutral? PeterEastern (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Bejnar, would you mind taking a look through PeterEastern's preferred references, Bianco, Slater, and Span and see if they don't, in your opinion, support the idea that the authors view certain aspects of this matter as mendacity or mythology?Anmccaff (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• As to this inquiry, that may not be necessary; overall I think that it would be a useful exercise. I am on my way to a large university town and will arrive next week. However, any specific pages that you could recommend would be useful. --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that these articles are short enough to either read or skim in their entirety. PeterEastern (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• The question in this inquiry is simply to determine if there is agreement that the the term 'conspiracy theorists' is automatically NPOV. I would suggest that it isn't, but that as a strong and possibly offensive term, it should be only used where it can be solidly justified and sourced in every instance. I have already pressed you to provide references in the previous section to support individual instances, and suggest that this might be more productive that to ask Bejnar to read three long documents and come to a view. PeterEastern (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• In response your question about what term we use instead, I suggest that we focus for now on the question asked, which it's use in this way is a violation of NPOV. We can then separately worry about what to do about it. PeterEastern (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary holding 1

"Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" can be used in a pejorative way. Any contested use should be supported by a reliable source, and pejoritive uses should be avoided per Wikipedia's guideline at WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view. --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't see a way around their use, but I agree that a substitute would be better, especially since it applies most as a simple descriptive at the top end, academics who created something that can be taken as a conspiracy theory, and as a pejorative at the bottom end, for the kind of crank who always believes that a sinister "them" is behind everything. I find, however, the idea that a particular cite attached to each use is not justified, and PeterEastern clearly does.Anmccaff (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 6

Is there enough reliable source material for a "urban legends and other folklore" section? --Bejnar (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is, in fact, how the article began, and Bianco, Adler, Post, Long, and Cudahy all provide sources, just off the top of my head. Anmccaff (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I do think it would be useful to have a section which discusses the urban legends, folklore and conspiracy theories. Bianco provides a useful context for how these pop up whenever the US gets stressed about its car-centric transport system during oil-shocks etc. PeterEastern (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

They also pop up more frequently on the edges of urban and transportation planning, generally, like a FOAF Tale, at some distance from the local area. The fellow in Dearborn knows the facts there, but sees NCL behind bustification in Detroit, and vice-verse. (examples picked purely for illustration, not as statement of fact.)Anmccaff (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 6a

What is the relationship between the information currently in the "Myths" section and "urban legends and other folklore"? Wikipedia guidelines suggest proper context be provided. See, for example the essay Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Provide context for the reader. Keeping in mind who, what, why, where, when and how can help an editor provide context. --Bejnar (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't understand your question. Are you asking about their relationship to each other, or to the rest of the article, or both?Anmccaff (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• I create the 'Myths and mysteries' section a few years ago as a parking place for claims that were made that could not be substantiated from other sources. These included some of Snell's claims that were later convincingly refuted, and also claims that were made that could not be substantiate from other sources. As more resources come online some mysteries may get resolved one way or another of course. Personally I think the urban legend/folklore/conspiracy theory content could fit well into this section. PeterEastern (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• There could be a place for urban myths and folklore content in one place, rather than scattered throughout almost every paragraph, caption etc. Trackinfo (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed. We could have a section for historical facts relating to what GM et al. did, and the conspiracy that they were convicted of and charged off but found not-guilty. This should be kept dry and free from interpretation. We can then have a separate section for the embellished stories, the exaggerations and down-right folk tails which can include much of what Snell said, Roger Rabbit and the rest under a heading that makes it clear that this is fantasy. PeterEastern (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Separating fact from fantasy would go toward producing a more NPOV article. Are there reliable sources for the fantasy? --Bejnar (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(Sure, but there's still a real, legitimate question as to where to draw the line.) Variations of this story showed up fairly frequently on alt.folklore.urban, on and in the Straight Dope, and in other UL fora; probably still do.Anmccaff (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that this is an encyclopedic treatment, where would you draw the line? What should be included (be specific) and what should be excluded in order to present a whole picture without giving the fantasy undue weight. Right now the Myth section's lack of context may tend to reduce its value. --Bejnar (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• ...and, as I mentioned, it's the original focus of the article. It will be very, very difficult to discuss this section without getting into personalities, especially since the article ties into many interrelated subjects: a minor, arcane, localized violation of the Sherman Act, the consequences of that, and the motivations behind it; the general state of the traction industry; the rise of General motors, and the causes and consequences of its business model; technological history; the rise of "car culture"; federalism and keynsian economics; populist politics; popular folklore...the list could go on, and there are a good many authors who look narrowly -too narrowly for the purposes of this article- at different aspects whose works can be tendentiously cherry-picked. Remember the story of the blind men and the elephant?Anmccaff (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Personally I think the scope of the article would consist of 3 mains parts. Firstly a description of the actions of GM et al., the accusations at the time by Quinby and others, the indictment, trial and outcome and then the senate hearings. It would not go into an much detail about streetcar as the current article but would however emphasis the limits of their activities where common myths have built up (for example to say that the NY streetcars were already in financial difficulty, of that they had no involvement in the LA Yellow Cars). There should then be a section, using the content of 'Myths and mysteries' as a starting point, to cover in more details the wilder conspiracy theory narrative, the way this narrative reappears at times of stress (See Bianco), and corrects the many erroneous urban-myths surrounding the subject. This would then be followed by the 'Other Factors' section which very importantly outline all the other reasons for the decline of streetcars that have been identified by experts in transportation over the years. Note that I am proposing switching the Mythology and Other Factors section to draw the readers attention to the myths. PeterEastern (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"No involvement with the Yellow Cars?" (Aside from actually owning them, or do you mean "Red Cars?" Even then, "no involvement" is a stretch; LATL took over a couple of former PE lines.)Anmccaff (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do think he meant "Red Cars". And the exact facts should be cited to reliable sources, so the second should not be a problem in the actual revised text. --Bejnar (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2015

I did mean Red cars, thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Does PeterEastern's suggestion for three sections, as described and in that order meet with general acceptance? --Bejnar (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's backward in a sense, if you (rightly, as I see it) support the idea that Bianco, Slater, and "Span" provide a good overview to the slice of the story being told here. There are some pretty cloak-and-dagger tellings of this, and they require de-bunking, since they are mostly bunk. The use of "conspiracy theorist" or some other phrase or word to that effect isn't coming out of nowhere. Dismissing the mythology should come first. That's how the article started out, and there were reasons for that.Anmccaff (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Is there enough agreement to be able to work together to revise the article? --Bejnar (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• No. Not yet. Without going into specifics again, the behavioral issues, the inability to evaluate sources, and the tendentious editing have to be addressed. After that, maybe. More importantly, if other editors stop being driven away, whether we, in particular, are able to work well with each other becomes less of an issue.Anmccaff (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Would it be workable to discuss, as neutrally and briefly as possible, the specific behavior issues, not to hash them out here, but so you can better suggest where to take them to?Anmccaff (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• I am not confident about that to be honest. We don't seem to have agreement on avoiding the term 'conspiracy theorists', and we don't have agreement on organising the content into three sections if I am reading the above response correctly. Going back further I don't think that we have a clear agreement as to whether Guy Span is reliable or not (my suggestion was that if the facts in the source couldn't be relied on then it wasn't reliable) or whether links in 'further reading' and 'external links' were 'sources' that had to be reliable or not (my suggestion was that these were not sources as such because they weren't used to support the body of the article). All in all, the lack of progress is what I have been used to on talk prior to my disengagement. Am I looking at this too negatively? Have we actually made better progress than that? PeterEastern (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Why should we agree to avoid a term one of your own preferred sources uses?Anmccaff (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't read more into this that I am saying. What I am saying is that the term 'conspiracy theorist' should not be used without very strong evidence, and strong enough evidence to wave the term conspiracy theorist around in the article is thin on the ground. The only people Bianco names as 'conspiracy theorists' are Snell, Glenn Yago, and possibly St Clair. Slater names Tom Hayden and journalists Jonathan Kwitny and Nicholas Von Hoffman. Personally I would like to see evidence that these people continued to push the conspiracy theory, in an almost obsessive way, before we used the term conspiracy theorist in relation to their activities. Snell is the only one for whom I am aware of enough evidence to use the term. Have the journalists written about this over and over again? What about Glenn Yago, I am not familiar with his writing? Other than those people, are there any other named candidates? This has nothing to do with the wide issue of conspiracy theories and the way they keep popping up. PeterEastern (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• In response to Please don't read more into this that I am saying. What I am saying is that the term 'conspiracy theorist' should not be used without very strong evidence, and strong enough evidence to wave the term conspiracy theorist around in the article is thin on the ground. The only people Bianco names as 'conspiracy theorists' are Snell, Glenn Yago, and possibly St Clair. No, twice. The idea that evidence here is "thin on the ground" permeates the discussion here and on the article talk page, but I just don't see that at all, and I think I've given practical demonstration of that several times, to the point that you are mentioning here that I've presented sources and not incorporated them in the article. What's thin on the ground, sometimes, is readily available, free , easily citable material. Next, Ms Bianco was a pretty prolific writer, once, and reviewed books and films. If memory serves, she also used the term about Jane Holtz Kay, and the producers of "Taken for a ride." That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more out there.Anmccaff (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• (Returning to the matter of sources...what happened to libraries in England? It appears from the outside that huge number of institutions transferred their stuff to, say, the British Library (AKA "What is that UGLY pile of bricks near St Pancras?") which then digitized it, and buried it behind a paywall -and a rather expensive paywall at that. My very limited experience with local and branch libraries there seems to confirm that; I hope I'm wrong. Edinburgh was quite different.)Anmccaff (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I do note that Bianco (1998) also mentions that the following people 'perpetuate the Great American Conspiracy Myth': Robert and Edward Kennedy, San Francisco’s Mayor Joseph Alioto, Ralph Nader, Jonathan Kwitny (who Slater also mentions), George Smerk. PeterEastern (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that Snell was a Nader associate, and quite likely, in effect, an employee, why would this be surprising? Alioto and Bradley's cities were both parties to the lawsuit alluded to in the Senate hearings; again, it isn't surprising that they showed up to turn the screws a bit.Anmccaff (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• In response to Slater names Tom Hayden and journalists Jonathan Kwitny and Nicholas Von Hoffman. in the article cited. From personal experience, I might guess that Mr. Slater would be willing to add a name or three hundred, while struggling to contain colorful descriptions of their ancestry, progeny, and general personal habits. The mendacious economic arguments for heavy rail in Honolulu might do that to a fellow.Anmccaff (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This is speculation. WP can't rely on speculation. Either provide references for additional people who Slater mentions or it isn't usable information. PeterEastern (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• In response to Personally I would like to see evidence that these people continued to push the conspiracy theory, in an almost obsessive way, before we used the term conspiracy theorist in relation to their activities. Snell is the only one for whom I am aware of enough evidence to use the term. Have the journalists written about this over and over again? What about Glenn Yago, I am not familiar with his writing? Other than those people, are there any other named candidates? This has nothing to do with the wide issue of conspiracy theories and the way they keep popping up. I think you are narrowing the term too much. What do you think is a workable term for someone who believes and spreads -even if he does not originate it- a conspiracy theory?Anmccaff (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• well, that might be something that can be worked with in the article, but we'd have to come up with an accurate descriptor, and I think that re-naming things to escape opprobrium is a hopeless task, unless people stop holding in contempt the object or person named. The words for mental impairment provide a classic example of this; many clinical term became playground insults, and had to be replaced by new clinical terms, which became insults in their turn. Folklorist often use the term "vectors," with the epidemiological sense, for people who spread stories; dunno if being compared to an anopheles is much improvement.Anmccaff (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• My apologies, I skipped this: Mr. Yago is an intelligent if not forthright gentleman...at least that's the conclusion I draw from the fact he has completely distanced himself from his book and his doctoral dissertation, doesn't even mention either directly on his otherwise exhaustive CV. The CV does mention parts of it published secondarily, and a little about transit, but that stops around 1981.Anmccaff (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so is this an example of someone who has written about 'the myth' but who possibly should not be called a 'conspiracy theorist', because they haven't kept doing it in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary?. PeterEastern (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. I agree, on balance, that "conspiracy theorist" is ambiguous, and that that can lead to deliberate or accidental equivocation. You see it used for scholars, for PBS-watchers, for sensationalist writers, and for the colander-headed, and that may not be a good thing. You can't just make an executive decision, though, about the word's meaning, as you have done here. Anmccaff (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• As for other "conspiracy theorists," I think I could cite dozens, hundreds, thousands, depending, of course, exactly how you define the term, and how low a standard of notability you use. As I, and several of the sources discussed here, have mentioned, this became a part of academic as well as popular folklore...a little bit like popular works, and a few scholarly ones, on the Maginot Line.Anmccaff (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability and reliability for WP are pretty well defined. The bar for describing someone as a 'conspiracy theorist' is higher than describing them as a 'perpetuator of the conspiracy myth', the term that Bianco uses. Is this the term we have been looking for to replace the more contentious 'conspiracy theorist'. PeterEastern (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Too long, and obviously artificial. "Conspiracy believers" might work, but the conspiraloon faction would have a knee-jerk reaction to that.Anmccaff (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• If you feel that your best sources are anti-conspiracy, why would you organize the article with the bunk ahead of the debunkage?Anmccaff (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Very happy to keep the balance within the 3 sections and ensure that the order does not prejudice the balance. Not convinced with your use of the term 'bunk' btw. The companies were indicted on two conspiracies and convicted on one of the charges as we know. The confusion we need to avoid is muddling the fact and the fiction that has built up around it. The 'bunk' you refer to is the facts of what actually happened. PeterEastern (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No. That's equivocation. "Conspiracy" as "a term of art in the law" is a different animule(sic) from "evil plot hiding in the dark corners." GM was quite open about the fact that they believed low-to-medium density routes were better served with buses, and Fitzgerald was quite open about a close relationship with GM - he saw it as a selling point. The companies involved were convicted on a very, very, very narrow point of law, which could only be decided by trial. The article, on the other hand, uses it to refer to a conspiracy against mass transit. All GM et al -and note that the trial, quite rightly, named Fitzgerald as the instigator- did was the Gillette marketing strategy writ large, with a few T's uncrossed, and a couple of i's undotted.Anmccaff (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The companies were indicted for conspiracies and convicted for a conspiracy. There is also a conspiracy myth, elaborated from the actions of the company. You seem to be dismissing the actual conspiracy. Personally I don't by your view that their conviction was based on 'a very, very, very narrow point of law'. PeterEastern (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a key point. The entire context of the POV statements I keep objecting to is aimed at being dismissive toward an actual legal decision made against the named companies (I've had a long standing objection to the naming of the article which singles out General Motors, only one member of the group of conspiring companies). The article primarily by name is about that decision. Everything POV related is aimed at trying to make the decision and the implied ramifications of the decision go away. It looks good on the PR ledger for those still existing multi-billion dollar corporations, each whom have benefitted from the decisions made in that era; the conversions of transportation methods across the United States. The evolution toward our current status might still have occurred naturally, that POV is certainly welcomed to be covered in the article. But the fact is, we can never know what that evolution would have been if the conspiracy had not existed. Those companies put their thumb on the scale. They got caught doing it. They were convicted. The further ramifications of them putting people on their payroll is positions to make the decisions to not just expand the systems to cover more sparse suburban and rural areas (a sensible decision), but to replace and remove existing rails and close easements, forced the wholesale change in transportation systems. In the 1950's, the American public was very effectively brainwashed into believing suburban life, a car in every garage, great concrete roadways were nirvana. When the reality of the problems with that philosophy was realized, they were expressed not just by not just by Snell, but Alioto, Bradley and Kennedy, 1970's politicians who had to deal with the residual situation (foretold by Quimby). So writers from later dates like Bianco also have a perspective. They have perhaps more information, or present different and more focused information. And they could very well have left out information that didn't agree with their POV. There is now a revisionist history that magically puts the billion dollar corporations in a better, less guilty light. Fine. Those sources should be considered as one, or multiple alternative points of view. It does not work as an eraser. They should not dominate almost every paragraph of the article.

-- Trackinfo (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Bejnar, if you look at the article, you will see an extremely strong cite -the words of the trial judge explaining his decision. The judge explicitly stated that the case was -not- about blatant violation of an obvious point of law, that it was a case that could have gone either way, and that he himself might have decided it differently were it a bench trial. That's history; Trackinfo would obviously like to rewrite it. Anmccaff (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This would be the same judge that gave the slap on the wrist $1 fine after the jury verdict. That was an effective way of nullifying the decision. Trackinfo (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, now the judge was in on it, too? It's all just a big plot, life.Anmccaff (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, if you look at the article, you can see a strong cite pointing out that the actions of the alleged conspirators -alleged being the proper word for a plot to cripple transit, as opposed to an attempt to corner bus business - affected a very, very, small part of the US transit system -about 10 percent, using the largest possible number of systems affected, and the smallest reasonable number of total systems. That's history, although someone who didn't like its implications left out the "alleged." That's tendentious editing. Anmccaff (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid ad hominem. However Anmccaff, in your verbosity, I catch you on minor points which give question to your credibility. True there might be only 10 percent of the number of systems effected, but they were the most significant systems, the ones serving the largest metropolitan areas of today; New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland in the Bay Area, the ones to provide the most social impact. A small fudge of the facts to pound your point home. Trackinfo (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. First, New York, or at least Manhattan, was anti-trolley from the turn of the century forward, and the "better" streets, like 5th Avenue, kept trolleys off them completely on the high end, while the populist demagogues like Hearst and Hylan attacked them from below. New York, or at least Manhattan, was predestined for buses from before WWI, maybe from before GM's creation -and for subways, mind; surface traction's biggest competitor was also electric, and also on steel wheels. Bottles (and Adler, and Richmond (Oh my!)) explicitly covers that LA's growth was in infill, not along the old electric routes. By the early 20's, when McAdoo's bus plan followed on after the jitney movement, most of the area that became modern metro Los Angeles was only served by bus (the PE and LARy set up and jointly controlled one of the country's largest bus operations, something you would not know from this article.), and LATL -expanded- on LARy's plans for post-war electric traction. If the Huntington operation hadn't have sold out, they would have shut down all but 3 electric lines. San Francisco only became one of the larger metro in the 70's as Silicon Valley filled in, and NCL's record there was minor, and mixed. NCL's only involvement with Chicago was its headquarters office, and a couple of minor suburbs, which were and are still served by steam roads. Philadelphia, like LA, saw NCL affiliates keeping street traction on about as long as unconnected cities did.Anmccaff (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, and perhaps more importantly in this context, the major metro area capture thesis is what Wiki views as original research, two separate ideas not united in an outside source.Anmccaff (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, if you look at the article, and the talk page, you can see extremely strong cites suggesting...no, stating explicitly, that electric traction was in deep political and economic trouble long before GM's involvement with them. Again, that's history, and Trackinfo would like it rewritten. Comment by Anmccaff

"Suggesting...no, stating explicitly" of a trend. A good argument, but that timeline didn't play out because of the interference of the conspirators, did it? So we don't know. America's love affair and construction boom of freeways began after World War II, lets say the late 1940's, which corresponds with the death of traction electric in the affected areas. Really it was the 1950's interstate construction boom that facilitated the wholesale conversion away from public transportation concepts, but lousy bus service certainly pushed the trend. It wasn't about selling busses, every dissuaded passenger who bought a car, with tires to wear and a gas tank to fill made the conspirators more money than if they had provided good service. Even by the late 1950's, researchers were able to document the pollution effects, citizens were able to document the traffic trends. So its really a narrow window of time before some people would start to seek alternatives that already had been removed by the conspiracy. Without the conspiracy, could those systems have survived long enough to be revived? Its just as valid a hypothetical as your suggestion of an eminent death. Trackinfo (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Then you should have no problem finding decent cites that claim that, yet you rely on self-published tendentious pablum. Why is that?Anmccaff (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Lets start here in a nutshell:

  "over the 40 years we have been talking about this that General Motors has carried on a deliberate concerted action with the oil companies and the tire companies ... for the purpose of destroying a vital form of competition; namely, electric rapid transit."

  — Joseph Alioto 1973 Senate hearing, exact quote contained in Bianco]]

  Trackinfo (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• How does that even remotely approach a good cite for the contention? A mayor of a city with millions riding on demonizing GM, who himself would soon again work both sides of the fence in anti-trust law, bloviating about a subject on which he had no particular expertise, with a line to his testimony so similar to the other Mayor involved, and to the staffer -himself involved in the lawsuit- that it suggests coaching, testifying in a format that gave him effectively privileged speech?
• Political speech is notoriously unreliable; when you throw money into the mix, even more so. That's a terrible cite for proving any fact beyond that someone said it. As for the "facts" related, this isn't the place, I believe, to take that up, especially with the moderator elsewhere, apparently.Anmccaff (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• You asked for proof that another point of view exists.

No. That is simply untrue. I asked for a "decent cite," and, later "a "good cite." You think a party to a law suit is a credible cite?Anmccaff (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• That proves this is not WP:OR

Who said that was? What I pointed out was "original research," in the wikipedian sense, was the notion that GM's involvement in what are now the larger metropolitan areas meant anything. At the time, they weren't all the largest metropolises, and GM's influence in one of them, New York, was obviously not the cause of an anti-traction movement older than GM itself. So...where's your cite?Anmccaff (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• and is not coming from a single source media unless you consider the congressional record an unreliable source.

You fail to understand the difference between "reliable" and "credible."

• Now you, as is done throughout the article, want to discredit what he says. That is something you can argue in a POV section, but not in the wikipedia voice. This was the prevailing opinion that was expressed not just by politicians who were in a position to know what was going on,

Nonsense. What special expertise do you think Alioto (or Bradley) had here?Anmccaff (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• but by subsequent documentary journalists and bloggers alike.

{outdent|:::::::::::}Bloggers? Heh. And surely you can't claim something like "Taken for a Ride" is a credible documentary?Anmccaff (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• They were in the existing article on public view for more than a decade until you got involved and did a one man rewrite of the article into your opposing point of view. You are welcome to your opinion, spend a section to coherently present your case for that POV. But don't litter the existing, well sourced article to constantly say everybody else is wrong and I am right.

There was nothing "well sourced" about the article before, and it still isn't "well sourced" yet. It included self-published works which could be refuted trivially on so many points of fact as to be completely non-credible- Snell, Guilbault, Szoboszlay, etc.Anmccaff (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• We are dealing with opinions and guesses as to what might have occurred without the existence of the conspiracy. There is no one correct answer because we cannot change the history, we only know what happened and can run hypothetical models of what would have happened without it.

Trackinfo (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, no. We can know, from trivially easy research, that the story of electric transit in Los Angeles was very different from how Bradley painted it. Some have, in turn, tried to explain that as a coverup, but the same story played out the same, more or less, in St. Louis, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. NCL ran trolley and trackless trolleys quite cheerfully, where they could make money on it. In LA, they retained electric traction well beyond LARy's earlier plans. (The Huntington operation had already gotten permission to abandon all but three lines; only the war stopped them.)Anmccaff (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• You can see here explicitly the equivocation I mentioned earlier. One real, small conspiracy is taken as proof that a larger one existed. Not just a larger one, but one so over-arching that it absolves everyone else of their responsibility -they were "brainwashed."

Finally, notice the high level of emotional glurge, coupled with a complete lack of cites. Doesn't "conspiracy theorist," baggage and all, come to mind?

-- Anmccaff (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've stated my objection to using "Span" too broadly on the article talk board. What do you think you have added that would change that?Anmccaff (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I would have expected us to agree in this discussion that Span was not 'reliable' in the WP sense of the word, ie that the things he wrote could not be relied on alone within the article, especially as we have other sources. I totally agree with you that it is a good summary, but good summaries don't necessarily make good reliable sources. PeterEastern (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Very few sources, period, meet that standard of reliability. Even Homer nods. I think that "Span" is good enough for the uses you've made of him, and that the objections made to that use by Trackinfo were based both on his misapprehension as to who added him to the article, and his dislike of their premise, among other reasons not relevant here. I'm (obviously) not familiar with Wiki's jargon; is there any gradation between "reliable sources" and "unreliable sources?" (Nor Wiki's word processing conventions, even more obviously...I've tried to ascribe each quote above properly, and it hasn't entirely worked. Feel free to claim anything I've left un-sourced there.)Anmccaff (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS is a good starting point for what makes a source reliable for WP:PeterEastern (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This is well past that starting point; it's a narrow, nerdly distinction, to paraphrase someone or other. It's also worth noting that Wiki's definition of reliable sources could better be named "Sources likely to be reliable," that is, they focus of outward easily discernible signs like the format, the creator, and the publisher; more about provenance that content.Anmccaff (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have probably spent 5 hours contributing to this particular dispute process, but can't really point to any progress to be honest. Either I am being bone-headed, or there is something else not right. Whatever is going on, I now have zero confidence that we are about to work well to resolve the issues that brought us to this forum without some other approach. Ideas welcome. We do probably need @Trackinfo:'s input at this point as well. PeterEastern (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Trackinfo has responded to my request for input above, and Anmccaff as responded to this response. Anmccaff has separately requested that he wants to raise 'behavioral issues, the inability to evaluate sources, and the tendentious editing'. Personally, at 14,000 words, I think we have already given this long enough. I for one have said all I wish to say, and am now awaiting Bejnar's guidance as to where we take this. PeterEastern (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from comments on the behaviour of other editors and avoid ad hominem arguments. Remarking that a claim in the article is unsupported is about content, who placed that unsupported content in the article is not relevant in this discussion. Wikipedia's verification policy indicates that an unsupported claim which is disputed should be removed. --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you for the reminder. PeterEastern (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Behavioural issues do not belong here (DRN) and will not be discussed here. Get over them. The content is what makes an encyclopedia, not the bickering in between. --Bejnar (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Holding 1

Do not use "conspiracy theory" or variants in the article unless parties agree to each specific use. --Bejnar (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that this is an essential element of the subjects covered here, how would you suggest that this be worked around?Anmccaff (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Holding 2

Do not discuss far-out theories and other conspiracies until after the basic story has been told. --Bejnar (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Bejnar, as you will see from the article's first page [11], the conspiracy theories, far-out as you may find them, were the original subject.Anmccaff (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Strong agree with Bejnar and PeterEastern here. Calling someone conspiracy theorist is meant to discredit a person. Keep such terms out of wikipedia as long not directly citing a source!Spearmind (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As you can see above, the term, or a variant of it, is used by sources user:PeterEastern claims to prefer, and by other credible sources; what would you suggest instead for those who formulate or promulgate conspiracy theories?Anmccaff (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anmccaff:, for the record I object strongly to your continued comments about my views and edits which are irrelevant to this discussion. Please refrain from making any more of these. PeterEastern (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I see no source used the term "conspiracy theorist". Or can you provide such source? What I suggest for "those" who formulate conspiracy theories? I always prefer to challenge the conspiracy theory itself but not throwing around with negative-touched terms/titles against real persons. How will you defend if someone calls you nut or even idiot by what arguments? I saw such discussion at many article talk pages where ideologies hit each other.Spearmind (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I agree with that to a point, in principle, especially because the term is used as a descriptive for some people, and a pejorative for others. That said, you haven't answered the question: what would you use for a replacement? Given the wide adoption of this theory by the colander-hatted, whatever word picked will come under a cloud itself, mind you. Once someone like Ickes picks it up, an idea has a hole to climb out of.

No replacement for "conspiracy theorist" is required, if one presents accurate statements of individual's opinions and conclusions. Of course for context one could say something along the lines of: Span, who has studied this area for some years, opines "...". Kay and Snell conclude that GM and NCL actively promoted buses. And assuming the reliable sources reach (not just support) this conclusion, "although the actual evidence of direct acts consists of ..." --Bejnar (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As for sources, you appear to have overlooked a couple buried in the logorrhea above:

For the descriptor "Conspiracy theorists?" "Pro-conspiracy theorists rely on Snell and look like idiots."
Span, pt.1) "Like Snell and other conspiracy theorists, Kay blames GM and its subsidiary, National City Lines 
(NCL), for the replacement of popular streetcars with unpopular motor buses." Bianco [6]

Notice these -were- two of PeterEastern's favorite sources, and that Trackinfo modified his frankly libelous characterization of "Span" and those who would cite him after realizing it was Peter, not me, who sourced him. Anmccaff (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. How I said so you should not just use a flowing text but to use a block! quote from the source in quotation marks from beginning to end without adding personal opinion to avoid misunderstandings. If I like the text or not doesn't matter. Editors should avoid giving judging titles to real persons. What do others think?Spearmind (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has many article that did not start out as NPOV. How an article started in not very relevant, just as who made which edits really is not relevant. What is relevant to the content of the article is facts, supported by reliable neutral sources and, opinions and conclusions of those who have studied an area, again as supported by reliable neutral sources. As to how to start the article the lead of the version current last week without the last line would be a good start. A discussion of the mid-XX Century conversion from mass transit to individual transport and from electric fixed route to internal combustion engine urban mass transit could be addressed in general terms with the generalized causes presented. The GM case could be presented. Then other theories could be presented with pros and cons. I am currently snowbound, with intermittent access to a 3.5KB/sec dial-out line. I do hope to be able to get to a library with reasonable access this coming week. --Bejnar (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Daisaku Ikeda

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

Filed by Catflap08 on 08:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Daisaku Ikeda (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Catflap08 (talk · contribs)
• Hoary (talk · contribs)
• Starrynuit (talk · contribs)
• Elemential1 (talk · contribs)
• Ubikwit (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I researched a quote via the WP:RX since the quote (used within another quote by Montgomergy) was disputed in the articles on Daisaku Ikeda and Soka Gakkai. As soon as I insist that critical issues should not be deleted I seem to run into a conflict with the same editor. Same occurred on the Toynbee quote.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

At one stage quoted Montgomery pages 186-187 completly. Asked WP:RX to find Murata quote in order to clarify who hit whom.

How do you think we can help?

An end to the constant deletion of sourced material not in favour of advocates of SG/SGI and or Ikeda.

Summary of dispute by Hoary

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Under the heading "Remarkable deletions", the article's talk page shows a conflict over what is said in two books about an incident in which, it has been claimed in the article, Daisaku Ikeda abused and hit an older priest. The two books in question are David Montgomery, Fire in the lotus: The dynamic Buddhism of Nichiren (ISBN 1852740914); and Kiyoaki Murata, Japan's new Buddhism: An objective account of Soka Gakkai (ISBN 978-0834800403). It's not always clear who has seen these books. I have never seen either, have no comment on the reliability of either book, and have never heard of one of the publishers.

A paragraph was summarily removed. This dismayed me. (See the talk page.)

There's a dispute on the talk page between User:Elemential1 (surprisingly, not named above) and User:Catflap08 on the talk page about exactly what Montgomery and Murata wrote. It's an odd dispute. Elemential1 claims that each book says precisely this or that; Catflap08 doesn't seem to agree or disagree but instead seems eager to argue around what the content of cited texts. He also seems to be saying that an objection to parts of a paragraph aren't good reason to remove it in toto.

Catflap08 then presents a long quotation from Montgomery. If it's credible, it certainly shows the thuggishness of the organization that Ikeda would soon head. What it doesn't show is what Ikeda had to do with this. Catflap08 appears to think that Ikeda must have been involved and therefore this belongs in an article about him.

Numerous editors of the page (many of these SPAs) have long been unhappy about quotations from an article Polly Toynbee published about meeting Ikeda. There have been attempts to do away with all of this material, but various editors (including Catflap08 and myself) have opposed these, and none of these attempts has been successful. There have been demands that this journalistic account should be balanced by other journalistic or quasi-journalistic accounts; I have welcomed this idea. At one point I noticed that the article had developed odd descriptions of Toynbee and a book in which she's quoted at length; I brought this up.

The article was protected. Starrynuit suggested changes. As an admin, I accepted some, rejected others. These acceptances and rejections didn't trigger much visible dissatisfaction.

Alarm bells! I have been a participant in the editing of the article and have exercised my administrative superpowers on it. A dodgy combination, and in retrospect I regret this. I'd be happy to recuse myself from either (a) editorial involvement or (b) administrative involvement. Or, better, from both, because my interest in Ikeda is very minor.

Starrynuit added a somewhat hagiographic passage about Ikeda. Seventeen minutes later, Catflap08 removed it, with the edit summary WP:PEACOCK.

I was struck by two things here. First, however vapid parts of the passage might be, they're not covered by WP:PEACOCK. I wrote this up at Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda#Peacock. Secondly and more seriously, Catflap08 seemed indignant when one faulty passage he seemed to like was deleted in toto, but he was quick to delete another faulty passage in toto. Why not approach the two in the same way? I therefore warned Catflap08 about the need for neutrality.

The talk page has now blown up with "Murata reference". Despite learning that Murata says that Toda hit the old priest and not learning that Murata says that Ikeda did, Catflap08 wanted (wants?) the article to continue to cite Murata as saying that Ikeda hit the old priest. (Though sometimes he says that he doesn't care.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Starrynuit

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Greetings, The sentence that I tried to correct and that Hoary ultimately deleted had long -- incorrectly -- cited Murata as saying that Ikeda admitted hitting the priest twice. The text of Murata reads, "Toda [not Ikeda] admitted hitting the priest 'twice' [p. 96] ..." This can be seen at http://books.google.ca/books?id=x8QKAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=hitting

Murata's account of the Ogasawara Incident is disputed but that dispute is another matter; the inaccuracy of that one sentence in the article was the key issue here.

Thank you for your time. Starrynuit (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Elemential1

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Daisaku Ikeda discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC) @ TransporterMan Thanks for reminding me.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

While I agree I did not indeed mention User:Elemential1 I filed the DRN due to Hoary's posts of 5th February onwards. In those posts yHoary went on about changing the “Ikeda hitting” issue. May I remind Hoary that it was him/her who threatened me with a topic ban? In the articles affected and mentioning the incident I then simply included the Murata clippings, as in the beginning of the dispute it was (a) disputed if Ikeda was present (b) that Murata made such a statement on page 69 of his book – apparently he did. The question if Ikeda was present was resolved since I included the rather lengthy Montgomery quote. In contrast to Hoary I do hold quite a bit of literature on Nichiren Buddhism which I find to be quite useful when editing on matters relating to Nichiren Buddhism. The only book I did not have since long out of print is the Murata one. The only ones I bined a long long time ago are the “human revolution” ones by Mr. Ikeda (novels). The articles on Ikeda and SGI were reedited and it did not slip my attention that in due course Ikeda was alleged hitting too, hence my Resource Request‎ to find out if Murata made such a quote and who was hitting who. While Hoary did question my neutrality I do begin to have doubts on Hoary’s ability to exert powers as an admin. The amount of information available either in English, German or French on Nichiren Buddhism is limited. The information published on and offline on SG/SGI is mainly published by SG/SGI itself. It comes natural that critical matters are few and credibility of authors is even more vital then. I work on Nichiren related matters for nearly eight years now. I believe I was able to contribute to the nuts and bolts of Nichiren Buddhism within articles dealing with the matter in a credible non-promotional way. Am I neutral on SG/SGI? No. Knowing this and having made co-editors aware of that I keep my own edits on SG/SGI related articles to a bare minimum. I am not sure if Hoary is aware of the fact but the usual tactics of SG/SGI advocates is (online and offline) to discredit authors of resources critical of SG/SGI. This has been an ongoing issue as if one does not like the message kill the messenger so to speak. What I surely do not like is therefore to delete critical material. Recently another editor and me were involved to get another editor to include some more facts on SG/SGI’s beliefs and dogma – fruitless task. So in the end maybe Ikeda was building his first human pyramid as a peace activity while the priest was harassed in 1952 – how should I know. What I do know (a) Ikeda was present among the 47 involved (b) Murata did make that quote on page 69 (c) Toda is said to have been hitting. Also since Murata apparently did not only write one book I am surprised that Hoary did not include a “citation needed” tag on the disputed sentence first. It just puzzles me that Hoary always enters the scene when it comes to references critical of SG/SGI, references not in Japanese. On the Toynbee issue it was agreed that the online text does not qualify as a resource – now its harder for readers to read the article. Fine. Nevertheless the article existed, I have had the Guardian pdf and the one made available to me by the help of a Resource Request. Discrediting yet again the author of the article as some editors tried I find worrying. To quarrel about resources, who said what where is one thing to discredit me as an editor making sure critical issues are neither deleted nor censored is another one though. Since I was the one who got the Murata quotes why should it be me to insist that Ikeda was hitting the priest? The conclusions Hoary makes beat me and asking me to edit the body of the text seems bizarre while earlier threatening me with a topic ban. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer's note: I will remind all parties to this case to be concise, be civil, and comment on content, not on contributors. The comments by some of the editors appear to contain lengthy complaints about other parties and are long. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to DRN, I have been through the specifics of the discussion and am willing to volunteer for this case. I have no prior knowledge of the subject matter but I hope that won't interfere with mediation. I am going to notify Elemential1 as they seem to have been involved in a lot of the discussion. The first thing I would ask is in two or three sentences could you please tell me as specifically as possible what you hope would be different (or the same) in the article after DRN. For comparison please use this version of the article. I ask this in order for us all to see exactly where the nub of the dispute is. Please don't justify these inclusions in this section simply list them for now.SPACKlick (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08:'s desired outcomes

Higher protection level of article itself (registered editors only, no IP edits). No hidden or open censorship. End to defamation of authors (including journalists) and denying the existence of their work. No threats against my person or any other editor. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: This board cannot change protection levels of an article. We also cannot take action against uncivil editors. If you have received threats to your person I would recommend you take them to the relevant administrators noticeboard

• Could you be specific about what you believe is being censored currently?
• Could you be specific about what work you believe the existence of is being denied?
• Could you be specific about what authors are being defamed.

I am asking for specifics at this stage because a small point to focus on will help the discussion find the generalities. SPACKlick (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The censorship is about sources used and an ongoing effort by some editors to discredit authors/journalists. It was even denied that Murata made such a claim i.e. that the page 69 in his work even exists as cited by Montgomery. At that point the issue was on Toda only. The defamation was about Toynbee (multiple editors involved). The threat against my person was to the effect of me being able to edit the article. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That is still quite general. What sources would you like included in the article that are not currently? What from Murata/Montgomery would you like in the article. What about Toynbee would you like out of the article? This will struggle to move forward without specifics. SPACKlick (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact should be included that according to Murata Toda hit the priest twice and DI was present. Please note that since the dispute started both articles (SGI and the one on DI) have been reedited in large parts. Both the Montgomery AND Murata page 69 quotes should simply be cited in a footnote at least – in full length. The notability of Ms. Toynbee and her account of meeting DI should no longer be disputed nor her reputation as a journalist belittled. And while in the swing of it – no quotes from fictional material (the novel “Human Revolution”) on incidents that happened in real life. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Please note that at the beginning of the dispute the complete section was once deleted on grounds that no such quote of Toda was recorded. Tough – Murata quote was found. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary:'s desired outcomes

There's a passage within the section on "Books" that talks of the reactions of, and quotes comments by, Polly Toynbee. It's flagged "[relevant?]", "[better source needed]", and "[copyright violation?]". Remove the "[better source needed]", and "[copyright violation?]" flags, as the quotations appear in the article in the Guardian. (This article -- long, fascinating, and published long before everything in the newspaper was routinely uploaded to its website -- has been made available to a small number of editors of the page and I presume could be available to others.) The part flagged for relevance does indeed seem irrelevant to books. But this is not the part of the article where this passage has long resided. Move the passage back where it belongs (some section on Ikeda the person), and its relevance will again be clear. This aside, no particular request. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Slightly edited for clarity 05:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Starrynuit:'s desired outcomes

Greetings; I do not have any dispute with the article as it is. Thank you very much Starrynuit (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In that case are there any particular changes that have been made and reverted recently that you specifically think would detract from the article? SPACKlick (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings,

Thank you kindly for asking.

1) I agree with Hoary’s suggestion about the Polly Toynbee quotations.

2) Re: “The fact should be included that according to Murata Toda hit the priest twice and DI was present.”

a) Murata pages 96-97 are on the subject at hand (not page 69) ()

b) Neither Murata nor Montgomery states that DI (Daisaku Ikeda) was present at this alleged hitting, therefore it is not appropriate to include such a statement in the article.

c) Montgomery states that what happened after Toda encountered Ogasawara is not clear and he describes Murata’s statement about Toda hitting the priest as a “claim”. Montgomery states, “What happened next [after Toda encountered Ogasawara] is not clear. According to Ikeda, Toda reasoned calmly with Ogasawara, demanding an apology, while the old man 'drooled at the mouth' and 'howled like a rabid dog.' But Murata claims that Toda told him in an interview that he struck the priest 'twice' ([Murata, p.] 96).” ([Montgomery ()

d) Therefore, given the Neutral Point of View policy not to state seriously contested assertions as facts, it does not seem appropriate to state that Toda hit the priest, and certainly not to state that Ikeda was present at this alleged hitting, for which there is no cited source at all.

Thank you very much again. Starrynuit (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note: (I hope this comment is not out of line). I don't know why anyone else didn't translate it, but I posted a Japanese source on the Talk page, here, that states Toda hit the priest.

  行ってみると、当時の戸田城聖会長を先頭に青年部の屈強な若者がずらりと並んでいた。
  呼び出しの理由は簡単にいうと、戦前慈聞師が唱えていた教義解釈が間違っていたのだから謝れというわけだ。師が拒否すると戸田会長が殴った...

  It also says that the priest was said to have suffered internal bleeding, and that Toda was taken into custody and held for two days while the incident was investigated.

  急を聞きつけて地元消防団がかけつけたため慈聞師は宿坊に帰され、騒ぎは収まったが、このリンチで師は内出血のため四週間も休まなくてはならなかったという。
  この事件で戸田会長は警察に二日間拘留され、取調べを受けている。

  --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

References

@Elemential1:'s desired outcomes

Ok so to summarise the comments above.

Murata, Montgomery, Hitting incident

1. Include that Murata Toda hit the priest twice and DI was present
2. Cite Montgomery in footnote at full length
3. Cite Murata in footnote at full length

These three, if I'm understanding correctly all refer to the same section of content and are disputed as to what quotes to include, what to say in Wikipedia's voice and what to not say at all. Could each of you summarise your arguments for what to include and where in the article. Again, try and keep it to three or four sentences. Please do not discuss each others contributions before I respond.

@Catflap08:

Nowhere in the quotes is it stated that Ikeda hit the priest. Whoever included that later is none of my business and if sources exist who say so include them. The Montgomery source simply states that Ikeda was in the mob. I was the one who made the Murata quotes available, as some suggested the Montgomery quote would be wrong. I have the full Montgomery quote and would include it in full length as a footnote just like the Murata one. Please note that in the beginning of this discussion the complete reference to the incident was deleted. We have so far established that the Murata quote exists, which was disputed, and that Ikeda according to sources was present. The “incident” as such is not limited to Toda hitting the priest – that was the climax – but the incident is about finding the priest, pulling off his robes, etc. etc. … the issue here is that the incident took place. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary:

In the first item, is "Murata Toda" a typo for "Murata says that Toda" (or similar), for "Toda", or for something else? Anyway, I'm unimpressed by somebody's mere presence at a violent event. If there's evidence that this happened, and that Ikeda played an important role, then say what the incident was and what his role was in it; if there isn't, then don't. Whatever is said in the article about this (if anything), source it well: in the relevant footnote(s)/reference(s), quote [I think you mean "quote" rather than "cite"] as much from Murata or Montgomery or both as to establish this, and no more. -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Starrynuit:

Greetings, Suggest that the Polly Toynbee quotations be moved to a new Controversies section in the article. Given the Neutral Point of View policy not to state seriously contested assertions as facts and given the cited statement from Montgomery that “What happened next [after Toda encountered Ogasawara] is not clear.”, it does not seem appropriate to state that Toda hit the priest, and certainly not to state that Ikeda was present at this alleged hitting, since there is no cited source for the latter statement. Thank you again, Starrynuit (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

P. Toynbee comments

1. Accept Ms Toynbee as a source of note and include referred sections without critique of the journalist.
2. Move Ms Toynbee's section to the relevant location

I don't see a dispute here but maybe I'm misreading someone. The section currently reads

The 1976 publication of Choose Life: A Dialogue (in Japanese, Nijusseiki e no taiwa) is the published record of dialogues and correspondences that began in 1971 between Ikeda and British historian Arnold J. Toynbee about the “convergence of East and West”[137] on contemporary as well as perennial topics ranging from the human condition to the role of religion and the future of human civilization. Toynbee’s 12-volume A Study of History had been translated into Japanese, which along with his lecture tours and periodical articles about social, moral and religious issues gained him popularity in Japan. To an expat’s letter critical of Toynbee’s association with Ikeda and Soka Gakkai, Toynbee wrote back: “I agree with Soka Gakkai on religion as the most important thing in human life, and on opposition to militarism and war."[138] To another letter critical of Ikeda, Toynbee responded: “Mr. Ikeda’s personality is strong and dynamic and such characters are often controversial. My own feeling for Mr. Ikeda is one of great respect and sympathy.”[139] British journalist and political commentator Polly Toynbee, an avowed atheist, was invited to meet Ikeda in 1984 in memory of her grandfather. (According to Peter Popham, writing about Tokyo architecture and culture, Ikeda "was hoping to tighten the public connection between himself and Polly Toynbee's famous grandfather, Arnold Toynbee, the prophet of the rise of the East."[140]) Polly Toynbee described Ikeda as "a short, round man with slicked down hair, wearing a sharp Western suit"; they talked from "throne-like" chairs in "an enormous room" reached via "corridors of bowing girls dressed in white".[141][relevant? – discuss] She wrote "I have met many powerful men--prime ministers, leaders of all kinds--but I have never in my life met anyone who exudes such an aura of absolute power as Mr. Ikeda."[142] In The Guardian on May 19, 1984, she also voiced the wish that her grandfather would not have endorsed their dialogue, Choose Life: A Dialogue. She wrote, "I telephoned a few people round the world who had been visited by Ikeda. There was a certain amount of discomfort at being asked, and an admission by several that they felt they had been drawn into endorsing him."[143][better source needed][copyright violation?]

Are there any disputed phrases and are there any suggestions as to where in the article which bits should go? Please feel free to discuss this, please remember to be civil and discuss the content not the contributor SPACKlick (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do also take into account the respective talk(s) on the issue which comes up on a regular basis more or less. To my mind the quote and references made to Ms. Toynbee are exactly in the right place. The article was not written out of the blue, but because Ms. Toynbee was invited by SGI/SG as she was the granddaughter of the late Arnold Toynbee. As a matter of fact those quotes are actually missing in which she elaborates what she suspected to be SGI/SG’s motifs to invite her in the first place. Alternatively I would add larger quotes in an appropriate footnote. Also is was hinted at in the respective talks on the issue the reference to Ms. Toynbee should go full stop as she is a humanist (some call it atheist or agnostic) - I guess that was her view at the time too, but she was invited on grounds of her name. On a side note I would like to underline that any attempts to delete her quotes, based on her view on religion, are in effect discriminatory. --Catflap08 (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Human Revolution

1. Remove quotes from Fictional material, to whit "Human Revolution"

I couldn't find any remaining quotes from the book. Is this still under dispute? Please feel free to discuss this, please remember to be civil and discuss the content not the contributor SPACKlick (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be established that the semi-fictional novel is not a reliable source to quote from full stop. In the talk page (either on DI or SGI/SG) it was discussed to quote it. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please halt discussion until a new moderator takes up this case. SPACKlick has indicated on the DRN talk page that he/she is unable to continue with this case. I'm therefore marking it as NEEDS ATTENTTION in the hopes another DRN volunteer will pick it up.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

American Sniper (film)

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

Filed by David A on 08:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:American Sniper_(film) 

Users involved

• David A (talk · contribs)
• MONGO (talk · contribs)
• DHeyward (talk · contribs)
• Erik (talk · contribs)
• Nbauman (talk · contribs)
• IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk · contribs)
• Gothicfilm (talk · contribs)
• Silver seren (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

After putting it to a vote, the official Wikipedia consensus was for the separate, i.m.h.o. excessive, Controversies page of American Sniper to be merged into the connected section of the main page.

However, there have been various problems with getting anywhere. MONGO has made numerous, what I find to be crude partisan comments on the talk page. However, I don’t really have much of a problem with MONGO, as he has been willing to compromise, and put forth reasons for why certain articles should be removed.

What I have far more of a problem with is that the user DHeyward decided to censor virtually everything wholesale, in fragrant violation of the official Wikipedia decision, and all the work that I put in to summarise the critical articles into one sentence each, with no compromise or Talk page discussion whatsoever.

Even the New York Times has written about the controversy in articles, and The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said that the release of the movie coincided with increased threats against Arabs and Muslims, and critics of the movie have received lots of death threats, so I definitely think that the controversy is very notable.

I initially compressed several of the more relevant article summaries from the controversies page into the version seen here, but after compromising to shorten it down considerably, and cut out more articles that the user MONGO objected to, it eventually ended up as the versions seen here.

Due to the problems with the page, it has been temporarily locked. In the meantime, I would greatly appreciate an intervention to decide how we should proceed. Thank you very much for any help.

---

I take offense at the allegation below regarding that I am somehow "lying". My genuine impression is that DHeyward's behaviour seems to be part of a pattern: [12] [13][14][15] [16] [17][18][19] In addition, he has compared the critics of the movie with the Ku Klux Klan, which I interpreted as very partisan.

Also, here is what I compressed into this, with the positive defence of the movie afforded more room than the negative criticism. That is not unreasonable one-track POV-pushing. I simply think that the controversy is notable, and the critics made several good points, that deserve to be heard. I do however also think that IjonTichi went too far in the other direction with the massive separate page. It is sufficient with a small summary section as far as I am concerned.

In addition, I have been on Wikipedia for over 9 years. Editing this article has been far from my only focus during all of that time, but I admittedly tend to get fixated on one or a few things at a time.

Also, just so I am not accused of "lying" again, here are a few Talk editing differences from MONGO that I found partisan: [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]

In response to MONGO regarding the purpose of this, the page will stop being edit locked in a while. What then? Will it immediately be emptied from anything negative whatsoever, regardless of the significance? I think that we need to find a middle ground, and I think that I have gone to extremes to do so. But that compromise must go both ways. David A (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes, by repeatedly cutting away controversial articles, greatly shortening down the article summaries, making sure that the defense of the movie has been granted more article space than the negative criticism to be as fair to both sides as possible, discussion in the Talk page, and by advertising for help at Wikiproject Film. I also made a mistake in advertising for intervention to make a decision regarding the section at the Administrators' noticeboard, but then discovered this one, which seems much more suited to what I had in mind.

How do you think we can help?

By rendering impartial NPOV, well-informed, decisions regarding how best to proceed. As has been repeatedly brought up in the Talk page, It would also be very helpful if somebodies would be willing to help merge together the summaries into a more coherent, easily digested flow.

Summary of dispute by MONGO

The article is currently protected in David A's version so I have no idea what this serves. I wouldn't mind seeing more of the attack pieces pretending to be movie reviews removed. I am opposed to a standalone coatrack article because David A, who obviously opposes the movie and has been obsessed with promoting a negative overview, and this Ijon character will only use it as a parking place for every bombastic source they can conjure up with no intention to keep any any of that in perspective. In that light I assume zero good faith that these POV pushers have any interest in working in a neutral manner on this subject.--MONGO 14:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

David A wishes to use this low quality source to back up the claim that Muslims and or anyone has experienced credible death threats since the realease of the movie...the "death threats" are all from blog postings or Twitter feeds. Weak sourcing of bombastic claims and using them in an encyclopedia is unacceptable.--MONGO 14:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

David A. has been a textbook example of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing and while I commend him on being civil, he's still here solely with an agenda which is to advocate and push almost exclusively one POV. While he has been making some effort to compromise, he still seems to be turning a deaf ear to various policies and guidelines such as NPOV and the undue weight clause as well as Wikipedia:Criticism.--MONGO 14:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: The consensus should be to follow guidelines and interweave high quality sources both pro and con into a "reception" section in accordance with Wikipedia:Criticism. However, the POV fork was voted for merge and the Ijon and David A. seem to think that means all the material gets placed in the article. Also, at least five other commentators at the article talk page were not informed.--MONGO 15:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Silverseren, this noticeboard isn't about barring people from an article. It exists to discuss content disputes and while one can point out problems in the way a person may be a POV pusher, this venue has no ability to bar anyone from editing.--MONGO 23:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DHeyward

The depiction of my edits as "censordhip" is a blatant lie. I removed the large number of puffery words that introduced rather bland comments. I removed wholly unrelated segments that have nothing to do with the movie (i.e. the announcement of "Chris Kyle Day" in Texas is a movie controversy? Really??). I removed dubious claims such as the one about threats to Arabs and Muslims coinciding with the movie - also coinciding with the movies and threats were the Paris attacks, ISIL executions of Americans and a number of other things. It's dubious to assign threats to a movie release. I condensed commentary unrelated to film. I also removed quotefarms in places where it could be condensed with a paraphrase all in accordance with MOS, including positive ones from the film director, Eastwood). This diff[36] is what the initiator calls censorship. Read each version (not in diff for, but prose) and see which one is better. The only other addition I would make is move it into the critical response area. It seems the OP wants a massively long criticism section, regardless of content or due weight. He has already claimed his only purpose here at WP is to make sure that happened. --DHeyward (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Erik: I reject your characterization of "animosity" or "opining." It is neither. All the reliable sources reported a press release by ADC and never in the sources voice (i.e. the Guardian doesn't claim there is an increase in threats). ADC remarked that it was the largest spike in threats since the ground zero mosque. Our article does not mention ADC in the the ground zero mosque article. Nor are threats presented in the ADC article. Nor did ADC release anything about attributing increasing threats to ISIL beheadings or the Charlie Hebdo attacks. They are a political organization that picks and chooses what to say (and a terrorist organization according to some sources). It is editorial discretion as to whether we cover press releases. In this case, it is not significant enough to list it in the controversy section. None of the reliable sources use their own voice to state that there are any threats related to the movie. Whence, there is no opining, it's a culling of very unreliable and dubious sources making serious claims without any evidence. There is nothing signicant being removed in my edit. --DHeyward (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Erik, your source for the reposnse is the "Style Blog"? really? Everyone condemns anti-arab rhetoric so the vanilla response from Warner Bros. isn't related. Want to see some really hateful speech towards Iraqi's? Go read anything said by the King of Jordan in the last week. There is nothing in the ADC press release that isnot completely swamped by positive coverage. A movie inspiring threats against arabs is so far off the table as to be a fringe viewpoint especially with current events of Charlie Hebdo and ISIL beheadings. We're lucky the King of Jordan didn't tweet all his threats or this whole thing would have exploded. It's nonsense. --DHeyward (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the ADC coverage was a one day news flash with no sustaining power or followup. ADC issues another press release blaming American Sniper for the shooting in North Carolina just this week. Zero coverage. The shooter was an avowed atheist and police believe the shooting of three Muslims was over a parking issue. --DHeyward (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@SilverSeren: Once again, your comments containg hyperbole without substance. I have no opinion on the film as I have not seen it. I don't know what politics you are attributing to me. I DO know that "Chris Kyle Day" in Texas has nothing to do with the film, whence I removed it from the "Controversy" section. I DO know that attributing threats of violence against arabs being attributed to the film is a fringe viewpoint not very widely held considering we've have the Charlie Hebdo attacks and ISIL beheadings and it would be difficult to isolate "film" created anger vs. reality created anger (King of Jordan is probably the most threatening statement in since the film was released). Either way, it's WP:FRINGE. I also know that widely held views, and even minority but prominent views do not need appeals to authority by name and title dropping. We, for example, don't list every Oscar committee voter that endorsed the file for Best Picture or any other awards since saying it was nominated for an Oscar is widespread. We could list every person and their title that held that view, but Appeals to Authority for viewpoints are fallacious arguments. It's a technique used to get fringe viewpoints inserted into articles and when the names and titles are removed, the remaining argument shouldn't sound like a fringe view. In this case, it does and it's clear that unless there is more widespread opinions, the ones removed are fringe. --DHeyward (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to offer an alternative narration of event. The original article had the criticisms. Some editors wanted controversies to dominate the article even though it was unrelated to the movie (i.e. "Chris Kyle Day" in Texas is a "controversy" related to the film, Noam Chomsky weighs in on his opinion of Kyle but says he hasn't seen the film, etc, etc). When those off-topic items were rejected, they forked off the controversies article that included every bit of negative hyperbole, whether true or not and whether it was undue weight or not and whether it was related to the film or not. Controversies were even added about what the film did not cover from a political POV rather than a cinematic on. The consensus was to kill the POV fork and merge whatever legitimate criticism existed back into the main article (which already contained a fair amount of criticism). It was not a license or referendum to ignore the initial rejection of such material or a mandate that all material in the content fork should be added. If this were the case, POV warriors would always fork off an article and then use the inevitable "merge" result to force POV back into the main article. Relying on a "merge" consensus as a hammer to force a POV that is not neutral and weighted inappropriately by coverage in reliable sources goes against the core principles of Wikipedia. --DHeyward (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Erik

To provide further context, for American Sniper (film) controversies, the conclusion of the AfD was to merge the sub-article back to American Sniper (film). The consensus was that the sub-article was a POV fork that resulted from a dispute about covering the debate on the main article. I do think that a sub-article is feasible based on the level of detail, but the beginnings of that sub-article need to come together at American Sniper (film)#Controversies itself and be properly balanced there before it can be split off solely based on the level of detail. What has happened here between editors has been political opining and accusations of POV-pushing. I feel like such stances preempt any real content-building. I think there ought to be a plan, such as listing all sources giving high-level assessments of the debate, determining the specific topics of that debate (Chris Kyle, Iraq War, Middle Easterners, sniper as an occupation, veteran support, etc) and then put together the specific material that falls under each topic. A high-level assessment can be used as a filter to determine that specific material. But there has been too much animosity all around for this to happen. As I suggested in an WP:ANI thread, an improved "Controversies" section (preferably renamed) could be developed on a draft page and imported when the consensus is that it is appropriately detailed and balanced. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The above summaries reflect the animosity that has taken place, which is why there is no sense of collaboration. The political opining is also visible. This shows the removal of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's statement because of the editor's own interpretation, despite the statement having been reported by numerous news outlets (I am seeing BBC News, The Guardian, CNN, Haaretz, to name a few). Even if one disagrees with the statement, it has weight by the extent of the reporting. This kind of thing makes me concerned that editors all around are projecting their biases on the presentation of content rather than following the sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I've started a draft at Talk:American Sniper (film)/Commentary. Judging from the coverage provided by The Guardian and The Washington Post, I'm hard-pressed to believe that it is appropriate to exclude anything about the committee's statement, including responses, from the Wikipedia article. DHeyward is opining against WP:DUE in saying this, "They are a political organization that picks and chooses what to say (and a terrorist organization according to some sources). It is editorial discretion as to whether we cover press releases." If the press release was by itself, I would agree with it, but since the committee's statement and related responses have been reported by multiple reliable sources, we would be remiss not to include that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nbauman

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I don't know if DHeyward's edit [37] is censorship, but (1) he doesn't explain the reasons for the cuts and (2) they do violate Wikipedia's neutrality. This is a "Criticism" section being edited by somebody who disagrees with the criticism, has defended the film against that criticism, and is making the criticism weaker. It's as if you were being defended in court by a lawyer who believed you were guilty and was trying to get you convicted. For example, he changes "Matt Taibbi, of Rolling Stone Magazine" to "One critic". Matt Taibbi and Rolling Stone are notable, and by deleting their names, the significance of the criticism is weaker. He similarly deletes other names. Instead of named critics that the reader can identify, these are anonymous critics. A major source of the credibility of American Sniper is that it is based on a character who was an actual sniper and a war hero. The Criticism section cited other military men who were just as credible as Kyle, disagreed with him, and accused him of lying. For example, Kyle said that he regarded the Iraqi civilians as "savages," but another sniper disagreed and accused Kyle of ignorance and bigotry. These are legitimate criticisms, which DHeyward deleted. DHeyward and others insisted that the Criticism section was too long. We offered him a standard Wikipedia response to that complaint, by making a separate sub-article. DHeyward and others complained about the sub-article, and they finally won a consensus that it be deleted and merged with the original article. Now we're merging it in the original article, and he doesn't accept that either. I believe that we should have kept the sub-article until we reached consensus on the merge into the Controversies section in the original article. I still believe that. We should re-create the sub-article again until we reach consensus. But DHeyward's edits violate WP:NPOV, are disruptive, and make it impossible for us to write a Criticism section which will satisfy WP:NPOV, which requires a fair statement of the criticism of the movie, since it has been criticized extensively. I would like the fans of the film to let us summarize the criticisms of the film without interference. The rest of the article is yours, as it were; this section belongs to the critics. --Nbauman (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by IjonTichyIjonTichy

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I think everyone that has participated so far in this discussion (MONGO, DHeyward, David A, Nbauman, Silver seren and Erik) have expressed valid concerns and perspectives. Let's try to find a compromise. How about if we try to build the content based on Erik's suggestions? And may I recommend to change the name of the section in the article from 'Controversies' to e.g. 'Commentary' or perhaps 'Responses.' How does that sound? IjonTichy (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Silver seren: In my view the section (whatever we decide to call it) could include both negative and positive commentary. For example, an analysis where the author says something like (for example, I'm just making this up quickly) "I did not like the fact the film objectified Iraqis" (followed by the author's reasoning) "but I think the film is mostly an anti-war film and I disagree with the commentators who feel the film is pro-war propaganda" (followed by the author's logic/ rationale for thinking the film is more anti-war than pro-war). Sorry for the crude way I've put this, I don't have the time to edit this to improve it, I'm extremely busy in real life. Maybe right now many of the political/ historical/ social commentary may be negative, but there is no reason why in the next few weeks we should not see articles (or book chapters etc) finding some strong positives in the sea of negativity. Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added (in an older section on the film article talk page) sources in criticism of the film and one source in support of the movie.

As I said before, I think everyone's concerns and perspectives are valid and have merit. May I suggest we lay down some ground rules. May I respectfully ask that users entirely refrain from labeling other users' work as 'POV pushing' or 'coatrack' or similar attack labels. This labeling tends to put the recipient in a hostile, aggressive mood, it destroys users' enjoyment of editing the encyclopedia, and significantly reduces people's motivation to find a compromise with everybody's perspectives or positions. Attacking a user's work feels like a personal attack, even if admins don't necessarily consider it sanctionable offense. And attacking others' work with labels such as 'POV' is not acceptable here at the DRN. Attaching negative labels to a user's work tends to significantly curtail the recipient's creativity and work productivity. Let's foster a friendly, hospitable, supportive work environment where we trust each other and where we encourage each and every user who may be motivated to contribute to building a first draft. Let's place our trust in each other, especially in our 'opponents' and let's build each other's confidence and enthusiasm. The final consensus version would possibly, or even probably, look very different from the first (or second or third) rough draft(s), so may I advise for patience and calm, let's all please try to be less emotional about this and more cool and gentle and supportive of each other, especially those with whom we may otherwise disagree.

I hope that users don't take this as a personal attack, I'm not saying any specific person here is more emotional rather than a logical person, I believe every user here is simultaneously both an emotional and a logical/ rational person, I believe emotions are very important and have a powerful role to play in debates, and I myself tend to get too emotional sometimes. I hope nobody thinks I'm picking on them or that I'm implying they are a roadblock to compromise, that's not my intention at all, everything I said applies to all users equally. Please let's trust each other fully without reservations, and let's all try to be supportive of each other's efforts without any criticism of each other's work for a while. After we have a first rough draft, then we should (politely) criticize the draft (not the people who wrote it) to try to reach consensus. May I respectfully suggest that users read the WP article on Brainstorming. Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gothicfilm

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Silver seren

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

This should probably be at ANI, yeah. Anyways, I think MONGO and DHeyward's POV statements and actions in the article speak for themselves. They clearly have very POV stances on the article subject and want to minimize criticism of the subject as much as possible. DHeyward has been doing that primarily by POV editing that purposefully is made to make the sources seem useless, changing their names to things like "A critic" and "Another critic", as without their actual names, it reduces their legitimacy to readers. MONGO, on the other hand, has been just making a number of negative comments toward the sources, several of which are likely BLP violations toward them.

I think both of them should be barred from being involved in the article any further. Silverseren^C 18:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@IjonTichyIjonTichy:: I feel like the section title needs to acknowledge that it is negative commentary regarding the film. Since that's what it is. It is separate from critical reception, as it isn't commentary related to the film in regards to its merits as a film, but separate negative commentary due to other issues with the film. Silverseren^C 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@IjonTichyIjonTichy: Actually, after looking at Erik's mockup section here, i'm fine with calling the section Commentary or something similar, so long as use those something close to those subsection names, which are descriptive of what they are discussing. Though, @Erik: in the second section, I think if you're going to say "Craig Morgan criticized Michael Moore and Seth Rogen's negative assessments of the film", you should first include some sort of quote or paraphrase of what Moore and Rogen said. Otherwise, it's just confusing. Silverseren^C 01:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: With every comment you make, you're just further expressing your POV stance on the subject matter. You're kinda making my point for me. Silverseren^C 22:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

American Sniper (film) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just noting to all DRN volunteers that:

• It appears to me that all listed parties have been adequately notified and that there has been adequate discussion on the talk page, and that
• I have some reservation, based on what has been said above, that this may actually be a conduct case masked by a content request. If there was a recent and clear consensus here and one or more editors continue to edit the article in a way which does not conform to that consensus, then that's disruptive editing which ought to be taken to ANI, not dealt with here. On the other hand, if it was no consensus, or a weak consensus, or a consensus (of any strength) which has now been abandoned by the editors who formed it, then this is a content case which can be handled here.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a content dispute at the core, possibly with a frosting of bad behavior. Could you try to address the content issue, and we will see if the behavior issue calms naturally. If it doesn't, I will bring this to arbitration because ANI discussion already descended into an unactionable mass of accusations and counter accusations. Hopefully the parties will prefer to sort their editorial disagreements and stop feuding. Jehochman ^Talk 06:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer's Note 2: I'm still neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion, but wish now to make two admonishments: First, terminate all discussion until a volunteer takes this case. Until then all discussion should take place on the article talk page. If this case is accepted, you'll have a chance then to respond to one another's opening statements. Second, realize that if this case is accepted then user conduct will not be any part of the discussions here and, indeed, discussions of one anothers' biases, editing practices or habits, conflicts of interest, incivility, or anything else which is about another user will not be allowed here. If you're here to raise or discuss those kinds of things, you need to know that's not going to happen. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Aloha! I'm Mark Miller, a volunteer here at DRN. I may be willing to mediate this request if all parties agree to it. At the core of the dispute is an AFD discussion. I should note that while an AFD can suggest merging as a result of the deletion discussion, it is not actually an official "consensus to merge". That must be done at the target page where a proper template is to be placed on the article to advertise the merge request. Closing admin do not implement a merge after AFD for this reason. I also request editors participating familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policy/guidelines/procedures and criteria for neutral editing, "controversies", BLPs and the merging process.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Before I officially open this case I am going to check a number of things in review of the dispute. If there is proper reasoning to simply close this request and suggest a different venue, I may well do that per the concerns and suggestions of other DRN volunteers. I am not convinced either way yet, so give me some time and I will review this request in full.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Opening discussion for mediation

Thank you to the participants for their patience. I have reviewed the article, the history, the talk page (still need to read through it in more detail) and familiarized myself with the concepts of the film, the current trial that is an ongoing, current event, and scanned through the above openings. The issue is not as complicated as I had first thought and this basically comes down to, not whether to include the content (although a consensus discussion could take place if need be on the talk page), but how and where to place it. A few of the issues appear to me as a bystander, to be that this article, about a film, is getting somewhat of a standard treatment by political sides and those feeling there is a "controversy" and placing content based on that. This began because an article was deleted and the content was suggested to be included or merged in this article. Let me remind editors that this is actually a film article. A copyrighted work in current release. The article should be broad in scope, include relevant positive, negative and neutral content based on the reliable source and the prevalence of the information. This is not a BLP or biography of the subject, so some content, not directly concerning the film may need to go elsewhere. Not much, but the article should not become a coat rack.

My view is simple. The bulk should remain and the section header simply removed because there is truly nothing in the section that is a "controversy" and almost everything else is pure reaction to the film that is critical and is part of the "critical response" section. If this is reasonable to everyone we can close this. If not, we can discuss other options towards how to include the content and if there is something needing to be removed or if it should all be left out. Remember, the AFD only decided to delete the article and suggest merging the content. That is not a guarantee it will be. Another option could be to close this DRN and open a talkpage merge discussion with the proper tag to the article. Let me know. --Mark Miller (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like interest in this venue may have diminished. I will place a 48 hr notice to close as stale. If no one responds in that time I will close and recommend this be kicked back to the talk page for a merge discussion with the proper template and listing at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Anwar Ibrahim#Hidden sex tape allegation

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Banedon on 09:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Anwar Ibrahim#Hidden sex tape allegation (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Banedon (talk · contribs) Johnuniq (talk · contribs) Mkativerata (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There was a section dealing with an allegation that Anwar was filmed in a sex tape. User Mkativerata removed the section, calling it 'rubbish'. After a couple of reverts of each others' edits he started a section on the talk page where he explained that he thinks it violates WP:BLPGOSSIP. He also created a section on the BLP noticeboard. I disputed that the section violates WP:BLPGOSSIP, which led to another editor Johnuniq calling the allegations 'nonsense', and not offering anything more than that. I tried citing WP:PUBLICFIGURE but neither editor seems to be interested in discussion, instead just dismissing me (with some rather condescending remarks too; see the talk page). Since I'm hitting a brick wall and no other editor seems to be interested, I'm bringing it to dispute resolution. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Mkativerata created a section on the BLP noticeboard, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Anwar_Ibrahim, but there's been no input there either. How do you think we can help? Decide whether the section should be included or not. If not, I'd like to know exactly which Wikipedia policy is being violated, and why. I'd also like an explanation of why WP:PUBLICFIGURE doesn't apply, and some assurance that there is a consensus to remove the section. Summary of dispute by Johnuniq Material discussing a "hidden sex tape" (permalink) is not acceptable. What do you think the result would be if someone claimed the person in that video was actually Barack Obama? Would the section then be added to his article? Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Mkativerata Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Well they say "please keep it brief". A public figure - indeed, any human being, should not have their Wikipedia page tarnished with allegations, albeit reported in the media, that they are a figure featured in a "hidden sex tape". The man has a family, for crying out loud. It is defamatory, prejudicial, unproven, and irrelevant to the subject's biography. This Wall Street Journal article comprehensively and impartially describes the political climate in which this video came to light and shows why we should be exercising so much care. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Talk:Anwar Ibrahim#Hidden sex tape allegation discussion Dear Banedon, Johnuniq and Mkativerata, Welcome to DRN. This case is now open for discussion. Please keep in mind we are here to discuss the content of the WP article only. Please do not reference other editors, their behaviors or their actions -- past, present or future. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC) WP is based on reliable sources. Please list the sources (with URLs) that report on the topic of the "sex tapes". We will then discuss them one by one in light of WP guidelines and policies.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC) There are many sources and instead of listing them I'll link the last version of the article which had the removed text. The sources in question are #60 to #67. Mkativerata showed another source above. It's my opinion that if Barack Obama were alleged to be fornicating with someone, then like with everyone else it should not be mentioned unless it is covered in multiple reliable sources over a short period of time. This is the case here. The allegations may be unproven, but still: they were covered in multiple reliable sources, including the country's main newspapers, over a short period of time. I don't see how the political climate is important, given how the sources are third-party and many are not controlled by the Malaysian government. In the same way Michael Jackson's page should have a section on the child abuse allegations made against him (even though he was acquitted), as should Dominique Strauss Kahn's page on the allegations that he raped a hotel maid. Curiously WP:PUBLICFIGURE even gives an example that's almost exactly the same as what's happening in this case. If the section is not to be included, I'd like to know why this policy does not apply. Banedon (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC) The WP:PUBLICFIGURE examples are discussing cases where reliable sources describe plausible allegations of some significance. In the case here, no source lends any credibility to the allegations at all, and I have not seen any source that does more than report a resemblance. Media outlets have to report the news-of-the-day, but an encylopedic article does not record every piece of mud. This kind of issue has been hammered out a hundred times at WP:BLPN, always with the same result—transitory gossip is not recorded; if the topic (a claim of sexual impropriety) is sufficiently important, write an article about it as done for Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. The solution is to wait six months and then consider what reliable sources are saying about the incident, see WP:NOTNEWS. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC) My understanding is that this dispute concerns this edit which removed sourced content from the article. Is that correct?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Yes, that's correct. Banedon (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Discussion of WP guidelines OK, it seems no one is challenging the secondary sources, of which there are several, that appear to be from reputable publications beginning in 2011. In that case let's look at the guidelines cited by the participants so far. WP:Censor says: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so." WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." The concern seems to be that the content on the sex tapes is "mud" and "transitory gossip"'. Could someone please specify what part of WP:GOSSIP applies to this issue in this BLP?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC) WP:BLPGOSSIP says: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." In this case, it has nowhere near been proven - and none of the reliable sources even suggest - that the material is "true" (ie that Anwar is the man in the tape). Nor, of course, is this matter relevant to his biography. The "truth" and "relevance" requirements are critical. Because of them we get to make editorial judgements to filter smear that gets reported in reliable sources and say "this isn't right for Wikipedia". As an aside, I'm not sure why you are quoting WP:CENSOR and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. In the former case, applying BLP policies to protect living persons is never a matter of censorship. In the latter case, it has not been demonstrated that this material is "noteworthy" or "relevant", so the asserted policy does not apply. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC) OK let's look at the points in the BLPGOSSIP sentence you've quoted: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable" -- There are multiple sources and so far I don't see anyone disputing this point "whether the material is being presented as true" -- Yes, the deleted content reported facts from those reliable sources "and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" -- I would answer yes to this also. The controversy surrounding Anwars alleged appearance in a sex tape has appeared in multiple reliable sources including the New York Times. Therefore, the information is notable and relevant and I see no basis in WP policy for the wholesale removal of that reliably sourced content. If you would like to discuss the wording or weight given to those sources then that is OK. But to remove it completely based on one's personal views of what is morally right or wrong, or in good taste, violates WP:CENSOR.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC) I unequivocally reject this view as a farcical and incompetent misapplication of BLP protections. It is, mercifully, in no way binding. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC) I agree with Keithbob's analysis for why the section does not violate BPLGOSSIP. I'll add that requiring some sources to actually claim that Anwar is the person appearing in the videos is a very high standard, because responsible journalists do not report as facts things they have not verified. Therefore it is to be expected that reliable sources will only report the allegations as allegations (Wikipedia has the same policy), and that is what has happened. To remove the section outright is essentially the same as making the claim that Anwar is not the person in the video, and is a leap too far for comfort. The controversy around Obama's birth certificate is excluded from his article not because of BLPGOSSIP, but because of WP:FRINGE. Furthermore even false allegations should be included if they are significant enough (again see Michael Jackson's and Dominique Strauss Kahn's pages), and that the allegations were reported in multiple reliable sources in a short period of time should be significance enough. If compromise is clearly not possible, I'll have to request mediation. Banedon (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC) You can't mediate on fundamental principles. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC) I am also concerned about agreeing to submit this to the Mediation Committee. My experience at this forum makes me worried about whether Mediation Committee members have adequate experience and competence in applying core Wikipedia policies. Some of them, I'm sure from just looking at the list, are very good. But some have very little content experience. Some have been comprehensively skewered at RfA yet made it onto MedCom, through a much easier appointment process. One day, I hope, we will have an Editorial Board to make binding content decisions. Appointees will go through an RfA-like rigorous vetting process to ensure high standards. I'm far from convinced that MedCom is a worthwhile substitute in the meantime. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC) @Keithbob: Thanks for volunteering at DRN, but you have no idea of how BLP is applied in practice—a fundamental principle is that not everything that can be sourced is suitable for inclusion in an article. Linking NOTCENSORED is absurd—please find out a little bit about that before using it in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Sorry Johnuniq but you are again saying things that have no basis in policy or fact. I have edited and developed more than 100 BLPs and written three from scratch that passed GA reveiws.see here and the projects tab here I'm the 27th most active person in the 7 yr history of the BLP noticeboard with 374 edits over 5 years. [38]. I'm also one of the most experienced and active volunteers at DRN and I'm a member of the Mediation Committee. (Don't worry I'll recuse if this case goes to mediation). If the participants would like to discuss appropriate wording and weight for the section in question I'm happy to moderate that kind of a discussion but as a DRN moderator I cannot remain silent while participants disregard core principles and guidelines and remove valid sourced content that meets the requirements of WP:BLP. If you wish to have further corroboration or participation from the community I would suggest an RfC on the talk page rather than mediation. But that is up to all of you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Well, I posted a RfC. Thanks for your time, Keithbob, and for the suggestion. Banedon (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC) You are welcome. Good luck!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:35, 20 February 2015 (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.

Talk:Loma Linda_University_Medical_Center

– New discussion.

Filed by 76.174.65.156 on 01:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Loma Linda University Medical Center (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 331dot (talk · contribs)
• TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (resigned from dispute)

Dispute overview

The Loma Linda University Medical Center Wikipedia page has, since 2008 or before, had an entire section dedicated to "Medicare Fraud." That equates to approximately 20% of the total content on the page. After reviewing the Wikipedia pages of several other notable healthcare institutions, including the Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente, and Johns Hopkins, not one of these institutions had any reference to their Medicare-fraud-related issues, and their Wikipedia pages are much, much longer than the page of Loma Linda University Medical Center. Meanwhile, the Hospital Corporation of America, an institution that has had extensive quarrels with Medicare and significant fines levied against it as a result, has a section about twice as long as that of Loma Linda University Medical Center's.

The unquestionable consensus, then, is that healthcare organizations that have relatively minor fines levied against it do not have any mention of fraud on their pages, while organizations that have had very significant fines levied against it may, as in the case of the Hospital Corporation of America, have a small section detailing the relevant issues.

Given that the "Medicare Fraud" section has been under dispute since 2008, it should be taken down until the consensus is otherwise, and, in which case, a precedent will be set if the section is allow to remain. For the time being, however, the section should not stand against consensus and the established precedent, according to Wikipedia's own established standards.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Making the necessary edits and discussing on the Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

The "Medicare Fraud" section should be taken down until the broader consensus, as established by the countless hours of content creation and editing already done to the Wikipedia pages of similar institutions referenced before (e.g., Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente), has changed.

Summary of dispute by 331dot

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I do not agree with the contention that the Fraud section was "under dispute since 2008" as the only evidence of any dispute that I have seen was one talk page post in 2008 which was unreplied to and did not result in removal of the passage.

I have requested that the IP user link to discussions where a consensus about not discussing fines (I don't consider 2.2 million a "minor" fine) like this in articles was established, but have not gotten a reply. A fine regarding activities with a large government program seems notable and the lack of such mentions on other articles about large medical facilities or organizations doesn't seem relevant to me without a policy or documented consensus saying so.

I have not examined the sources in detail so I take TransporterMan at his word regarding his discussion of them on the talk page, but that is a different issue.

If further statements are needed from me, please ask. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute and resignation from dispute by TransporterMan

So as to clarify my position in this matter, I stand by the statements which I made at the article talk page (in brief, (a) that I don't think that the material is inappropriate or that there is any policy or guideline or consensus made at this article which excludes this material because of its nature, but (b) that the first paragraph of the section in question is unsourced and the the third paragraph has sources but that they are not reliable, so the first and third paragraphs should be removed unless reliable sources can be found for them), but I will not be participating further in this discussion, here or at the article talk page, and will not be editing the article in connection with the matter in dispute (or otherwise, more than likely, but at least that much) and I am willing to accept whatever resolution may be worked out here between the principal parties. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Loma Linda_University_Medical_Center discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Administrative note to DRN volunteers - I've pinged the other participant. Please take this case when he/she arrives. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Property Company_of_Friends#Multiple_Issues_5_February_2015

– New discussion.

Filed by Schadow1 on 16:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Property Company of Friends#Multiple Issues 5 February 2015 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Schadow1 (talk · contribs)
• Cjdee (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have created an article regarding a real-estate developer in the Philippines using NPOV to the best of my knowledge. User Cjdee has been adding maintenance tags to the article without initiating a Talk including using ad hominem argumentum to downgrade the article. I initiated a talk so we can discuss the matters however the contributor does not respond accordingly to each points presented for a discussion and insists on my "bias". Due to the inability of the contributor to respond to my requests and queries; and instead insisting on his/her claims in the realm of subjectivity, thus re-adding the maintenance tag for refimprove. It is noted that discussions will remain unresolved without a dispute resolution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

1) request of discussion with the other party 2) request of being more specific with what she is questioning on the citations so I as the article creator can respond accordingly to the viability of the resource.

How do you think we can help?

1) Force the other party to respond accordingly to questions raised 2) Have a third-party deliberate on the observed responses if in case the other party agrees to discuss with the matter point-by-point. 3) If the other party does not respond accordingly, perform a permanent block to the user involved on the article presented and revert changes made by the mentioned other party.

Summary of dispute by Cjdee

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Property Company_of_Friends#Multiple_Issues_5_February_2015 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Coordinator's note: Hi Schadow. First, please notify the other party of this case by placing {{subst:drn-notice}} on their talk page. Second, we cannot force anyone to do anything, as you ask us to do in the "How do you think we can help?" section. This is a completely voluntary DR venue, unlike ArbCom. Therefore, we also do not have the authority to block users if they don't answer the questions. Thanks, --Biblioworm 16:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User has recently been notified via user's talk page. Regarding how the dispute resolution can help, how do you think the DR can help in this matter if those are not possible? Schadow1 (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Yo

– New discussion.

Filed by Tharthan on 18:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Yo (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tharthan (talk · contribs)
• JesseRafe (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

JesseRafe and I have been disputing this for over a year now (I think) and this seems to be going nowhere. He started an AN/I page on me rather than take this here back then, which was unfortunate because I truly am willing to work this out with him.

We are disagreeing about the etymology of the word "yo", which I contend to be ultimately cognate to English "yea", "yeah" and "ya". I have provided boatloads of sources for him, but it seems as if he won't accept any of them. I tire of having to, essentially, edit war with him every single day now over this.

It stopped for a good while about a year ago or so (at least I think it was a year ago). But then an IP editor, who was not assuming good faith, claimed my sources were lies and that I was somehow trying to deceive the encyclopaedia.

I can assure you that I was doing no such thing.

I have made numerous attempts to try and work this out with JesseRafe, but to no avail whatsoever.

As such, I have decided to take this here because I would like this dispute to come to a kind and civil conclusion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Numerous discussions with the editor in question, asking them if we could come to an agreement, and also detailing my reasons for making my edits.

Nothing has worked thus far.

How do you think we can help?

Try and reason with the both of us and help us come to a compromise.

Summary of dispute by JesseRafe

The sources simply do not support this user's Original Research claims. Just read them. We had a dispute before and I let this fantasy etymology stay in because I was tired of the argument, and I didn't investigate his cites (of which they were many) until an unregistered IP posted a long screed on the Talk Page that reignited my interest in the issue. He finds proof of the etymology of "yeoman" that it used to be spelled with a G, irrelevant. He finds the etymology of the word "no". Irrelevant. He finds something written in 1890 where pirates are singing "yeo-ho my lads, ahoy!" as supposed proof that "yo" means "yes". Is this real life??? He goes on rants about words in Norwegian and Sorbian. It's irrelevant. It has no bearing on the subject matter of the article. There is an article on "yeah", so let the etymology of "yeah" exist on that page. It's sufficient to say that "X derives from Y" and wikilink to Y. The complete etymology of Y does not belong on the page of X. I have repeatedly told him that his uncited musings about these things do not belong here. His last version was blatant OR and personal blog-style musings with no citations, just his opinions: "The development of /ɑ/ → /o/ is not an uncommon one, but the development of /æə̯/ → /æəʊ/ → /æoʊ/ → /æo/ → /ɔ/ → /o/ has very few parallels in English. Stark colloquial use is the most likely explanation for the development, or possible conflation with natural interjection sounds." This doesn't belong, and I violated 3RR to keep the page from being bogged down with useless irrelevancies. JesseRafe (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Yo discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I am going to be going out somewhere and will be a bit busy today, so I may not be able to make swift replies. Nevertheless, I wished to open this because I did not want things to escalate any further. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In response to JesseRafe: The thing was, the yeoman cite was put there for something that you removed back when we had the original argument before. It should have been removed a long time ago, and I agree that it shouldn't be on the page.

...

In any case, my assertion is that "yo" back in Middle English times and in nautical speech, which was used to get someone's attention, and "yo" as used in the 21st century today are one in the same (in terms of etymology).

I have provided various sources that show where "yo" comes from, and then when JesseRafe objected, I tried putting in sources that showed that the development that led to "yo" being "yo" is not uncommon in Germanic languages (hence the Sorbian, Norwegian, and reference to "no"'s etymology [and probably also the reason for the "yeoman: reference, though my original intent in putting that reference there is hidden away somewhere in the edit history]).

I never claimed that "yo" meant "yes", however. That is purely misanalysis of my intents.

The reason that I add in the "musings", as JesseRafe describes them, is because he asked for further explanation on the things that I was adding, whilst immediately removing them. If you want an idea, rather than engaging in a civil discussion, we essentially ended up "discussing" by way of edit summaries.

And I, too. violated 3RR, in an attempt to keep the page possessing the accurate etymology and sources. I spent a lot of time looking for those sources, and reading through them. I don't appreciate insta-reversions every single time I try to add sources or revise the wording that I use or that is used in the article.

As I have aforesaid, I have tried multiple times to discuss this with JesseRafe, but they have up till now shown no interest in engaging in civil discussion. Instead, they have tried to shut down any attempt at starting one.

This is why I have turned to this noticeboard for assistance in helping us come to terms with each other. I hope that we can come to a conclusion that is both best for the article, and arrived in a healthy, civil manner.

With all of this said and done, I take full responsibility for anything that I have done that goes against policy or guidelines.

I am going out to eat very soon, so I still won't be able to respond to anything online until (if at all today) late in the night. I apologise to both JesseRafe and any potential discussion moderator for the inconvenience. I shall happily be able to participate at a good rate from tomorrow onwards. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's false to insinuate that I have not engaged in conversation or in Talk Pages on this topic. It's just that they went nowhere and I lost interest. There is no compromise possible where one person insists that their own private esoteric understanding of folk etymology belongs on a Wikipedia article. To user Tharthan, their understanding of "compromise" is that they have it their way, and if they don't get it, they call their disputant names. "Callow fool" comes to mind.

And, yes, I did remove sources you had without concern to how long you have spent searching for them because they. were. not. relevant. What more needs to be said? You can't write a sentence about "yo" on the article about "yo" and then put a citation to "no" and just leave it there and expect a reader to figure out why it's there. You crowded your false etymology with so many "references" that you didn't even notice you put the etymology of no, the very same webpage on there twice. It's a common technique from people who are trying to put things on Wikipedia that don't belong to just cite anything and since most people won't investigate, they'll just see the little blue superscript number and think it's legit. So, to rehash: just because it's a reference doesn't mean it belongs.

Likewise the tangents. Who cares? The derivation of other Indo-European words is NOT relevant, no matter how true. Similarly as you had the Middle English this comes from the Old English that, it's not necessary to go into Proto-Germanic and every modern Germanic language, the matter is simple. Similarly the vowel changes digression. It's off-topic and distracting, to say nothing of how it was just Tharthan's own editorializing. JesseRafe (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologise that I called you that when all of this started about a year ago, that was my fault. I apologised for that back then too, you know.

However, what you say I am coming off to you as is precisely how you yourself have come off to me as. So I don't know what's going on here to cause all of this.

Furthermore, my etymology is not false. Many people support it, and I've cited sources that supported things that I was saying as well, but you just removed them all.

The vowel changes are not irrelevant if I'm trying to explain to you and answer something that you asked in an edit summary. I was trying to explain how things developed that led to "yo", but you seemed so dead-set on rejecting yo's etymology that you ignored it all. Or at least, that is how you came off to me. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

AA (band) #Members

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 184.153.132.54 on 18:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute AA (band)#Members  Users involved Dr.K. (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A certain user has been engaged in an edit warring by continuously changing the page to a more sloppy, non-user friendly version that replaces the convenient member's table with a sloppy list. This user refuses to use the talk page to settle the dispute and instead has been engaging in an edit war and accusing the other party of using "socks", which is untrue as the user in question (myself) travels quite frequently so my IP naturally changes. This user is not considering the functionality of the page especially for users with disabilities who will have a much easier time referring to a table than a sloppy list. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have attempted to use the Talk page but this user refuses to have a discussion, instead opting to threaten me with a non-relevant "edit warring" policy that does not pertain to me. How do you think we can help? Require this user to use the Talk page as it was meant for instead of resorting to hostile and non-productive edit warring and threatening. Summary of dispute by Dr.K. Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Bjelleklang Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Just a quick note; this is related to an edit-war where the IP submitting this case has been pushing a BLP-violation (although a minor one) into the article. Dr.K (and others) have reverted citing the lack of sources, and as a result the IP has been blocked for 48 hours and the article semi-protected. Bjelleklang - talk 20:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC) AA (band) #Members discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

Talk:Serbs

– New discussion.

Filed by Suksesi on 19:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Serbs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Suksesi (talk · contribs)
• Zoupan (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I think that the number of serbs in Kosovo (100,000) is unreliable as the official 2011 Kosovo population census says there are 25,532 serbs .I know there were many serbs that boycotted the census but this does not mean that there are 100,000 serbs in Kosovo.Actually this estimation (100,000) is unsourced while I have provided a source that ESTIMATES the number at around 40,000-50,000 (but this is not official).http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2012/08/20/feature-04

Can you please help me solve this dispute as I am a new joining at Wikipedia.Also user Zoupan called me ignorant!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss at the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I think that the only thing to do is to use only resourced information.

Summary of dispute by Zoupan

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Serbs discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Amalek#Armenians as_Amalekites_-_bias_in_favour_of_Holocaust_deniers

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 92slim on 17:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC).

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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Amalek#Armenians as Amalekites - bias in favour of Holocaust deniers (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 92slim (talk · contribs) Zero0000 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An user (Zero0000) reverted my edit without any reason or good faith. He blatantly refuses to discuss the subject in question and even characterised my edit as having "no improvement" without willing to discuss first in the talk page, and ridiculing the description provided about this same subject, which is a fairly sensitive topic that needs addressing. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Yes, I have asked him about it on the talk page How do you think we can help? Providing a balanced view of the topic seeing as this user doesn't respond to any plea for aid on the subject Summary of dispute by Zero0000 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Amalek#Armenians as_Amalekites_-_bias_in_favour_of_Holocaust_deniers discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.