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
Tuner (radio)	Closed	Andrevan (t)	30 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 20 hours
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	26 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	New	Randomstaplers (t)	22 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours	Bon courage (t)	7 hours
Genocide	Closed	Bogazicili (t)	10 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours
Khwarazmian Empire	Closed	176.88.165.232 (t)	6 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 12 hours
Egusi	Closed	OmoIyaLeke (t)	6 days, 6 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	6 days, 3 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	6 days, 3 hours
Double-slit experiment	New	Johnjbarton (t)	5 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 23 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	New	Wolfdog (t)	3 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 23 hours	EncreViolette (t)	1 days, 1 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	2 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days,

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 08:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Fascism and democracy

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

Dispute overview

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

Dispute over fascism's position on democracy as a whole. Dispute over whether World fascism: a historical encyclopedia by Cyprian Blamires is a mainstream source. Blamires' encyclopedia states that fascism rejected that it was against democracy as a whole but that it was against liberal democracy, a paraphrase of this: [1]. I am not making a position of whether fascism is democratic or anti-democratic but am addressing what fascists' claimed its position was.--R-41 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• R-41 (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

I have tried discussing this with The Four Deuces at the talk page, I have addressed the users concerns about other sources, and I have provided a mainstream source that the user requested, the Blamires source that is available at multiple Anglophone world universities' libraries - including the Harvard University's library [2]. The user refuses to accept the source and denies that what it says is significant and goes on to complain that no mainstream source has been provided - denying that Blamires is a mainstream source.

Talk page section link: Talk:Fascism#Someone is complaining about the length of the intro, if we reduce it, it will have problems

• How do you think we can help?

What would help is the following:
(1) Determining whether Blamires' encyclopedia is a mainstream reliable source.
(2) Determining whether the issue of fascism's claim to be democratic warrants attention for the intro - as fascism is often claimed to be completely anti-democratic.
(3) Reviewing other articles on other ideologies that have similarly been claimed to be anti-democratic by others but are claimed to be democratic by themselves - such as Bolshevism, Marxism-Leninism, or others.--R-41 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

R-41 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Relationship between fascism and democracy discussion

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

The source is a tertiary source because it is an encyclopaedia and can not be used.Curb Chain (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are among the favored sources, because they synthesise large amounts of secondary and primary sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

1. The source is reliable. It's clearly a serious academic book and we can work under a presumption that the information in it is accurate and properly researched. The advisory board appears to include some of the leading experts on the topic, some of whom are frequently used as sources in our article. It makes little practical difference whether we view the book as a secondary or tertiary source.
2. The lead is generally poor and does not follow WP:LEAD, so it doesn't offer a good context for considering the question asked. I think it would be irresponsible to present the fascist view on anything in the lead without properly balancing it with contrasting views. So, mainly for reasons of brevity, I think this should not be included in the lead.
3. I don't think comparison to other articles is likely to be useful. Whatever is says about democracy in, say, Bolshevism, will be based on the sources on that topic and what editors of that article have chosen to include, neither of which are good guides as to what should be in the article on fascism. FormerIP (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So then is it a tertiary source? IIt could certainly be called an encyclopaedia and be a secondary source. But if the encyclopedia is a encyclopedia, it can not be used because it is a tertiary source.Curb Chain (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

CC, we don't have any rule against using tertiary sources, which is why I say it doesn't make much difference. Looking at the overall quality of the source, it would be absurd to suggest that it is not reliable for our purposes. FormerIP (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I see the policy has changed. I wouldn't see a problem if it was used to cite a definition or used to provide a quote provided it is given context.Curb Chain (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Template:Cue Hello R-41 and TFD. I see things are as lively as I remember at this article! First off, when I looked at the talk page it didn't seem that TFD was disputing the reliability of the source; rather, it seemed that he thought that including the claim in the lede was giving it undue weight. TFD, have I read this correctly? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To be precise, TFD stated: The encyclopedia makes only a brief mention of the same passage to which Arblaster refers. Articles are in any case supposed to be based on secondary sources, not what fascists said about themselves. That is, a rejection of the source based, it seems, on a claim that what fascists said about themselves is not usable in an article on fascism where the information comes from a standard work on the overall topic. Note also that specialized "encyclopedias" are not in the class of tertiary sources to be avoided. In fact, they frequently represent the only way to determine whether a position is "mainstream" or not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not questioning the validity of the source. The issue is moot because the text can be found elsewhere. The issue is what prominence "authoritarian democracy" should receive in the article. The first volume of the encyclopedia, which is 750 pages long, briefly mentions on p. 170 in a section about "democracy" that Mussolini once claimed that fascism was "authoritarian democracy". Arblaster wrote in "Democracy", "Yet Mussolini, or his ghost-writer Gentile, paid lip-service to the term [democracy] by defining Fascism in the next sentence as 'organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy'". The concept does not seem to have attracted much attention and therefore including it in the lead, or even in the article, would give it undue emphasis. Also, the article appears in general to emphasize obscure aspects of fascism and downplay others. The first paragraph of the lead says fascists "seek rejuvenation of their nation...where its individuals are united together as one people.... [It] seeks to purify the nation of foreign influences...." But there is no mention of the war or the holocaust in the lead. TFD (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... if the claim is as minor as you say, then I agree that it should not be in the lede, and possibly not in the article. However, I would be interested to hear R-41's thoughts as well. R-41, can you give us a quick explanation of why you think this claim is of sufficient weight to include in the article, and in the lede? Is this topic covered by other encyclopaedia articles on Fascism, or other short introductions to the subject, for example? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the intro of this - it is about fascism and democracy - "authoritarian democracy" is one of the names of describe their claim to be democratic. TFD keeps rejecting multiple sources that analyze fascism's claim to be democratic. Michael Curtis' Totalitarianism on page 6 states that fascism portrayed totalitarianism as seeking to directly connect the state with the general will, of it being akin to the plebiscitary democracy as promoted by revolutionary France - especially the authoritarian version by Robbespierre that legitimized acts of terror against those opponents who were deemed to be against the general will. TFD will claim that fascism is a mere reaction to the French Revolution and that this source is wrong, but that is inaccurate - fascists claimed that egalitarianism and liberalism were what was at fault with the French Revolution, they did not criticize the Revolution's nationalism, and both Hitler and Mussolini admired Napoleon - who fused absolute monarchy with Jacobin ideals. Dylan Riley also mentions fascism's claim to be directly connected to the general will, Riley claims that fascism was an "authoritarian democracy". However TFD accused Riley's work as not having support in the academic community - then I showed him that prominent historian on fascism Stanley Payne praised Riley's work - but then TFD rebuked that Payne noted that Riley's work was controversial, but I note that Payne said that his work was important to the study of fascism. There have been controversial works that have been considered deeply important. TFD also rejected a journal article by Jacob Talmon who described fascism as a totalitarian democracy noting that the general will was invoked to legitimize it, because he accused Talmon of being "fringe" - but presented no evidence to prove that. Robert Soucy in "Barres and Fascism", French Historical Studies, describes Maurce Barres' connection with fascism and specifically notes Barres' promotion of "authoritarian democracy" as important to the ideology of fascism. Bottom line: the issue of fascism's claim to be democratic is addressed by multiple authors. It is important to address this claim because fascism is often considered to be completely anti-democratic - even in its official policies - when in fact fascists claimed they did not reject democracy in its entirety. It deserves attention in the intro because the issue of fascism in relation to democracy is a very common topic about fascism.--R-41 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, R-41, and thanks for pointing out that various different authors have made this claim. From what you have described, I would say that this claim has a place in the article. I'm not sure about Riley's standing as a historian (I'd be grateful if someone could fill me in), but I would say that in general if a respected historian has suggested a controversial theory, then we should include it, and simply note that the academic mainstream disagrees with it. Generally, I don't think such things would fall under the "tiny minority" described in WP:WEIGHT.

Whether we should include it in the lede or not is another matter. I think your last sentence is key here - "the issue of fascism in relation to democracy is a very common topic about fascism". Obviously TFD disputes this, and this is why the discussion has ended up here. In many disputes like this, it is entirely up to editor judgement as to what should be included in the lede. In the case of fascism, however, we are in luck; there are a multitude of encyclopaedia articles and short introductions out there that we can use to decide the prominence of this particular view.

I am quite under-informed on the subject, so I won't try and offer an opinion myself. Instead, I propose doing a survey of these general introductions and using them as a benchmark. If this claim appears in these kind of publications a reasonable amount of times, then include it in the lede; if it doesn't, then don't. I think this is a reasonable test - would you both be willing to put this into practice here? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(out) R-41 provided a review of Riley's 2010 book: "fascist movements appear considerably less anti-Toquevillian and not as antidemocratic as the existing literature says they were." (p. 500)[3] WP:WEIGHT says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." If a book has been recently published and the academic community has not weighed on its claims, it cannot be considered a significant viewpoint - yet. R-41 took a quote by from the book's dust jacket which calls it "[T]he most original and provocative new analysis of the preconditions of Fascism that has appeared in years, together with an often persuasive interpretation of the development and failures of civil society". In fact Payne praises the author's writing on civil society, but not on democracy, "It is doubtful that this definition [of democracy] will gain much acceptance, while to term Fascism 'authoritarian democracy' is also to take a broad-brush approach that would nominally include many forms of authoritarianism on the one hand, while failing to distinguish Fascism from Communism on the other".[4]

R-41 needs to show that Curtis' "plebiscitary democracy" and Talmon's "totalitarian democracy" are the same thing as "authoritarian democracy". Curtis's book was published in 1979 by Irving Horowitz's Transaction Publishers, which publishes controversial works by conservative writers, and probably lacks notablity, although Talmon is well-known, but highly controversial. Riley mentions neither writer in his book. He does not see himself as developing the concepts of the other two writers and neither do the historians who reviewed his book.

R-41 has found a 1967 article about Maurice Barres, in which the writer refers to the democracy advocated by Barres as "authoritarian democracy", although Barres probably never used the term. And of course Barres was not a fascist, so it is synthesis to say that because he advocated something and he influenced fascism that fascists advocated it. And of course we would need to show that this writer's view has gained some degree of recognition. If scholars believed this to be important then we would find it in a book about fascism. As it is, we do not even know if this is a significant view about Barres.

R-41 says, "fascists claimed that egalitarianism and liberalism were what was at fault with the French Revolution, they did not criticize the Revolution's nationalism, and both Hitler and Mussolini admired Napoleon - who fused absolute monarchy with Jacobin ideals". That is typical of the arguments he presents on the talk page, but is unhelpful. It is an argument for a position on fascism based on a personal interpretation. It is also unhelpful to make comments such as "you keep making up new excuses for why fascism's claim to support a form of democracy should not be included" or "the only reason I see why you want to remove it is because you do not want to see the word "democracy" associated with fascism".

I see a pattern of searching for sources to support a view. The best approach is to pick up a textbook on fascism that explains the various approaches to the subject and use that as a guide for assigning weight. We need something like, "While most scholars view fascism as anti-democratic, a significant number define it as "authoritarian democracy" which was originally developed by Barres and incorporated into Fascism by Mussolini. [Footnote - the term "authoritarian democracy was coined by Riley, but was called x by Curtis and y by Talmon.]" Otherwise, we are synthesizing views from a number of sources and providing a prominence to them that they do not merit.

TFD (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I, alas, see a pattern of denying reliable sources which contradict what an editor "knows" to tbe the "truth." French Literary Fascism: Nationalism, Anti-Semitism, and the Ideology of Culture by David Carroll (1998) states explicitly that Barres that Barres is linked to fascism, patterned on a "new man" paradoxically modeled after a radical notion of an original, poetical, revolutionary, totalitiarian "classical man". Routledge states that Robert Soucy called Barres "the first French fascist." It also says Sternhell called Barres a fascist. And so on. Yet saying that none of this is in any reliabkle source is absurd. Cheers. Want to have all the other multiple claims above be demolished as readily? Collect (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a red herring. Whether or not Barres was a fascist, you need to show that scholars believe he developed the theory of "authoritarian democracy", that his version was incorporated into fascism, and tht it is considered to be important enough to be included in a brief article. Your source, French literary fascism, does not mention Barres alleged theory of "authoritarian democracy", which one would expect if the concept were significant. BTW as click here explains, Soucy and Sternhell's view that Barres was a fascist is a minority view. TFD (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I addressed a point you specifically made and showed it was errant. Now you assert that disproving what you asserted to be the WP:TRUTH is a "red herring." Some herring. Collect (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line as what I am trying to say is that multiple sources say that fascism claimed to support democracy. And that claims that it completely opposed democracy in its entirety are not verifiable. That being said, fascism clearly opposed liberal democracy. I am surprised by the speed in which TFD swiftly rejects academic books as "minority view" or "fringe" - does TFD have the background knowledge of what is or is not minority view or fringe on fascism in the academic community?--R-41 (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That which hits IDONTLIKEIT is "minority", that which is IKNOWISTHETRUTH is "majority". No other reasons seem to appear. Collect (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Though I would give more room to assume good faith for TFD, Collect, I do agree that perhaps there is a bit of overconfidence on TFD's part in assuming to know what views are "fringe" and what views are "accepted", and yes that seems to involve WP:TRUTH unless he can present evidence on what exactly is "accepted". What I take alarm with is that I notice that TFD has character assassinated Michael Curtis' work because it was published by Irving Horowitz's Transaction Publishers - TFD accuses Horowitz of publishing biased work but presents no evidence to prove the claim nor how Curtis' work is biased - thus TFD is character assassinating Curtis through the fallacy of guilt by association. Transaction Publishers publishes works by scholars in many diverse fields from medieval history to biology to philosophy to psychology to sociology, amongst others. Plus contrary to TFD's claim that the publisher is pushing an agenda of "conservative writers", here is a book it published on the topic of guild socialism that was written by guild socialist G.D.H. Cole: [5], here is another book it published on the topic of social anarchism by anarchist Giovanni Baldelli - who formerly presided over the International Anarchist Congress in London, [6]. Thus Transaction Publishers does not appear to be devoted to the agenda of "conservative writers" as TFD accuses it of, it also publishes works by socialist and anarchist writers. --R-41 (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition to publishing new works by conservative writers, Transaction re-prints major works in social sciences. Both of the examples provided by R-41 are reprints: Guild socialism restated was originally published in 1920 and Social anarchism was originally published in 1971 by Penguin Books.[7] I am familiar with this publisher because they come up continually on a number of articles. However you need to show that Curtis view about fascism and plebiscitary democracy has received recognition in later writing and that it is the same thing as authoritarian democracy.

Also, I have not used the term "fringe" at all in this discussion thread. However the way to determine what views are accepted is to use reliable sources. In the case of Talmon and Soucey for example, I wrote, "as click here explains, Soucy and Sternhell's view that Barres was a fascist is a minority view." It says Soucy is "one of the principal foreign critics of the Rémondian orthodoxy". We do not call people faxcists just because some writers have called them that.

While you have indeed provided "multiple sources", they are not necessarily making the same claim, nor is there any evidence that these are mainstream views. You have developed a thesis and are looking for sources to support it, which is original research.

TFD (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD, for the LAST time, the issue is about fascism relation with democracy. Authoritarian democracy is about one major strand advocated by the Italian Fascists and discussed by Nazis. I know where you are trying to push the discussion into saying "well not every single fascist promoted this particular 'authoritarian democracy' - so the entire argument is in the trash bin". The issue is NOT a SINGLE example of fascism's connection to democracy, but the ENTIRE issue of fascism's relation with democracy. about one The question that I have posed is this: "Is fascism completely opposed to democracy?", the answer I have found is "No, fascism is opposed to liberal democracy, but denies that it is completely opposed to democracy? <-- That is the issue, do not deflect the discussion again into the single example of authoritarian democracy-and acknowledge that I am talking about the relationship between fascism and democracy. I am correcting the title of this discussion to being about fascism's relation with democracy - if you revert it back and go back to haranguing about the single example of "authoritarian democracy" that I mentioned to divert attention from fascism's relation with democracy, I will report you for disruption via Wikipedia:Failure or refusal to "get the point".--R-41 (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again you are character assassinating Soucy and Sternhell by using the opinion of one author in one book to denounce their work. Your accusation Sternhell's work is "minority" is pure nonsense - Sternhell's works are addressed and used as references by prominent historians on fascism such as Roger Griffin and Stanley Payne.--R-41 (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

R-41, when sources say that a view is not held by most scholars they are stating a fact, not an opinion. Note that the source used is the introduction to a section which is written by Soucy. The fact that Soucy and Sternhell are well known does not mean that every opinion they express can be taken as the consensus view of scholars. Most scholars do not think Barres was a fascist. Even if they did, you have found isolated sources saying that Mussolini once paid lip-service to democracy and others that fascism could be seen as a form of democracy, but have not established that this is significant. If most writers on fascism ignore this, then you need to explain why we should include it. TFD (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Show us the reliable sources stating that the claim is "fringe" or "minority" - so far you assert what you "know" and assert things not found in the sources you have provided thus far. Provide explicit, reliable, peer-reviewed scholarly sources for your claim please. Collect (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(out) I provided a source and note that normally sources are required to show that opinions have gained majority acceptance rather than sources that they have not. In the most extreme case, it is impossible to obtain sources that an opinion has received no attention, because there would be no sources that mention it. However, here is a quote from the Routledge companion to the far right. I trust it meets your standards of being a reliable source. "It is in this context that we encounter the problematic concept of 'pre-fascism', a term so controversial and contentious that it is often accompanied by quotation marks. In the opinion of some historians, 'pre-fascism' was discernible in the period 1880-1900, the 'incubation years of fascism', as Sternhell has put it.... 'Barrès'...made telling contribution to the ferment in France" (p. 90)[8] Soucy and Sternhell are discussed on p. 69. "[Soucy] has made a highly original contribution to the debate about fascism and 'pre-fascism' in France.... [He] goes on to label him the 'first French fascist' on account of his sophisticated fusing of nationalist and socialist ideas in the 1880s and 1890s". "[Sternhell] argues that [fascism] developed in embryonic form in France in the 1880s and 1890s, and identifies [Barrès] as the key figure in the process.... [His view was] that the late nineteenth century in France witnessed the emergence of 'pre-fascism'".[9] TFD (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In short,you have provided no reliable peer-reviewed scholarly sources to back your assertions, and you wish to require R-41 to prove that a claim found in a reliable source meets your definition of "majority view." That is why this is called "dispute resolution" but DR does not work when one editor simply asserts that his side is the "truth" and the other views are "minority." Your source, by the way, does not support what you know. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The quote just provided by TFD (from a top class source) quite clearly shows that it is a minority viewpoint that Barres was a (pre-)fascist. Did you not notice that?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And I read the context in the entire book. I know - I am only supposed to look at the "quote" instead of all the other stuff surrounding it <g>. "Pre-fascism" is a definite topic there, and it is described at length in Routledge - and not just dismissed as "fringe" or the like at all. Routledge does not only cite Soucy, but also Putnam and Doty wrt how Barres was "pre-fascist." Also read page 93 on of Routledge and not stop at the "quote" above. Note particularly Barres had established his own type of mystical French nationalism... In time ultra-nationalism would become the 'engine' of fascism. Clearly linking Barres to "fascism" in that manner. Also page 197 "Barres 'was fundamental to the 'pre-fascist' era in late nineteenth century France." So much for Routledge opposing the term about Barres <g>. Sorry - the source still fails to back what TFD "knows." Collect (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The first passage you quote is from p. 94 and is explaining why Soucy considered Barres to be the 'first French fascist'.[10] On the second quote you are just making assumptions. Notice the use of scare quotes. Both of these are snippet views. But even if it were consensus opinion that Barres was a fascist, that fascism began in France in 1880, you would still need to show that advocacy of democracy by Barres was notable. It is not even mentioned in this book. Then you would have to find sources Barres's alleged view on democracy is significant in fascist ideology. TFD (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Um -- I read the section of the source concerning this topic (IIRC well over a dozen full pages) dismissing the full quotes as being "snippet views" is a silly and inane personal attack here. And "But even if it were consensus view" shows your personal use of "knowing" the "truth" while I rely on what the reliable source states in black and white. Now deal with wqhat the source states and not with accusing me of using "snippet views." And it is not up to me to show that Routledge's clear statements are "notable." Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the topic under dispute? TFD (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD where is your evidence to disprove the claim made by Blamires that basically states that "fascism is opposed to liberal democracy but does not claim to be opposed to democracy as a whole"? Where is your evidence to claim that fascism completely rejects democracy as a whole? Provide reliable academic and scholarly sources that are investigating fascism's relation to democracy. Don't just pick a random unscholarly source that says that fascism is simply anti-democratic or says it as a side note - pick a source that specifically investigates the relation of fascism with democracy - often the term "democracy" in contemporary usage is used to refer to liberal democracy based on multiparty systems, legislatures, universal suffrage, and freedom of speech - ignoring other forms and claimed forms of democracy that do not meet these ideals - like the aristocratic-led ancient Greek democracy that put Socrates to death for censorship purposes.--R-41 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(1) We need to show that the statement on page 170 of volume 1 of the fascism encyclopedia is of sufficient significance to be included, not that it is true. The encyclopedia does not mention this fact in its 25 page small print introduction. As you say, "pick a source that specifically investigates the relation of fascism with democracy". Most sources on fascism ignore it. (2) You ask, "Where is your evidence to claim that fascism completely rejects democracy as a whole?" Well Blamires does not say that they are not opposed to democracy as whole, merely that they made that claim. Arblaster, whom you also mention, does not even go that far - he says they paid lip service in a single essay. This appears to be a coatrack to hang theories that fascists actually supported some form of democracy. (3) Your reference to Socrates shows that you are missing the point of how articles should be written. It is not up to us to argue which views are best, but which are most frequently mentioned and most generally accepted. TFD (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD, none of your rebukes of Blamires prove anything - just because he chooses one section to mention the point does not mean that it is unimportant - all that you rebukes show is that Blamires chose a specific section to explain in detail fascism's relation with democracy. I do not have time at present to re-add what I attempted to add minutes ago but was disrupted by an edit conflict by an addition by another user. But I have found another source that clearly states that although it does not identify fascism as being in common with contemporary conventional democracy based on pluralism, it does state that fascism did not claim to reject democracy in its entirety and that fascism claimed to promote a "true democracy" in the form of a plebiscitarian direct democracy and through encouraging mass participation within the fascist movement and state. You will probably jump to criticism by the name of the main editor: Seymour Lipset because he became a neoconservative in his later years - however I note that he has been around the political spectrum he was a socialist as a youth and later a liberal. When I do later provide the quotes, focus on what the book is saying about fascism, do not engage in character assassination against Lipset because of his political beliefs - bear in mind that I am a person of social democrat beliefs using the work of person with neoconservative beliefs - and I find condemnation of scholars' works merely based on their political beliefs to be at best foolhardy and at worst McCarthyist. There are also other editors who contributed to it, such as Dutch American scholar Arend Lijphart who is supportive of the more social-democratic leaning consociationalism and corporatist political systems in Western Europe. Nevertheless the book is available as a reference book in my university's library section on democracy. The book is The Encyclopedia of Democracy, Volume II, publisher: Washington, DC, USA, 1995: Congressional Quarterly, pages 472 to 473.--R-41 (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not anticipate and and pre-emptively denounce my objections. The reliability of a source depends on the reputation of the publisher. The weight to be assigned to views depends on what reliable source say the academic community has assigned them. Both are independent of the political views of the writers. However, writings published by partisan publishers are less likely to have broad support, which is why they are published by them in the first place. You need to show that fascism's alleged claim to support some form of democracy is significant. BTW, you need to talk to Collect about Lipset, because he is hopping mad about his term radical right. I do not know where on the political spectrum Lipset was when he coined the term, nor do I care. TFD (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

User:184.2.174.194, User:Malik Shabazz, User:Roland R

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. Marek Edelman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? A protected status has been place on the article due to an edit war which was initiated when I added an interview with Marek Edelman. The edit war had to do with two other contributors who did not want my addtion to be included in the article. There was very little discussion (back and forth) on the dispute and no resolution or compomise to speak of. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? 184.2.174.194 (talk · contribs) Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) RolandR (talk · contribs) I was somewhat surprised that an edit war took place. Although both Malik Shabazz and Roland R continuously deleted the addition of the interview I made - Roland R did not choose to take part in my invitation to discuss this dispute(directly with me) in depth in the Talk Page. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=User:184.2.174.194, User:Malik Shabazz, User:Roland R}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I had started a third party resolution because until today I thought that Roland R was the most active in deleting the addition of the interview I had made. After I had initiated the third party resolution - Malik Shabazz indicated that he want to get involved as well - so I decided to go this route instead. How do you think we can help? The main reason I think this route may help is that I believe there needs direction in how to stop this edit war and to come to a resolution. The article itself has become highly politicized which as I see it does not help to enlighten the subject of the article in a truly meaningful way and objective way. There was a protection template added to the article which has helped to calm things down and I am hoping now a discussion of the dispute can begin in earnest. I hope that after the protection template falls off on April 11, 2012 that an edit war does not begin again. Perhaps feedback on the best way to proceed with this dispute would probably be the first step right now I think. Thanks 184.2.174.194 (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC) User:184.2.174.194, User:Malik Shabazz, User:Roland R discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Template:Cue IP editor, please notify those who you have listed Comment by Zero I have not edited this article, though I do edit in the general subject area. The complainant is not reporting the situation accurately. He/she didn't just introduce a source, which would be fine, but deleted existing sources as well. He/she is claiming, on the basis of his own interpretation of an interview, that the previous sources are wrong and wants to suppress them. This seems to me a pretty clear case of original research. Zerotalk 14:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Comment by Malik Shabazz The IP editor is 100% wrong when she/he writes that no attempt at compromise was attempted. I incorporated the 1985 interview in question into the paragraph, together with previous language that is based on other reliable sources. What the IP editor would like to do is (a) completely replace the previous language based on the 1985 interview and (b) remove Edelman from a category that she/he finds distasteful. I initiated the discussion at Talk:Marek Edelman#1985 interview because the IP editor was edit-warring. The article was protected because the IP editor was reported for edit-warring after coming off a 24-hour block for 3RR. The IP editor's efforts to paint her/himself as the voice of reason here is belied by the facts. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Comment by RolandR As I am away from home at a union conference, and my laptop has packed up, I will find it difficult to comment on this for several days. I have not edited the article for several days, I have commented on my edit on the talk page, and I have not been notified of any previous request for comment or third party involvement. As far as I recall, the IP is arguing that his/her own interpretation of an interview posted on YouTube can be used to discount several reliable sources which disagree with this interpretation. As I am using a very clunky tablet, it is difficult for me to comment in greater detail for the next week, so I request patience in dealing with this. RolandR (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC) It seems that unless we can mutually come to agreement on our differences; formal mediation may be the only way to have any final decision with respect to this particular dispute. I want to add something here. If there is going to be any real frank discussion I believe two things should at least be recognized. The first is that - (as any historian worth his salt will state) - a PRIMARY SOURCE is often the best historical evidence that can be had. An interview with Marek Edelman -in his own words- is much more reliable (with regards to his views on a subject) than any third party hearsay. Mr Edelman words certainly deserve priority - regardless of any political bias anyone seems to have (with regards to this subject and/or article). The second issue that needs to be recognized is that Wikipedia should (ideally) not be an ideological playground to simply just add opinion pieces - with respect to a particular subject matter - and then use those same opinion pieces as "reliable sources" or as fact. To bring up just one example of such an opinion piece that was used as a "reliable source" (in this article) - one need only bring up the op-ed by self described Trotskyite Paul Foote. For those who are unaware - an opinion piece is different animal than what a journalist does in simply reporting a story. There is no attempt to give an ideological or political slant. The basic facts are given without reliance on emotion or on subjective references. The founders of Wikipedia ideally did not aim for political opinions as the basis of articles on subjects. Hard evidence (from the source itself) should always be the priority. And I might add - if anyone chooses to use an opinion piece in a Wikipedia article (which I find both amateurish and unnecessary) then at least please have the courtesy to describe it as such in a Wiki article. Unfortunately Paul Foote's piece was just one of many such opinion pieces used as "fact" and "evidence" in this article. I have no problem if any of the editors embrace the viewpoints of the authors of such articles. I do have a problem with using these coulumns as "reliable sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.174.194 (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC) What you are taking from the interview is only your interpretation. In explaining what he meant by one reply, he started "I am not talking about the ideology." You took that to mean he was not ideologically opposed to Zionism, but that doesn't follow at all. All that is plain is that he wanted at this point in this interview to say something that he considered to be practical rather than ideological. Then he goes on to say "you cannot return to what was there 2000 years ago, this is impossible. In the sea of 100 millions Arabs you cannot make a state against them..." which very many people would consider to be an anti-Zionist statement. We have to rely on secondary sources to make such classifications; you can't just apply your own feelings about what anti-Zionism is and isn't. Zerotalk 01:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC) I am sorry Zero but I really cannot buy what you are saying... Actually what Marek Edelman said is exactly what he meant. And you are accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing... In other words interpreting what he meant to say. His words should be taken as they are. He said he did not oppose Zionism on an ideological basis. Instead - he addresses his view of the logistical problem for longterm survival of Israel surrounded by a larger more hostile population - and expresses to the interviewer in answer to why he cannot consider himself a Zionist. And yes - History is more a social science than an art and simply saying that something is up to interpretation solves very little I am afraid to say. It is very much you - who is reading more into the interview than there is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobullgracias (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Template:Cue Thank you for posting here 184 IP. Having taken a look at the edits in question I would like to review a set of policies/guidelines that I feel are important for this dispute Biographies of Living Persons Independence of Sources Bold, Revert, Discuss Edit Waring Semi-Protection First of all I'm aware that BLP doesn't really apply in this case, however the policies in general still apply. Second, most people will not self identify as a negative tag (like anti-Zionist). As such any first person assertions about what they claim should probably be ignored. We work on what other educated people in the field have categorized the subject as so as to keep a relatively neutral position on the biography. Finally, the page was semi-protected because you were unable to follow the Bold,Revert,Discuss guideline for establishing consensus. After you were warned and encouraged to go to the talk page and discuss the edit, you continued with the change. Hasteur (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Words have meaning. The point is that a term like "anti-Zionist" is not quite the same thing as saying one is not a Zionist. If you were to tell me you were not a Jew I would not call you anti-Jew... You cannot simply make an excuse for people to use words so loosely because of a political bias or for any other reason (educated or not). And honestly; I do not care if Paul Foote chooses to use such words. In any event - an op-ed piece should have no place in an article based on factual evidence and historical fact and veracity. I am not going to get into hysterics here Hastuer but FYI I did go to the talk page... I did plead for discussion and there was more deletion and edit warring than discussion unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobullgracias (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC) For those who are wondering I was told that it would be in the Wikipedia tradition to get my own nick and so here it is... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobullgracias (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Here's a case where, after further investigation, there is a right and a wrong and not much need for mediation. Not only is the IP's text not very well written, it also changes content based on a less reliable source than what was originally there. Dispute resolution is one thing, but what we have here is edit-warring against consensus. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC) @66 I do not think it is helpful to engage in insults or rude behavior. Insulting the way I write text rather than the content does not solve much (which is what this space is for). Edit warring was not being conducted by myself and more to the point - even when there is a consensus on something - when consensus proves to be wrong (and when there is new information) the article should be re-evaluated. It sounds to me like you may have simply not liked the content of what I added. I am very sorry for that. And incidentally - the "less reliable source" as you call it - is actually the subject of the article himself being interviewed (ie the primary source) FYI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobullgracias (talk • contribs) 02:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC) I just want to add that if anyone has any suggestions in mind that they think will help bring about a compromise solution - I think it would be a good thing to bring up here - (in this section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobullgracias (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 16, 2012 at 13:42 (UTC) because no discussion for nine days; stale. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Ok, it appears that the issue has smoldered out. Hearing no real complaints, I think this can be safely closed with the resolution as Resolved at the time listed above. Any objections? Hasteur (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sectarianism in the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising‎

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. Sectarianism in the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? some users are reverting criticism of the Syrian opposition by official Christian and Catholic sources claiming that Catholic new agencies are biased.--Rafy talk 22:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Rafy (talk · contribs) Kudzu1 (talk · contribs) Sopher99 (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Sectarianism in the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising‎}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? made my arguments at the talk page. How do you think we can help? Give a neutral opinion on whether criticism of the Syrian opposition by those sources is ok to include. Rafy talk 22:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Sectarianism in the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising‎ discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. When you say "official ... Catholic sources", what you mean is the official media arm of Vatican City, an undemocratic country in Southern Europe. I was raised Catholic myself, but that doesn't mean I think we should count a state news agency like Agenzia Fides as a reliable source. The Vatican has a political agenda that is avowedly anti-Islamist, and it seems from Fides' reporting in Syria (which relies on anonymous sources identified on the basis of their religion), it is fulfilling the state's agenda. I have asked User:Rafy to produce editorially independent sources that support Fides' account, but aside from Christian blogs parroting the Fides/Vatican official line, he has been unable or unwilling to do so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC) First of all you cannot describe the Vatican as democratic or undemocratic, as it is not more than a religious institution, even though it's legally defined as a sovereign state. "The Vatican has a political agenda that is avowedly anti-Islamist" That's a serious claim, got refs? Everybody including the BBC, CNN.. etc. is citing "eyewitnesses" and other unidentified sources. There are no foreign journalists in Syria remember? That's why you have to cite the source of the claims, which is clearly done in the paragraphs you removed. Here is an article by the LA times iterating the same claims found in Christian news websites and aid organisations.--Rafy talk 00:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC) The above ludicrous statement by Kudzu1 is typical of the agenda-warring that has resulted in all "Syrian Uprising"-related articles being hijacked by fanatics and converted into unabashed propaganda pieces. Anything that might show those opposing the current regime in Syria in less than glowing terms is automatically removed, every statement issued by the Syrian authorities is dismissed and removed, and every claim, however dubious, however pov, issued by those opposing the Syrian government is always included. These articles need to be brought under the same standards of proof and verifiability that other articles' have to follow if Wikipedia articles on current events are not to be seen as an outlets for spin and misinformation. One passing point for Kudzul: maybe he doesn't know it, but at the core of Wikipedia is a large amount of public domain content derived from "The Catholic Encyclopedia", and in Wikipedia's very early days the bulk of its content was copied directly from the "Catholic Encyclopedia". Meowy 17:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Clerk comment@Kudzu1: I have half a mind to close this because you have not indicted where you have discussed this but a general "my arguments are on my talk page".Curb Chain (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oops, I read it wrong: you meant the article's talk page. Noted, but you did not provide the sources in question or diffs.Curb Chain (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC) They are recent news reports released by Agenzia Fides containing accounts from sources inside Syria about events inside Syria, specifically http://www.fides.org/aree/news/newsdet.php?idnews=31228&lan=eng and http://www.fides.org/aree/news/newsdet.php?idnews=31308&lan=eng and probably also http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13804 Meowy 02:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 16, 2012 at 13:42 (UTC) because no discussion for seven days; stale. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

X Japan

• X Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

We are currently disputing the genre list on the X Japan Wikipedia site. The following genres are listed: heavy metal, speed metal, power metal, progressive metal, symphonic metal, glam metal. The common consensus is to change the genres that X Japan is known for, including Metal (the term “metal” encompasses all of the metal genres listed above), Rock, Visual Rock, Visual Kei. These genre additions have been consistently denied by a user (xfansd), for reason stating that X Japan is considered a metal band in a variety of sources, writing “A genre of a band is determined by what sources label that band's music in general.” The author of the page cites the following source when listing the genres: X Japan: Best Review http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7936. The article lists numerous genres beyond just “metal.” For instance, the headline itself reads, “Reliving the Height of Japan’s Superlative Visual Rock Band.” Later in the article, you will find “…most revered Japanese rock band” and “fleeting genre known to fans as “Visual Kei” (aka “Visual Rock”). Thus, we are asking to acknowledge ALL genres listed in this article if this is what the author will base the genre selection on. In order for the contributions to be accurate, the following genres have to be included: “Visual Rock” “Rock” “Visual Kei”. We are using this article as the main source indicating X Japan’s “genre,” so all genres listed in the article need to be included.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Ladyslime (talk · contribs)
• Xfansd (talk · contribs)
• Mikaxxxxxxxxx (talk · contribs)
• Leslieulm (talk · contribs)

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

Not yet.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Yes, the issue has been raised, and each user has logically made their argument on the talk page. The page has gone through many freezes, no longer allowing contributions.

• How do you think we can help?

We need an administrator to monitor this situation and prevent just one person (xfansd) from dictating the terms of the page. Please take note of the general consensus among the users.

Leslieulm (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

X Japan discussion

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

If this is only one user ignoring consensus, this is no longer a content issue but a conduct issue.Curb Chain (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's Comment/Template:Cue Curb Chain, I think there was a reason why ItsZippy directed this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Can I have some statements from the involved parties? And perhaps we can work from there and determine whether or not this is conduct or content? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Was there any reason to defer the issue here?Curb Chain (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't say it explicitly. But, I think ItsZippy knows what he's doing. Besides, you can't just listen to one party and decide that they are right about only one editor not listening to consensus. Curb Chain, feel free to close this thread or give 24-hours notice with this template: {{subst:DRN status|<reason for closure>}}, if any of the other parties don't respond. Kind regards :) Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am in no way saying which party is right or wrong, just pointing out that if one user didn't hear it, s/he is disrupting the Project.Curb Chain (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's just wait and see what happens with this thread. Give it three days or so, provide 24-hour notice and then close. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 15, 2012 at 14:47 (UTC) because abandoned Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 14:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the users were recently notified. Can we please extend the deadline for them to respond? Also, if this request is abandoned, can it be raised again? Because if not, xfansd can simply ignore this thread and "win." If you notice on the X Japan talk page, xfansd has removed numerous edits from a variety of users. This is not just one person against another, but one person deciding how to edit this page. Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any apparent reason why xfansd has removed these edits? And yes, if a thread is closed prematurely, a new thread can be filed. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. xfansd removes additions to the genre portion (he is adamant about referring to the band as a "metal" band). This is fine; however, as I argued above, X Japan is known for many different genres outside of metal, and those genres should be included. Please see my post on the talk page. Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't think User:xfansd is just going to win. What arguments have you brought forth for justification of your version? What arguments do you have that justifies your position/version? Also, is there discussion on the talk page? Please use the talk page first and if you cannot come to a consensus there you can file a new dispute here.Curb Chain (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of discussion on the talk page and a lot of sources. But which are considered reliable sources under Wikipedia's policy? In addition, a note to Ladyslime, please don't use CAPS LOCK to express your opinion, see WP:CAPSLOCK. It is considered disruptive and will not provide any more weight to your argument. How about a compromise, such as "X Japan (エックス ジャパン?) is a Japanese rock and heavy metal band formed in 1982 by Yoshiki and Toshi." Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just now notified of this. This is not a case of me ignoring consensus, it is a case of what reliable sources call the band. All the other users involved are new editors who didn't know Wikipedia uses reliable sources. The subject of the article Tweeted that they don't want to be called metal on Wikipedia, and subsequently there was a wave of vandalism where I had to have an admin protect the page. Ladyslime and Mika created accounts simply to make the article reflect what the subject wants, which of course Wikipedia does not cater too. I then had to explain reliable sources to them on the talkpage. The discussion was actually dead, as Mika said they will look for sources to support their claim (which I assume they didn't find). 4 days later Leslieulm restarted the same discussion and ItsZippy suggested to move it here, 2 days after that it was brought here without me knowing. It seemed to me the dispute was already over before being brought here, and now the whole thing is blown out of proportion. Xfansd (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The author cites one source as to why it is listed as metal. However, the article also lists "rock", "visual kei rock, "glamour rock", etc. The author selectively chose which to include. We have tried to incorporate more of the genres (I can support with a list of reviews, descriptions, etc. that also list other genres outside of metal), but these changes have been refused by xfansd. We have brought up this on the talk page (please refer to this), and numerous people have been blocked and denied changes, all from one person. I am in no way asking to remove metal (they can be considered a metal band), I just think I have proven the justification in adding more genres. We were directed to bring the dispute here from an administrator since no resolution was reached from just the talk page. Also, I apologize if any if my formatting was against Wikipedia standards. No more caps from my end. Leslieulm (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we have a reliable source to support that X Japan is rock? Regardless, according to List of rock genres, "metal" is considered a "rock" genre, so would saying "X Japan is a rock band" work because metal is a sub-genre of rock so it's all inclusive when you say "rock". Sincerely, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

On the talk page I used that same reasoning and we agreed the introduction can say "X Japan is a rock band". Some other editor changed it back. Xfansd (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I also want to make it clear that while Leslieulm claims in the 'Dispute overview' that I cited this source (assuming she means me when she says "author", which I don't understand), I never did. That source has been used since 2007, which is way before I started editing Wikipedia. Xfansd (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case, it should be reverted back because there was no reason provided by the editor to remove the source and change the text. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 18:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean xfansd as the author, i meant the original author who published the genre portion on the right hand of the page. xfansd had done a great job with monitoring this page, and did change the body to "rock." Someone else did change it back. What we would like is to have more genres added to the right hand portion of the page, where it breaks down genre, members, etc. If metal is a subgenre of rock, why can't rock also be included? And when it comes to reliable sources, the source used to list the metal genres 1.) is outdated and 2.) lists other genres. The author (I repeat, NOT xfansd) is being selective on which genres to include. I am citing the same source as the author in my argument, and if he was able to use this, I assume it is in fact a "reliable" source. Leslieulm (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to conclude that all mentions of genre should be "rock" because that's what everyone agreed upon according to xfansd: "On the talk page I used that same reasoning and we agreed the introduction can say "X Japan is a rock band". Some other editor changed it back." Whoever that editor is, was working against consensus and reliable sources. Leslieulm, I didn't say xfansd or anyone was the author of the reliable source, all I said was whoever the editor that changed the page, X Japan, from "rock" → "metal" was wrong to work against consensus and reliable sources. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, we are talking about different sections on the wikipedia page. xfansd did change the body to rock band. Sometimes it changes back and forth, but for the most part, it does say rock. We are asking for additions in the genre listing under the background information on the right side. Those changes have been denied repeatedly. I am asking to add to that, not remove or change.

64.183.116.78 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant by "all mentions of genre should be 'rock'". So rock should be added to the genre list. Please log in. Thanks, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Great. Logged in. So should I be the one to make the changes? Or should an administrator, to guarantee that they won't be changed back? Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's done by you or an admin. An admin can just as easily be reverted as you would =) So, the best course of action is to see what the others think. If no one objects within the next 24 hours, I think it's safe to make the necessary changes to include "rock" and/or change to "rock". Best regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Prequel

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

Dispute overview

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

The article Prequel includes a list of works that fit that description. The dispute is about whether the films : Escape from the Planet of the Apes, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, Battle for the Planet of the Apes, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes are prequels of Planet of the Apes (1968 film). User Gothicfilm has repeatedly deleted these films from the page. So I started an RfC. Gothicfilm argued that these films were not "true prequels", using a definition of his own devising. The article had, since 2009, the definition as "A prequel is a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting." The four films above fitted the definition. This did not convince Gothicfilm, who continued to cite his own special rules. I found citations for three of the films, two explicitly being described as prequels. This included notably the director of Rise of the Planet of the Apes stating that the film was a prequel. So explained this on the Talk page and restored the films with references, as seen here: [11]. Still, today I found that Gothicfilm has deleted all of them again.

Note: I have copied the disputed section, including new references, on the Talk page here.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Barsoomian (talk · contribs)
• Gothicfilm (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussed on Talk page, called RfC. When challenged, provided cited references to support my position.

• How do you think we can help?

Advise whether cited references and discussion support the disputed films' inclusion.

Barsoomian (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Prequel discussion

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

What was his (User:Gothicfilm's) definition of "prequel"?Curb Chain (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

He started off with this: "In the original series, the third film Escape from the Planet of the Apes goes back in time, but it's the next series of events that happen for the principal characters - thus it and the following two films are sequels, not prequels. A prequel covers events that happen to the principal characters before the earlier work. That's not the case here. In Escape, the characters talk about what happened in the previous two films - because they're from the future. In a true prequel, characters never talk about events that happened in the earlier film, which supposedly took place later."

He seems to say that the terms "prequel", "sequel", "reboot" are mutually exclusive. I see no reason to assume that. Also of course time travel means that the setting can be in the past of a previous work, while in the personal future of a protagonist. Godfather II for instance is both a sequel and prequel. Rise of the Planet of the Apes is both a reboot (of the series) and a prequel (to the 1968 film). Barsoomian (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, and I cursorily looked over talk:Prequel and noted the main dispute:

User:Gothicfilm is violating several polices: WP:RS and WP:OR

As noted, by you (above), in a series of movies the words "prequel" and "sequel" are relative terms that are not up to Wikipedia editors to use as labels for works of fiction or otherwise. Generally, with User:Gothicfilm's definition, a minor change in a film can automatically turn a film into a sequel! His definition is not reliable. Thus we have to turn to sources and use entries that have sources to prove that a film is a prequel. Thus your source of the director saying that the film is a sequel is solid proof that the film is a sequel for our purposes on wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Barsoomian has gone against consensus on the articles talk page and at WT:FILM He also keeps leaving out how director Rupert Wyatt contradicted himself a year later, when Rise was released. The filmmakers had decided by then to call it what it was, a series reboot He then said "It's not a continuation of the other films; it's an original story. It does satisfy the people who enjoy those films. The point of this film is to achieve that and to bring that fan base into this film exactly like Batman Begins". A prequel would be in the same continuity. By the way, Barsoomian also took out a part of the prequel article because it went against his POV. It stated:

"It is also important to note that a prequel must be part of the same series as the publication to which it is a prequel. If, as with the case of Batman Begins it starts the story (and the series) anew, it is not a prequel; but rather a reboot." - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between a film being a "reboot" and a prequel. The text I removed was inserted by an IP editor without any source or prior discussion. It has no more authority than any other editor's opinion. Barsoomian (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

@CC, Barsoomian said the director said Rise was a prequel not sequel. Obviously the usual or basic usage of "prequel" does not account for time-travel fiction; e.g. Merriam-Webster's 10th Collegiate has "a literary or dramatic work whose story precedes that of an earlier work". So we would not want to rigidly exclude or include cases unaccounted for by the simple definition, and I'd hate to categorize Lost or Mulholland Drive. I also don't see Wyatt saying directly "it's not a prequel", so although he may be an impeached source the case for exclusion is not complete. Is there a more detailed source for defs of prequel and reboot? Are there other RS defining the Apes movies? (Sorry for not looking myself.) JJB 00:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to consider Lost, or Doctor Who, as TV episodes aren't considered stand-alone "works". So within such a "work" they can have "flashback" episodes, but not prequels. I've looked for sources describing the Apes movies. There are literally 1.5 million describing Rise as a prequel (Google search). The movies made in the 70s though are a bit harder to source. For one thing the word "prequel" only came into common use in the 1990s, so contemporary reviews wouldn't use that. But I did find a few, which I added as references when I reinstated the films (deleted regardless by Gothicfilm). Barsoomian (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, an episode is a prequel of another episode if it says so. Should such examples be included? ProbablyCurb Chain (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If you really want to add TV episodes, feel free, if you can find citations to support it. But "flashbacks" are such a common device in TV series that it would get unwieldy pretty quickly. Barsoomian (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And there are literally 3.2 million results describing Rise as a reboot. Check out the article's Talk page, e.g. Betty Logan and others, and WT:FILM. Consensus is they're not prequels. Those film critics and the director who used the term prequel to describe these films were making imprecise, you could even say sloppy, use of the term. It happens. That doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. I don't want to repeat everything - please check the Talk page here, WT:FILM, and especially here. You will also see how Barsoomian is determined to plow on with this despite people's issues with what he's doing, and consensus is clearly against him. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a different issue as to whether a particular film is a "reboot". Has no bearing on whether it's a "prequel" or not. "Reboot" refers to restarting a franchise of movies. "Prequel" is about the relationship between two specific movies. Barsoomian (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

While on the talk page, note the cited reliable sources supporting my edits, and the absence of such by Gothicfilm. Barsoomian (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

So User:Gothicfilm, here, you make the statement (the first post in the section): "In Escape, the characters talk about what happened in the previous two films - because they're from the future. In a true prequel, characters never talk about events that happened in the earlier film, which supposedly took place later.", that the series is in chronological order because the characters are "sequels". Do you see the variety in film and how your definition is too narrow to be utilized? A lot of films simply do not fit in "reboot", "sequel", "prequel" categories (squarely). This is why we need to rely on sources. If you can produce reliable sources, maybe you can rather include and discuss this film series with these mechanics.Curb Chain (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In a sequel, the characters are older. In a prequel, the same characters from the original are younger. I think most people at WT:FILM would agree with that.

Dictionary.com: Prequel: A literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age.

I would rather not go beyond that here, on yet a third page. See what Betty Logan, who has a good record working on film articles, says about the reliability of Barsoomian's sources for this purpose. Please read the whole conversation at Prequel Talk page, and perhaps at earlier on Prequel Talk, and WT:FILM. I can continue this tomorrow, if necessary. You can see over there that consensus is against Barsoomian from the people who usually edit film articles. Repeatedly it's been stated we operate by consensus at WP, so surely that means something... Gothicfilm (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It surely means something, but wikiprojects do not override the greater community's consensus. I see no solid arguments provided if you don't provide sources.Curb Chain (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What greater community's consensus? The only consensus I see on this topic is that none of these films are prequels. And Rise does fit squarely and snugly into the reboot category. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

@Gothicfilm: You say "In a prequel, the same characters from the original are younger." A misrepresentation that you tried to put in the article until you were caught. The dictionary.com definition says "as by portraying the same characters at a younger age". Where the as means that this is an EXAMPLE, not a precondition. And of course, it doesn't work in a story about time travel. The important factor is not how old the characters are, but whether the setting is earlier. Plenty of historical prequels have no characters from the original, being set long before they were born. (E.g., First King of Shannara (1996) / The Sword of Shannara (1977).) And then, whether the story in the prequel reveals events that are part of the "original" work. Your vague statements that the sources I cited are "unreliable" is no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You haven't given any reason that the sources are unreliable. You just don't agree with them. Hundreds of film reviews described Rise of the Planet of the Apes as a prequel. You just say, they're "unreliable". We should just use your definition and not worry about any published film reviewers. Barsoomian (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Look in the mirror. That is a blatant misrepresentation of what I did. What I first put in the article's lead was It usually portrays the same characters at a younger age. - as can be seen at this dif - which you then took out. That's what you "caught" me at. I did not make it a precondition, I said "usually." (I'm reasonably satisfied with the new definition now in the article's lead, BTW.) This is at least the second time you've misrepresented what I'm trying to do here. I first said In a sequel, the characters are older. In a prequel, the same characters from the original are younger on the WT:FILM Talk page in response to someone's question of how to refer to a story with time travel like this. Contrary to your claim, I never tried to put that in the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I gather RS say Rise is a prequel and RS say Rise is a reboot. RS also give generic definitions of prequel and reboot, but those RS do not apply the definition to the borderline cases such as here; instead I see participant(s) doing that. RS also do not say these defs are hard and fast and therefore mathematically applicable to all cases. On one side, Barsoomian could find a suitable definer RS, and WP could then say, "By X's definition Rise is not logically a ...." On the other side, Gothicfilm could meet a burden of proof by citing an RS stating, "According to Y Rise is not a ...." If either would like to quote short prior discussion that might be helpful too. JJB 16:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And, contrary to Barsoomian's other claim, the reliability of his sources for this purpose has been answered. Not just by me, but by others. He just doesn't like the answer. Among other things, Betty Logan also said on the Prequel Talk page:

• I really don't think film reviews cut it for this type of claim. They are to all intents and purposes opinion pieces that are trying to convey a sentiment to a reader.
• It is not the function of film reviews to categorise films. They are personal opinion pieces. It is their job to say how good the film is, and even then we only include someone's opinion if they are notable. As an example, take this list of prequels from Empire Magazine, a highly respected British film reviewing magazine (possibly the top-selling one). It includes "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", but in your honest opinion how many of the others fit the formal definition? Chris Nolan is on record as saying Batman Begins is not a prequel. Casino Royale can't be because it contradicts the earlier films. Hell, Manhunter was the first Lecter film so how can it be a prequel, sequel, reboot or anything else? If I decided to add Manhunter on the basis of my source from a respectable film review publication would you permit me to go ahead and add it, or would you object on the basis we all know it's not really a prequel? On that note I think in the case of contentious films we should find sources with a more formal and scholastic approach.
• Do you think that Casino Royale or Batman Begins are prequels? This chart at Box Office Mojo seems to think they are, but how is "Rise" different to these two? None of them depict events leading up to the previous films, all three re-imagine the origins of the mythology in a way that is clearly inconsistent with the previous films (the POTA series depicte dtheir own 'uprising'. Clearly this chart, the Empire list and the reviews you cite are mis-applying terminology that has a specific application. The troubling thing here is that you are clearly not consistent with your application.
• People who don't believe it is a prequel are hardly likely to describe it as "not a prequel", they are much more likely to describe it as something else. 2.6 million Google hits decribe it as a "remake", and 3.2 million hits describe it as a reboot, as opposed to 1.5 million that describe it as a prequel i.e. 80% of hits describe it as something else. Given the fact that there are more sources describing it as something other than a prequel, then do you honestly think it is acceptable to abide the minority opinion. If so, how do you reconcile that stance with WP:WEIGHT that says that viewpoints should be presented in proportion to their weighting in reliable sources?

Again, all four of the above are from Betty Logan, not me, on the Prequel Talk page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The other big problem here is Barsoomian keeps picking and choosing what he thinks is important. He repeatedly states that it doesn't matter that Rise doesn't fit in with the other films in the original Planet of the Apes series. This is obviously just his opinion and POV. To me and most everyone else, that's the main difference between a prequel and a reboot, and why it can't be both. A prequel should fit in with the original series. Barsoomian has no standing to say it doesn't, and it's a mystery why he's so obsessed with pushing this point. He should not be allowed to override consensus and commonly accepted use of the term prequel (among those of us who care) just because a minority of writers made imprecise, sloppy use of the word in their articles on Rise. At one point Barsoomian went what we might call forum shopping by posting on the talk page of Jerzy•t, who had put in the unreferenced, simplistic definition of prequel Barsoomian had repeatedly cited to justify his position. But guess what? Jerzy says I don't know where i got that definition, bcz the word is too new to be in the print dicts that i routinely consult. I assume i regarded it as obviously what had been meant every time i had heard it used (and i thot my wording as more straightforward -- less likely to confuse -- than the first sent of what i found there). In other words, WP:OR. Even after that, with the new, improved definition in the Prequel lead, Barsoomian continues to insist it doesn't matter if Rise doesn't fit in with the other films in the original Planet of the Apes series. To me, not only does it matter, it's one of the most important points. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gothicfilm here. Several of us have voiced the opinion that Escape and Conquest cannot be considered prequels because they continue a narrative from previous films rather than predate said narrative. Barsoomian seems to insist that any work which is based on a previous work and is set in an earlier time is a prequel. No other editors have voiced any support for this. Barry Wom (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I am uncertain why Betty Logan's personal views have more weight than others' personal views. There are a couple ways to resolve this essentially in-universe problem. One is to list any classification any RS says, and, in the case of disputed RS, to footnote or otherwise advertise why the classification is on shakier ground. Another is to agree on a clear subset of RS, for instance, to exclude reviews. Another is to list all (or some) RS who define the words at issue and either to resolve inconsistencies informally or to list when RS defs would yield different classification results. But in each case the interjecting the personal view "'tis-'tisn't" is the source of the dispute. WP works by attributing, "X says 'tis, Y says 'tisn't". Those are facts people can agree on, and if there are enough then often people are satisfied to leave conclusions to the reader. Perhaps it would be good to make a section below this one that lists undisputed attributed facts about the movies in question? Or perhaps an article structure other than "WP says this is a .." would be useful? For instance, add a section "Prequels also classified as other categories"? JJB 19:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that BettyLogan and GothicFilm have the better of the argument. Reliable sources have mistakes of all kinds, and misidentifying a film as a prequel would not be surprising. Those who are not writing for an encyclopedia may use a word in a way that our precision wouldn't allow. Editors of course are attuned to that reality. My reading of the dictionary definition for 'prequel' is that it agrees with GothicFilm's conclusion; the time line of the characters in the film in question is not earlier. Yes, it's earlier on the calendar but, no, not earlier to the characters. I don't see how Barsoomian's view is an effort to use the word 'prequel' precisely. Instead, it seems to accept the loosest usage with no linguistic gain. That is not good for the reader. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well put. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

My views come on stone tablets. To summarise, yes there are sources out there that call "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" a prequel, but the definition of a prequel is inprecise, which makes its application arbitrary, even by film writers. In many cases—such as The Phantom Menace—it is straightforward but in others it is not, so in view of that I fully support Barsoomian's approach of using sources to support inclusion. However there are several issues:

1. Reviews are opinion pieces, so a review that states a film is a prequel only reflects the reviewer's opinion of it. If a reviewer thinks a film is a masterpiece, it doesn't automatically make it one.
2. Source cherry-picking is a resulting problem of the above issue. Since the application of the definition tends to be an opinion, then we can pretty much dig up sources for any number of films that aren't prequels claiming them to be prequels. No-one one here agrees that Casino Royale and Batman Begins are prequels, but there are many sources out there proclaiming them to be.
3. Weighting of collective opinion is essential as per WP:NPOV, to avoid the problems due to source cherry-picking. We use review aggregators in critical reception so that one reviewer's opinion doesn't receive too much weighting. We sometimes get this with genres, where we get four or five genres listed in the lead, and the idea really is to go with the more commonly applied label as the most representative term.

I think there are only two solutions to this at the end of the day, since there doesn't seem to be a "golden source": we either make it open season and permit inclusion of any film that has been described as a prequel (which would see the inclusion of films like Batman Begins), or we have to weight the collective opinion in some way. My personal preference is for the latter, because I think the former would invalidate the list to a certain extent. Betty Logan (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Also well put. A list of true prequels would include Butch and Sundance: The Early Days, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, X-Men: First Class, and the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Everyone agrees they are prequels. And even Barsoomian agrees Rise is a reboot. So there's no dispute on any of that. But he also wants to call Rise a prequel, even though to most WP:FILM people that's a contradiction. He has a big problem, which he's repeated often, with expecting a film to be a "true prequel", even though there's plenty of them. Isn't that what a reader should expect from an encyclopedia? If you stretch the meaning of a word to include more and more areas, it loses its precision and meaning. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't be misleading readers about the concept when there is strong dissenting opinion in the cases of some films. Maybe what we need is a section about the misapplication of the terminology. A reboot shares many traits with prequels since they effectively "go back" and tell a fresh story, but they have fundamentally different approaches, and we can give a few notable examples of where the terminology has been conflated. If a substantial number of sources refer to it as a prequel maybe we can cover what differentiates it from 'true' prequels. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. It's legitimate for the Prequel article to go into the distinction between a "true prequel" and one that's being expansively added under the umbrella. But if there's only one list, it should stick to true prequels. Someone perhaps could then add a second expanded list of others, like Rise, making it clear these are only loosely under the prequel umbrella. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, would Barsoomian accept a section or a few subsections of "Ambiguously termed media" for conflated cases that can be narratively grouped? JJB 22:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, splitting the article into List of prequels, List of sequels, and List of reboots is entirely possible (with a good inclusion criteria definition which is usually the first sentence on the article).Curb Chain (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, since again everyone who commented is ignoring any citations, any dictionary definitions, in favour of making up their own definitions and rules, (Gothicfilm has again rolled out his own gold standard of "true prequel" as certified by him, as the only standard that matters) it seems it's pointless to cite sources. But one last time: below is the disputed section that Gothicfilm repeatedly deleted. Including citations to reliable sources that support the labelling of the films as "prequels".

Prequel	Original
Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971) Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972) Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)	Planet of the Apes (1968)

References

And while we're at it: Definition of prequel. Oxford Dictionary (you need a login to see this online):

prequel, n. Etymology: < pre- prefix + -quel (in sequel n.).
A book, film, etc., narrating events which precede those of an already existing work.
(That is the complete entry.)

If a work is a "prequel" of another work, only the two named works are relevant to the discussion. Doesn't matter what happens in any other works. So for instance, "Escape from the Planet of the Apes" and "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes" set out to explain how Apes came to be intelligent as seen in the "original" film, "Planet of the Apes". And 40 years later, they made "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" which did the same, but in a different way. Both films made many references to the "original" film. (And both films made continuity errors in some details, which doesn't affect the main intent -- every film does, there are websites devoted to that.) The latter film was explicitly called a prequel by its director. If either or both films are also "reboots" or "sequels", that is a different question. There is no rule, except in Gothicfilm's mind, that these terms are mutually exclusive. I've found numerous articles describing "Rise" as a "prequel/reboot", which again Gothicfilm decided didn't count against his own opinion.

• Huffington Post, "director Rupert Wyatt's prequel/reboot of the legendary Apes brand"
• Rotten Tomatoes "Rise of the Planet of the Apes. The prequel/reboot arguably did not receive the amount of publicity and hype..."
• Nelson Mail "Weta's digital apes the stars of prequel reboot"

So, if despite all this, if Rise at least is not a "prequel", this is a declaration that editors' opinions override verifiable reliable sources. If it's upheld here to just ignore statements by, e.g. the film's director, numerous film reviewers because the editors here think they know better, though they have failed to cite any sources themselves, I will recuse myself from editing this article any more, since I can't accept that. Barsoomian (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Barsoomian, the Apes series is a special case as has been commented by the above other editors. I don't think a black or white categorization per your definition or User:Gothicfilm's (original) definition fits. A discussion of these special circumstances is anyway more informative than either a straightforward inclusion or exclusion as first proposed.Curb Chain (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are proposing. There is a list, and a work is either on it or it isn't. That is "black and white". And "my definition" is from a dictionary. "Gothic film's definition" is from Gothicfilm. Barsoomian (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

With all the above evidence, we can make a separate section as suggested, or leave out this series because including it would allow many other films theto be included, and I doubt this is what you want.Curb Chain (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but what "special section"? Where? Why? I don't agree that the films that provoked this dispute should be excluded from the list because of some slippery slope argument about other films. It seems you want to implement Gothicfilm's "true prequel" standard. I won't be a part of that. Barsoomian (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The proposed second section would address reboots where the reboot/prequel terminology is used interchangeably. Rise and Batman Begins are essentially reboots that are often described as prequels. The "prequel" terminology is being applied in a more liberal sense i.e. telling an origins story that predates other films, whether they tie in with continuity or not, and what is being proposed is to introduce the distinction into the article. We can use this source as a basis, which addresses whether Batman Begins is a sequel, prequel, remake, or standalone film. I don't agree with some of their conclusions about the films, but they go some way to explaining this is anything but clear-cut, and we should be depending on more scholarly sources. Betty Logan (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The article Prequel is just about prequels. It's not an article about all the other terms that might be applied to a film. There is already a list of Reboots at that article. And there is what can serve as an umbrella article at Sequel, which includes links and discussion about the various kinds of sequel/prequel/reboot/ etc. Prequel should not duplicate Reboot or become more general and duplicate parts of Sequel. Each work included in Prequel is a link to the article on that work, and there you can read all about it, including discussion of what categories it is in. (If somehow Batman Begins were to be in the list -- I wouldn't agree with that myself -- you would go to the article about that film to see a nuanced discussion that is impossible in a list.) Also, what about the 70s Apes prequels? They have been shitcanned repeatedly, despite them being the clearest example of prequels I can imagine. By the way, your book link is "unavailable for viewing", so I can't comment on that. Barsoomian (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the 1970s Apes sequels are the clearest example of prequels you can imagine? More so than Butch and Sundance: The Early Days, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, X-Men: First Class, and the Star Wars prequel trilogy? Those are pure prequels, but you'd rather call the Apes films prequels... After all that's been said here? You are unbelievable... - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. No, I wouldn't "rather" call the Apes films prequels. Just "as well". Happy now? Barsoomian (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I found another source for the book mentioned by Betty Logan, on Scribd. It's quite interesting, but the prequel chapter is mostly about Batman Begins. Quite distressingly for many here I imagine, it describes that without any hesitation as a "prequel". As well as Casino Royale. I find those a bit odd myself, but I'd have to defer to this if someone wanted include them citing this. And the same reasoning would include Rise of the Planet of the Apes, by the way. Ultimately, the number of films in this class (rebooted franchises) is quite small and it's not opening the barn door to include those few that are also referred to by reliable sources, such as this one, as a "prequel", despite what some editors may prefer. As mentioned above, the article on the film itself can go into the pros and cons if anyone is interested. No one is insulting Butch and Sundance: The Early Days by putting it in the same list as films with less purity of prequelness. Barsoomian (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The point the book makes is that it isn't a simple labelling exercise (chapter link).

To quote: Christian Bale, who plays Batman, comments, “this is an origin story, not a sequel,” adding, “You could say it’s a prequel—it feels like a prequel—because we don’t have the pressure of following anything that’s already been created” (qtd. in Grove, “Christian Bale” 202). The film’s status as a possible prequel is contested too, however, with Christopher Nolan himself explaining, “I don’t see this film as either a sequel or a prequel to the other films. It just sort of exists in its own very different universe” (qtd. in Jordan and Gross 23).

To quote the author: The status of Batman Begins —as variously prequel, sequel, or stand-alone film is clearly something of a vexed question, and this difficulty of designation interests me here.

There are many different aspects, it discusses a "prequel" in terms of a narrative that simply sets its events before those of another film, and also in terms of its intent to "renew" or "remake" the franchise. In this sense the term is being applied in a way that is synonymous with a reboot. The problem here is that you refuse to accept that the term carries different meanings; traditionally it was used to describe an instalment that inverted the concept of the sequel i.e. the first film could be perceived as a sequel to the second film; however in this essay and in the media it is increasingly being used to describe a form of 'reboot', particularly origins stories such as Batman Begins and Casino Royale. The fact is, a 'prequel' in the form of Batman Begins and Rise of the Apes is fundamentally different to those that simply invert the sequel concept like Temple of Doom, and that distinction should be presented in the article if we include this extended family of 'prequels'. Betty Logan (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"The problem here is that you refuse to accept that the term carries different meanings". I understand the distinction. The problem is that we (as editors at Wikipedia), don't get to arbitrarily decide that one meaning is legitimate, because we agree with it, and another, equally well sourced, is not. Aside from that, Batman Begins is far less "pure" a prequel than Rise. I couldn't name a particular film that BB is supposed to be a prequel to; it's just a new origin story if I was going to describe it. But Rise has many callouts to the original PotA, including a mention of Taylor's ship, and there isn't much that couldn't be handwaved away to accept it as a part of the same history. Aside from the numerous citations I have given before on that question. "that distinction should be presented in the article": No, because unless you source it, it's WP:OR. And really, do we want to go the way of having to ascribe a degree of prequel purity to every film mentioned? That way lies madness, and shifts the edit war to which subgenre of prequel a particular film goes into. I already know Gothicfilm's top 10, and bottom 10, and he and me and everyone else would be fighting about that forever after. Leave that obsessive over-analysis to film bloggers. Barsoomian (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I came to this with a completely open mind and at one point thought you had the better of the argument, Barsoomian, so I can be persuaded. If you want to take this process seriously, I think you should be able to explain to someone like me why you are correct. My problem with your view is that the dictionary definition is consistent with both positions. If we take as our frame of reference the characters in the story, the dictionary supports GothicFilm's view as well as yours, so that tells me the dictionary is not trying to make the kind of distinction under discussion. You seem very convinced that this is incorrect, but I don't see why I should adopt your thinking. You want me to rely on your sources, but reliable sources have all kinds of half-hearted assertions and less than rigorous writing (see BettyLogan's 'masterpiece' example). So maybe you have an answer to this criticism of your position. There is another step to my thinking on this, but it depends on my view about the dictionary definition, so I will hold that back to give you a chance to respond. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "positions" or "distinctions" here. Please say just what issue(s) you are referring to. And if you think that the sources I cite are unreliable, you have to say why a specific source is not reliable. You can't just blow off every film reviewer as "less than rigorous" and just follow what you think. That's just original research and disallowed completely. The "masterpiece" example is silly, that is a much more subjective assessment. A film isn't a "masterpiece" because any one person says so. It's a film that is universally lauded, not something that can be proven by satisfying a definition. That's why there isn't a List of film masterpieces article. For Wikipedia editors to dismiss all sources as "not rigorous" enough if you disagree with them leaves us with no authority, it becomes no more than a collective blog.Barsoomian (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I hear Betty Logan proposing and Gothicfilm affirming, "We can give a few notable examples of where the terminology has been conflated. If a substantial number of sources refer to it as a prequel maybe we can cover what differentiates it from 'true' prequels." There is no need to have "one" list; applying logic from other cases, we could easily have a second table under Prequel#Films that explain this. Barsoomian also affirms Rise is a "prequel/reboot" (putting the other Apes on hold for now), which can be considered a slightly different category from "prequel" but perfectly valid for this article. Why not have someone paste Rise as a stub table with a title like ";Ambiguous prequels" (";" for bold but not listed in TOC)? Maybe include a column for rationales and add Casino Royale et al. JJB 13:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I also see Barsoomian regarding being on or off "the" list as black and white, and that may illustrate the sticking point. One view is "one monolithic list of all 'prequels' in any criteria-meeting RS", the other is "some nuance distinguishing more nominal 'prequels' from those less so". If these two views were upheld, they would be logically contradictory, and only a compromise from someone would suffice. But it seems to me that a second table immediately after the first, that looks almost identical but has certain footnotes or other markers, would be a valid compromise, as would a single table where disputed entries have an obvious asterisk or other callout. Certainly the current table does not appear to be sorted in any way and at least we can agree on improving that! Anyone want to flesh this out? JJB 17:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not a "valid compromise". I see people saying that, in their opinions, "terminology has been conflated". Which means they disagree with the sources I cited, and therefore will ignore them. And you propose creating an "ambiguous prequel" list, that you deprecate and hide away in an unlisted section. And Gothicfilm's patented "True prequel" list. Who decides on what goes there? How? On what criteria? Dump all the prequels you disagree with in that list, regardless of any sourced citations, even if a "substantial number of sources refer to it as a prequel", because a couple of editors think their opinions override WP:RS and WP:V. Is this Wikipedia, or some fan wikia? As for sorting the table, it's "Wikitable sortable". i.e. alphabetic if you click on a column. That seemed simplest with editors adding entries willy nilly, it didn't matter where they put them. Barsoomian (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoa whoa, I'm trying to work from what you've said, such as that it's a "prequel/reboot". I don't believe in deprecating or hiding. Are you saying that the only solution is that all films called prequels anywhere in RS should be listed without any qualifiers? Usually WP is much better at demonstrating nuances than that. How are you intending to handle the nuances that you admit? (As for willy-nilly, feel free to add "cn" to any others that don't meet the criteria.) JJB 18:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Narcissistic personality disorder

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. Narcissistic personality disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? It's not really a dispute involving my own editing, but an older dispute involving other users. What basically happens is a source has apparently be caught being an editor, using itself as source, which was considered hostile. I do not claim to know the whole dispute. Also, I suspect that since that source had a hint that Barrack Obama might had NPD (without confirming it) might had made the issue political or affected by political bias. The real reason I make this request is that I just want to use information that NPD is abusive, as it can be seen in the last part of the talk page. I do not want to either use that source or to go into a dispute. I just want that information includes, whatever the source (and of course any source that doesn't include Obama). Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Users involved in that article, e.g. Zeraeph "Let me spell this out here. I will fight Sam Vaknin on this site, tooth and nail," (talk · contribs) A source involving a psychotherapist, Sam Vaknin, apparently (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Narcissistic personality disorder}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? How do you think we can help? Perhaps unlocking that URL from being used by third party. I'm neither of those people, why can't I use it? Even if he did something wrong, isn't he a psychotherapist? But I really don't care about that URL to be honest. I just want to see that information posted. NPD is a dangerous condition for those around it, it's not just something that is kept to a narcissist. 195.74.250.78 (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Narcissistic personality disorder discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Masakre

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. Masakre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? "MASAKRE" page. Place of death is incorrect. He died in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina a suburb of Charleston Metro. He died at the home of his son. All of his immediate family were present. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? AmnerisCocco (talk · contribs) TheFBH (talk · contribs) Rada8765 (talk · contribs) Rada8765 is my brother and son of Radames Cocco Masakre Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Masakre}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? How do you think we can help? AmnerisCocco (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Masakre discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Younger Dryas

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. Younger Dryas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? An editor is completely unfamiliar with the scientific literature on these subjects, has an apparent intrinsic bias or belief about these subjects, and is letting those biases demonstrate themselves by the inclusion of several false claims (thus far) into the content. The editor in question is dominating the editing of the content of these pages on the basis of these false claims, and does not seem to recognize the limitations of his understanding or comprehension of the unique and arcane subjects that are necessary for an unbiased review of these subjects. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? CosmicLifeform (talk · contribs) SkepticalRaptor (talk · contribs) I have managed to convince him that the primary and most recent reference to the literature is a valid addition to these pages, but he insists on dragging in tangential subjects far removed from the primary hypothesis in the hopes of bolstering his misunderstandings, and then has proceeded to make false claims about those subjects. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Younger Dryas}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I have tried to edit out the most obvious false statements made by the editor as I have encountered them. He appears to have reverted to more subtle language in order to impress his biases on the reader, but his unfamiliarity with the issues is readily apparent to any informed workers in the field. How do you think we can help? I'm not sure, the editor's intrinsic biases appear to be deep seated and unfounded in any peer reviewed scientific literature that I am aware of. CosmicLifeform (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Younger Dryas discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Clerk's Comment/Template:Cue CosmicLifeform, it seems that two editors disagree with your edits: SkepticalRaptor and Keilana. Unfortunately, that means there is consensus in favor of not having your additions to the article. Please also note that edit warring is considered disruptive and you may be blocked if you continue to edit war. I also suggest that you read this about fringe theories, in accordance with Wikipedia policies, please add content with reliable sources. Finally, there is no talk page discussion. This is a prerequisite for the dispute resolution noticeboard - to have talk page discussion. If you have any questions, please ask on my talk page. Thank you for using dispute resolution on Wikipedia! Kind regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 17, 2012 at 00:18 (UTC) because no talk page discussion Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Then I suggest you learn the difference between a theory, a hypothesis and evidence. I have no wish to edit ANY content of this page, all I wish to do it make sure that the edits do not contain any false information and are unbiased. The editor in question, SkepticalRaptor, has already made several scientifically demonstrable false claims made out of his intrinsic deep seated bias against the hypothesis (independent of theory and evidence) and is clearly unfamiliar with any of the literature and the complex interrelated issues (theoretical, hypothetical and evidential) with regard to this subject, and clearly has demonstrated his desire to dominate this subject completely by injecting his biased and unfounded views into the record. Furthermore, my talk page discussion apparently broke some obscure rules that I am unaware of and subjected me to threats of blocking. The only reason I made this account in the first place was to confront the unbiased and false editing of SkepticalRaptor on a subject that I am indeed intimately familiar with at the theoretical, hypothetical and evidential levels, having read the entire body of scientific peer review and gray literature available on the subject. If I thought that SkepticalRaptor was persuadable by any legitimate or rational means, I certainly would have pursued it. This entire dispute started with SkepticalRaptor edited out a reference on both pages to a recent PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) peer reviewed and published article directly addressing previous published criticisms of their work, claiming it was 'fringe science'. When confronted with the audacity of those edits, he was unapologetic, and refused to revert the edits until apparently he engaged in enough superficial research on his own to realize the dramatic magnitude of his mistake.CosmicLifeform (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC) This editor has stalked me across the internet for an article that has minor relevance to the world and to me. His continue threats in emails, web posts, and other areas places me in a situation where any further interaction with this individual may be dangerous to me. When he has a chance to cool off and leave me alone, I might actually respond to his rants. I will not engage in any further discussion about this until admins do something about him. I'm very creeped out by his activities. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC) CosmicLifeform, in order to 'persuade' us that the content that you want to add is reliable, it needs to be in a synthesized, reliable source. This means that it's an independent, third party source, such as an article from a well-acclaimed newspaper or magazine. By now, with your personal attacks and edit warring, you should have been blocked. Take this as your last, final and imminent warning, harassment is completely unacceptable and threatening e-mails will in no way resolve this dispute, it will only escalate it. SkepticalRaptor, please report this to administrators' noticeboard for incidents, should the attacks continue, where admins will take the appropriate action. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 01:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure how to do deal with the off-wiki attacks. Every edit I make here, he responds to me in personal emails and public attacks on blog posts. At some point, I have a personal reputation to uphold in the sciences. I've been advised that there's really not much you can do for me in off-wiki threats and menacing. But if we cannot edit, without enduring such hatred, what kind of place is this? It's not like I'm editing Abortion where I expect a certain level of anger. But for this obscure article, which I have spent a lot of time studying and writing, why should I have to put up with these personal attacks. It just makes me want to quit this place. Editing here should have some element of fun. Am I not correct? Or is his behavior acceptable? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Skeptical Raptor's claims again are false. I have sent him no personal emails, and I'm confident an analysis of IPs will confirm that, and all of the blog postings were made well before I even obtained a wikipedia account, and he has since enforced user registration on his blog. Dare I say he is lying? Or just making things up? He removed a reference to a peer reviewed and published PNAS article written specifically to respond to several outstanding criticism of the hypothesis and the work of its advocates, from the pages that are absolutely relevant to the topic. That is unacceptable in the scientific world, and my only response in the wikipedia world was to obtain an account and attempt to bring his actions to your attention. CosmicLifeform (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC) SkepticalRaptor's claim that I have sent him personal emails is false. If the subject has little relevance to him, and since he is clearly unfamiliar with it at a scientific and technical level and he clearly possesses an intrinsic bias against the hypothesis, modifications of the hypothesis, theories behind the hypothesis, and evidence for and against the hypothesis, then I suggest a resolution to this dispute would be for him to withdraw as a credible editor of these pages, since his scientific and technical credibility in this matter is severely and apparently irreversibly compromised. And again, I state that I have no wish to add any content. If you would take the time to review the editing history of the page then you would clearly see that the edits I made were minor, and the deletions I made were based on absolute facts. For instance, Carbonado is not composed of Lonsdaleite. CosmicLifeform (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicLifeform (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Please see WP:NPA. My credentials are not subject to discussion here, and I cannot believe an admin doesn't stop your continued attacks on me personally and my reputation. I'm disgusted by your on and off-wiki behavior. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Do you have any links to the blogs? Can you copy and paste the threats (omit any personal information)? Any tangible proof of these e-mail threats? I've contacted administrators. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 01:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Katie Piper

• Katie Piper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

I believe the race of the attacker is relevant, others don't. That's OK; But I gave a thoughtful (hopefully) argument, with example, in favor of inclusion. The info was removed with a cursory retort amounting to " you're wrong" and the article was then immediately protected. My concern here is not as much about the actual content as it is about (what I see as) the abuse of process here. Granted I am a relatively new editor, but it seems that admins here bully nonadmin editor and enforce their pov via fiat, with the bother of citing any relevant WP:( policy) or the need to engage in substantive content discussion. This is deadly to Wikipedia, as it creates a stifiling environment for new or dissenting editors and enforces content approval by hierarchy rather than discussion. On the content at issue here, would this information be excluded if the person described was laudable, rather than notorious? I can cite numerous articles where the race is included with much less justification than given in this case. ( e.g. Is the race of Beyonce's father relevant, as mentioned in the article on the pop singer?) I would like to expound, be I hope I have hit the main issue(s) here, so I'll end here for brevity.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Drmies (talk · contribs)
• Ukexpat (talk · contribs)
• 108.210.33.203 (talk · contribs)
• ProfJustice (talk · contribs)
• 70.245.209.94 (talk · contribs)
• 204.237.2.232 (talk · contribs)
• Kingpin13 (talk · contribs)
• Vaguely (talk · contribs)
• 86.185.229.222 (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Gave reasons on talk page. Was dismissed out-of-hand.

• How do you think we can help?

guidance on / creation of policy.

108.210.33.203 (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Katie piper discussion

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

• As an outside observer, this appears to be a very fresh issue, and there has not been adequate time to allow a full discussion to develop on the article talk page. I don't think we've reached the level where this can be called an impasse, as no time has been given to allow for discussion to work. The only issue I see is some edit warring by the OP, but since they have also started a talk page discussion, lets hope things develop there instead... --Jayron32 05:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)ron
  • I agree with Jayron32, it is too early to call for a dispute resolution. Looking at Kate Piper, there is not enough discusssion in the talk page before we can chip in our third opinion --Smet (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Jayron, you're a straight shooter. Please have a look at the note I left on the talk page: the last sentence is for admins. I protected the article after I left a comment: I personally think that this was a BLP violation and so I have no qualms about having an opinion and using my bit to protect the article, but given this DR thread I don't want to be an admin anymore in relation to this article. (Mind you, I have no desire to be an editor in relation to this article either, but that's the way things are now.) Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, it would be nice if the IP would either log in or explain their connection to User:ProfJustice and the other IPs that have been active in that article. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Honestly, the protection is of small concern to me.The greater issue is that discussion needs to happen, even if the article is protected in the wrong version the most important thing is to not have the conflict in the article space, and instead use the article talk page for what it is intended for. And regardless, this noticeboard is for help with breaking an impasse in a discussion. Without a discussion, and without time, there is no impasse, as yet. I'd just like to see more level-headed and reasonable discussion on the talk page, and have no ultimate opinion on how it should be resolved. --Jayron32 17:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Good point. I have added a more specific explanation to substitute for and explain "duh". Drmies (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN, I'd note that even the bare yes-I-did/no-I-didn't discussion which is already at the article talk page would ordinarily probably be enough to satisfy the requirements of this noticeboard. However, I wholly agree that under the circumstances that more talk is needed and that this thread should be closed, but would add one additional thought: One of the very first things which ought to be discussed there is whether there are any reliable sources which tie the race issue into the event discussed in that article. To try to bring that factor in from the mere fact that the accused perpetrator appears to be black in news photographs is original research on both, first, the mere assertion that he is black and, second, the assertion that it has anything to do with the alleged crime. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• not a regular to this board question: When looking at this "dispute resolution" I see Drmies and ukexpat listed as users in this dispute; leading me to believe (falsely) that they disagreed with one another. Should not 108.x.x.x and/or ProfJustice be listed as well? Likely a pedantic question given the out of process nature of this particular "dispute" - but I just wanted to make sure going forward. Thx — Ched :  ?  17:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Ched, the instructions in the listing template do say, "Who is involved in the dispute? Include one user per line, and write the name only; do NOT use [[User: ]] or ~ ~ ~ ~. If you are involved in the dispute, include yourself as well." Unfortunately, we're having to have a discussion on this noticeboard's talk page right now about what to do about folks who do not read or follow instructions. The one thing that can be done, in this case at least, is that any editor who cares to bother to do so can update the involved party list. Hint, hint... Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure. I've added five more, four of which also reverted the Professor's edits. I'm not going to bother notifying those people: this dispute should be closed for all the reasons given already. I'm adding it merely to make a point about consensus. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • This discussion should, if it continues much longer, probably move to the talk page since it has more to do with the way DRN works than this particular dispute, but let me just note that at least from my own point of view the involved editor list does not really firm up until after there has been discussion about the issue on the article talk page, and before that time any thread created here should be closed. Once there has been sufficient discussion, and a case is properly listed here, the editors who need to be listed here are those who participated in the discussion there. I don't mind editors who only edited without discussing also being listed, but I do not ordinarily consider them to be necessary parties since they were not interested enough in the matter to weigh in on the discussion. Just my opinion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This thread will be closed 24 hours from 17:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC) unless someone can offer particularly good cause why it should remain open. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Plutonium,sections occurence and toxcicity

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. Plutonium,sections occurence and toxcicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? i wish to draw attention to serious shortcomings in these sections Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Sebastian barnes (talk · contribs) Sebastian barnes (talk · contribs) i have no dispute with any other user Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Plutonium,sections occurence and toxcicity}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? How do you think we can help? i am semi computer literate/dyslectic,have sporadic web connection and appeal to the wiki community to address my concerns which i have presented on the plutonium talk page,i am not capable(tho i will continue to try) of creating acceptable edits so i am also appealing for help in impoving this articleSebastian barnes (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Sebastian barnes (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Plutonium,sections occurence and toxcicity discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Islamic-Jewish Relations

• Islamic-Jewish Relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

A user with the account name MJC.2012 (talk · contribs) added a new POV to the article Template:Islamic-Jewish Relations, namely the Islamic POV. Multiple users have removed this POV even though his language was clearly stating that it is the Islamic POV rather than an established fact. Regardless of the validity of his claim, there was an obvious dispute there but other users (who are likely to be friends) are continuously removing his POV check, in many cases without even discussing it in the Talk page .

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• MJC.2012 (talk · contribs)
• AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs)
• Altetendekrabbe (talk · contribs)
• GabrielF (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

Resolving the dispute

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

I have personally added the POV check so to get more editors involved. But it's getting removed by the other members and their friends.

• How do you think we can help?

Please enforce at least the POV check tag.

67.247.19.21 (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Islamic-Jewish Relations discussion

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

I have been trying to revise the language to articulate that there are multiple point of views on the claim that "Judaism has influenced Islam". It's unfair to Muslims to not mention that POV. I've revised my language so it's fair for all POVs, and to make sure that I'm not misusing a primary source I revised my sentence so it doesn't interpret the Qur'anic verse. There are many secondary sources that interpret that verse and I will find one and add it soon. But it's unfair to make the article sounds like that there is only one POV on that claim. At least I think the POV tag should remain there.