Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:26, 19 June 2012

Skip to open disputes
skip to newest thread
(purge cache)

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

Shortcuts

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
Yasuke	Closed	Tinynanorobots (t)	2 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days,
Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader)	New	Crawdaunt (t)	1 days, 10 hours	None	n/a	ProfGray (t)	15 hours
Asian fetish	New	ShinyAlbatross (t)	4 hours	None	n/a	ShinyAlbatross (t)	4 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 19:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Resource-based economy

Resource-based economy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

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

This is a [| diff] showing the paragraph.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

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

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

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

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

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

Here are some talk-page diffs:

How do you think we can help?

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

Thank you.

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

Resource-based economy discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal no. 2: A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean a holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet. ^[1]^[2]^[3] The Technocracy movement (TTM), the Venus project (TVP) and the Zeitgeist movement (TZM) use this alternative definition of RBE to mean a classless,^[1] moneyless,^[1]^[2]^[4]^[3]^[5]^[6] and stateless^[1]^[7] global system in which money,^[1]^[2]^[4]^[3]^[5]^[6] debt,^[2] credit,^[2] exchange,^[2]^[4] barter,^[2] wage labor (or any other system of servitude),^[2]^[3] private property^[1]^[6] and the profit motive^[4] would serve no purpose^[2] and all human needs such as food, housing, goods, services, etc. would be available to everyone^[1]^[2]^[7] and everything is supplied.^[1]^[2] In an RBE, resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development.^[1]^[2]^[3] The premise upon which this global socio-economic system is based is the belief of TTM, TVP and TZM that the intelligent^[1]^[3] application of highly advanced science^[4]^[6] and technology^[1]^[4]^[5]^[6] can enable an Earth that is abundant with plentiful resources,^[1]^[2] enabling a high standard of living for all of the Earth's inhabitants,^[2]^[3] and thus TTM, TVP and TZM believe that our current practice of rationing resources^[2] through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.^[2] It is toward this RBE idea that TTM, TVP and TZM work to educate and inform people.^[1]^[5] TTM, TVP and TZM believe that in RBE can create a sustainable future where humanity is not united by religious or political ideology,^[1] but by the scientific method,^[1]^[4] venerated as the savior that can develop a system of human equality,^[1]^[3]^[6] thriving from the cooperation and balance of technology and nature.^[1]

^[1] ^[2] ^[4] ^[3] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7]

Proposal no. 3: A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean a holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet. ^[1]^[2]^[3] The Technocracy movement (TTM), the Venus project (TVP) and the Zeitgeist movement (TZM) use this alternative definition of RBE to mean a moneyless,^[1]^[2]^[4]^[3]^[5]^[6] classless^[1] and stateless^[1]^[7] global system in which wage labor (or any other system of servitude),^[2]^[3] private property^[1]^[6] and the profit motive^[4] would serve no purpose^[2] and all human needs such as food, housing, goods, services, etc. would be available to everyone^[1]^[2]^[7] and everything is supplied.^[1]^[2] In an RBE, resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development.^[1]^[2]^[3] The premise upon which RBE is based is the belief of TTM, TVP and TZM that the intelligent^[1]^[3] application of highly advanced science^[4]^[6] and technology^[1]^[4]^[5]^[6] can enable an Earth that is abundant with plentiful resources,^[1]^[2] enabling a high standard of living for all of the Earth's inhabitants.^[2]^[3]

^[1] ^[2] ^[4] ^[3] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7]

Proposal no. 4: A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean a holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet. ^[1]^[2]^[3] The Technocracy movement (TTM), the Venus project (TVP) and the Zeitgeist movement (TZM) use this alternative definition of RBE to mean a moneyless,^[1]^[2]^[4]^[3]^[5]^[6] classless^[1] and stateless^[1]^[7] global system in which wage labor (or any other system of servitude),^[2]^[3] private property^[1]^[6] and the profit motive^[4] would serve no purpose^[2] and all human needs such as food, housing, goods, services, etc. would be available to everyone.^[1]^[2]^[7] In an RBE, resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development.^[1]^[2]^[3]

^[1] ^[2] ^[4] ^[3] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7]

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

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

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

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

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

Resource-based economy may refer to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or this:

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

Or this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me take each of your arguments in order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Either completely remove all mention of the alternative use of the term RBE (because an increasing number of Zeitgeist movement members are moving away from using the term RBE, as discussed above), or significantly expand the alternative use to correctly describe TTM's, TVP's or TZM's usage of the term. The current description is incorrect. The most important aspect of TTM, TVP and TZM is this: "A holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet."^[1]^[8]^[3]. This phrase must be included, because this is the most important core idea, the most important fundamental principle of TTM, TVP and TZM. This core idea implies that, for example, Tom Harrison "owns" all the resources on the planet, making him an enormously wealthy person. The only condition is that he share this wealth equitably with everyone else on the planet, making everybody else on the planet also wealthy. Any WP editor may choose to laugh at this idea, to ridicule it, to think it is delusional nonsense, to think it is promotional, or to think it is empty rhetoric, utopianism, communism or socialism. Editors' thoughts, feelings, POV and opinions are valid and important. I respect, recognize and acknowledge editors' thoughts, feelings, POV and opinions. But this is the most important aspect of TTM, TZM and TVP, and it must be included, or the 'alternative use' section must be removed completely. This aspect of the 3 organizations is the basis of everything TTM, TVP and TZM stand upon. Everything else about TTM, TVP and TZM follows from this idea, is based upon this idea and builds upon this idea.

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

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

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

This is the most important aspect of TTM, TVP and TZM because, in their view, once everyone on the planet "owns" everything on the planet equitably, there would be no need for money, class, or different countries/ states. That's why in my suggested edits (Proposals no. 1--4 above), I first provide the most important aspect of TTM, TVP and TZM, followed by the following, based on verifiable citations from our set of reliable sources: "This system would be a moneyless, classless, and stateless global system in which money, debt, credit, exchange, barter, wage labor, private property and the profit motive would be eliminated. Human needs would be supplied for everyone. Resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through the technological potential of sustainable development." [I added the explanation "economic development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" only later, to satisfy Zazaban's request for clarification. This clarification is probably not needed, since readers can find it in the article on sustainable development ]. ^[1]^[8]^[4]^[3]^[5]^[6]^[7]

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

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

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

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

How should the alternative meanings be mentioned?

HAT NOTE

NO MENTION AT ALL

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

IN THE TEXT, LINK ONLY

IN THE TEXT, EXPANDED

OTHER (SEE COMMENT)

COMMENTS

I Don't much like "In the text, link only", but I like it a lot better than I like "In the text, expanded". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assume "expanded" means something like what it says at the moment, which I'm OK with. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with what it says at the moment also. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly okay with the present text Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some members of TZM still use the term RBE out of habit and momentum and convenience. But the movement as a whole is moving away from using this nebulous, meaningless, vague, misleading and unclear term, especially after the separation from The Venus Project: Venus claims ownership rights to the term. Peter Joseph and other key spokespersons of TZM have not used the term RBE in many months, including in the most recent (and all-important, in the view of TZM) Z-Day in February. The term RBE does not help WP readers seeking info on TZM -- in fact it is confusing to our readers and misleads our readers. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I really do not think you understand this topic and have personalized things too much with your opinions instead of the facts from the group itself. Zeitgeist completely endorses the concept of a resource based economic system in the here and now according to their official information pages http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq5 You can not use your personal opinions of that concept to source or not source the article Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The movement's Q&A page has not been updated since the split with Venus. Peter Joseph and other key spokespersons of TZM have not used the term RBE in many months, including in the most recent Z-day, recent TED-x talks, lectures, seminars, etc. This includes, for example, the TheMarker article and TheMarker TV interview, both of which are reliable secondary sources published in January 2012; and the TED-x lectures in Feb. and March. of 2012 (links to both of these primary sources are available at our article titled Peter Joseph) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The simple fact of the matter is that, in spite of IjonTichyIjonTichy's efforts to synthesise his version of what TZM stands for from multiple sources, we have no clear idea what their objectives are. Unless and until they can explain in simple language, rather than nebulous buzzwords, what they are tying to do, we have no business trying to do it for them. Frankly, whether they have dropped one vacuous phrase or not is neither here nor there. The TZM article isn't a platform for TZM, it is an article about TZM, and if it can't explain to a general readership what TZM's politics are,without resorting to endless cherry-picking through sources to try to divine them it shouldn't be doing it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry Andy, but either I do not understand your comment, or you have a profound misunderstanding of what WP is about. What do you mean by "do it for them"? We are here to serve the interests of our readers. The readers of our TZM article are expecting to obtain a fairly/ reasonably detailed, bias-free picture of the ideas (and criticism) of TZM. As Bbb23 said on the recent TZM DRN, ".... I learned more about the movement from the HP (Huffington Post) article than I did reading the WP article ...." (end quote from Bbb23). Instead of wasting everybody's time repeatedly over the last two years with your constant whining and complaining about the article, why don't you simply do what Bbb23 did, read the HP source and use it, alone, to develop the main body of the TZM article? Or, better yet, in addition to HP, read our other reliable secondary sources, such as the NYT, Palm Beach Post, VC Reporter, and use them to enhance your verifiable citations from the Huff Post. Furthermore, you can also read TheMarker, Globes, TheMarker TV interview, and 5 RT TV interviews. Once you read (any small subset of, or all of) these sources with an open mind (instead of closing your mind due to your deep hatred of TZM, evident in your vicious comments from 2010), you may find out, as Bbb23 had found out, that each and every one of these resources did an excellent job "explain(ing) in simple language, rather than nebulous buzzwords, what they (TZM) are tying to do" (quoting your own words). Then perhaps you will be able to prove to yourself that all my edits, without exception, were based on direct verifiable citations from these reliable secondary sources, and not on synthesis, as you ignorantly claim. Upon reading these reliable secondary sources, TZM's ideas and objectives would likely be amply clear to you, and maybe you will actually make an effort to serve the needs of our readers, and not your own bloated ego, and provide your own verifiable citations from these sources to contribute to building the body of the TZM article, instead of wasting everybody's time over the last 2 years with your endless complaints. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been following this topic (nor have it read it even now). The only reason I'm here is because of a warning left on Ijon's Talk page about personal attacks. That said, Ijon, please don't take my comments or actions as some sort of oblique basis for your conclusion that "all my edits, without exception ..." Oversimplifying a bit, my comments, if anything, support the contrary. Also, don't accuse editors of "constant whining", making "vicious comments", "deep hatred", and "ignorance". First, those accusations are personal attacks, and, second, Andy doesn't whine, and he's about as far away from ignorant as I can imagine. He's an incisive editor with a clear grasp of facts, policies, and guidelines. He may be blunt at times, but he's clear. So stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - "Instead of wasting everybody's time repeatedly over the last two years with your constant whining and complaining about the article..." What? My first input regarding the article was made in March this year [13]. Or can you provide a link to these supposed "vicious comments from 2010"? And why do you think I have 'a deep hatred' of TZM? I'd never heard of it until I came across the Wikipedia article, and the endless attempts by supporters of the 'movement' to spin the page their way, and fill it with illiterate bullshit and meaningless waffle like this: [14]. Learn to write... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Predictably, as has been your wont during the entire time you were involved with the TZM article, you continue to waste our time with your complaints, bitching, moaning and attacking. Instead, I challenge you again, as I've done in the past with all editors on the TZM article: re-direct your energies towards providing verifiable citations from a subset of (or all of) our set of reliable secondary sources to help build and develop the article. This way, our article will improve, and you, as well as other editors, would have no reason (or reduced reason) to complain. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Why the hell would I want to help 'build and develop' an explanation of the position of a political 'movement' that can't explain its politics in plain English without resorting to vacuous jargon? That isn't Wikipedia's job. I'm sure with the time and resources I could do it, but that would be original research. Instead we report what an educated reader (any reader, not a supporter of the movement) could find out for him/herself from publicly-available sources. We don't go trawling through such sources looking for a phrase here and there to synthesise our version of what they stand for, which is what you've been engaged in. As for your personal attack, I suspect given the fact that your last one was based on complete and utter bullshit (no link to these mysterious "vicious comments from 2010" I see), I suspect that they will be seen for what they are. Incidentally, I see your first contribution to Wikipedia under your present name was made in April this year: can you explain why you are so concerned with what supposedly occurred two years ago (not that it did)? Have you previously edited the article under another name? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've never used any other user name. I was sure I saw on some talk page somewhere some vicious attacks by you on editors of the TZM article, but probably your attacks were more recent and I'm confusing the date. Or maybe I'm confusing you with Zazaban, another editor on the TZM article, and his edits in August 2010 (which can be found on the article's edit history page). But I have no reason to not believe you, and thus I fully and un-equivocally apologize.

Disclaimer: The following is not meant as a personal attack, but rather an effort to try to understand. (In fact, I'm complimenting the TZM editors.) [end of disclaimer.]

Regarding your (Andy's) other specific comments on the substance of the TZM article: In essence, your comments over the last 3 months on the article's talk page (and here) may be interpreted as saying that all our reliable secondary sources are almost worthless, or, in other words, the Huff Po, NYT, Palm Beach Po, VC Reporter, Globes, TheMarker, TheMarker TV, and RT TV, which have a combined readership and viewership in the millions, do not do a good job at explaining ideas and concepts in plain English (my words, not yours). Or in other words, your comments apparently seem to imply that an educated reader (any reader, not a supporter of the movement) could not find out for him/herself from these highly reliable publicly-available sources an explanation of the movement's ideas. If I'm correct that indeed this is the logical conclusion from your comments, do you see why your comments are erroneous --- because what is the probability that all, or even most, of these highly reliable sources who employ highly trained, reputable writers and editors who are experts in describing difficult concepts in plain English to a mass readership (and viewership) that ranges across a wide range of formal and informal educational levels and other characteristics -- in other words, a readership very similar to that of Wikipedia -- what is the probability that all, or even most, of these highly reliable secondary sources did such a poor job in explaining TZM to their combined many millions of readers, so that these sources are essentially almost worthless to WP editors in developing the TZM article? That probability is nil. Conclusion: at least some, if not all, of these resources are actually pretty good for the purpose of developing the article. [By the way, the writer of our Huff Po source is a senior editor at that paper.]

These resources (esp. Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, Globes, and TheMarker) do a very good job explaining TZM concepts in plain English, with perhaps a little bit jargon (I partially agree with you on this), but without undue jargon. The resources are not the problem. The problem appears to be that, from viewing the edit history of the TZM article over the last 2 years, and from your (legitimate, and properly worded) question regarding my past history, and from a recent comment by Zazaban on the Outline of automation accusing the TZM entry of propaganda [side note: if memory serves me right, that entry was written by the administrator for the outline project, not me], based on this evidence, I believe that you, Zazaban, OpenFuture, Bob Rayner, Tom harrison, Ankh Morpork, and other editors, all of whom only have the best intentions and are all motivated to protect our readers from bias and propaganda, are, probably not entirely unjustifiably, deeply suspicious of any new editor trying to develop the article in the interest of our readers based on verifiable citations from reliable secondary sources, and instead (as I said, not without merit), these editors (including you, and again, please don't take this as a personal attack) almost automatically suspect all such development efforts as an attempt to develop the article in the interest of TZM propaganda.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

"do not do a good job at explaining ideas and concepts in plain English" - I agree with this.

"what is the probability that all, or even most, of these highly reliable secondary sources did such a poor job in explaining TZM to their combined many millions of readers, so that these sources are essentially almost worthless to WP editors in developing the TZM article? That probability is nil." - Not at all. You miss a thing here. The probability that all these sources are unable to explain a difficult concept that they have had explained to them is indeed near to nil. But the problem may lie elsewhere than with the journalists. If the problem was with the journalists, then reasonably the primary sources should do a better job in these explanations. Their explanations might not be simple and well written, but they should explain, at least, right?

But, they don't. The websites videos and wrotings of Fresco and Joseph et al do not do do any better in explaining these things. And if they can't tell the journalists what they actually want, how will the journalists explain to their readers?

"These resources (esp. Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, Globes, and TheMarker) do a very good job explaining TZM concepts in plain English" - No they do not. I suspect the reason is very simple: Neither Fresco not Joesph nor any of their followers understand what they are talking about. They can't explain it, because there is nothing to explain. Their ideas are not new, it's just old recycled ideas that already has been proven to not work, but with a new name. But can I say this in the article? No, because I'd need a reliable source. And for a reliable source to say that, it needs to know exactly what TZM/TVP are actually proposing, outside of buzzwords, fluff, utopism and nice vibrations. But they don't say. Because they don't know.

Now, this is not the forum to discuss RBE/TVP/TZM. If you want to, we can do that, and I can explain all this more closely some other place. Email, a discussion forum, whatever. You choose. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with almost everything in your comment, because it is based on opinion and not facts. You said yourself, when you justified the inclusion of the awful hate- and fear-mongering piece by Tablet magazine, that our job is only to cite from reliable sources, not to judge the sources. But here you go into a lengthy (but empty) explanation as to why we should not cite from reliable sources which have almost infinitely wider readership than the small handful of readers of Tablet, based on your arbitrary judgement of the sources.

However, I agree this is not the forum to discuss in detail. We can continue this on the TZM talk page. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"But here you go into a lengthy (but empty) explanation as to why we should not cite from reliable sources" - No I did not. I said no such thing whatsoever. What AndyTheGrump is saying (and I agree) is that we (or rather you) should stop trying to speculate and synthesize these sources in order to conjure up a more concrete vision of the TZM/TVP utopia than they are able to do themselves. To that I can now add that you should please stop conjuring up and synthesizing claims of what I say and don't say. What I say stands above. Nowhere are there in what I say the words "we should not cite from reliable sources". Hence I did not say that. Don't put words in my mouth. Don't try to "interpret" what I say, or draw conclusions of what my opinions are. You will fail. I say what I mean, no more, no less.

" We can continue this on the TZM talk page." - When I said that this isn't the right forum, I meant Wikipedia. This was also made clear by the examples of fora that could be the right fora. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is not intended as a personal attack. I'm only expressing disagreement with the substance of your comments' argument/ approach/ style.

You are again doing what you are very good at: it looks like you may be arbitrarily limiting the parameters of the discussion and debate to suit your needs, (or raising the bar unrealistically high as you did on the TZM talk page), coming up with all sorts of baseless excuses which may imply why a set of excellent and highly reliable secondary sources may not be good enough, implying that I can only continue this discussion and debate in the forums of your choosing, and other exercises in empty, arbitrary rhetoric that do not contribute to the development of the article and only waste everybody's time. As I wrote before several times: if instead of writing these comments full of lofty rhetoric that, in the end, do not contribute to the improvement of the article, you would have actually made the effort to cite from our resources in an effort to improve the article, the article could look better and we may not have needed to have this 'conversation' in the first place. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@IjonTichyIjonTichy: I have been doing exactly none of those things you accuse me of doing. It's clear to me that you are no longer discussing with me, and this is not intended as a personal attack, but you are discussing with a straw man you call "OpenFuture" who does not exist. I do not say the things you claim I say, I do not do the things you claim I do, I do not have the opinions you claim I have. It is not possible to have a constructive discussion when only one person actually reads and answers what is said, and the other person answers some imaginary creatures imaginary postings.

@Everyone else: I don't know how to deal with editors that simply refuses (or are unable) to engage in discussion, while he still thinks (or pretends) to discuss. It has happened me before on Wikipedia, and it's equally frustrating every time. Are there any recommendations how we should deal with IjonTichyIjonTichy? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One way to solve the dispute is to topic ban Ijon from the article for being a disruptive editor. He goes back and forth in every conceivable way of attacking, then praising editors, all the while refusing to abide consensus. Using his own personal opinions and acting now as if the editors on en.Wikipedia are somehow mixed in an editing conspiracy against his personal opinions of how the article should go. I don't think Ijon is actually involved in the so called movement now because his opinions even are so very far away from their party line, if I can use that term party line of for instance using a resource based economics concept which he now denies is part of their scheme. So another format for a topic ban for being a disruptive editor?. No amount of time intensive pleading seems to make any difference about his personal attacks intermittent with equally inappropriate praising for fake or conjured consensus that editor 'makes up' to rationalize their own o.r. syn. and put downs. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone has a suggestion as to how DRN can help, I am seriously considering closing this as "unresolved" and suggesting that you take this to WP:WQA and, if that does not help, to WP:RFC/U. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that IjonTichyIjonTichy (who started this thread) has actually turned 180 degrees during this discussion, from backing in 'TZM interpretation' of the 'resource based economy' concept to an (unsourced) assertion that they no longer use this bit of vacuous jargon anyway, I can't see any logical reason to keep this discussion open. Whatever we decide to do regarding the relevant articles, we can't base it on the unverifiable assertions of involved parties, regardless of whether they are TZM supporters or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is beyond DRN now. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 19, 2012 at 06:47 (UTC) Reason: Consensus appears to be that we have done all we can here.

Comparison of rugby league and rugby union

Comparison of rugby league and rugby union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

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

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

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

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

Yes

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

Resolving the dispute

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

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

How do you think we can help?

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

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

Comparison of rugby league and rugby union discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great, it looks like we are all agreeing about the basic need for neutrality in the article. Now, I notice that there have been a fair few personal remarks made about editors in the discussions so far. There has been nothing terribly bad, and I have definitely seen much worse in my experiences mediating. However, it is vital to remember that any remark which focuses on the contributor and not on the content runs the risk of escalating this dispute, and to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction we all need to stop making these kind of remarks, right now. I suggest that for the duration of this dispute, you all make a conscious effort to avoid mentioning the other editors in your posts at all. In the vast majority of situations it is possible to rephrase comments that mention editors into comments that only talk about content. To take an entirely hypothetical example, it is ok to say that a certain passage in the article makes one sport seem "better" than the other; it is not ok to say, or even merely to imply, that the editor who wrote this passage is biased.
So, on to the content at hand. I think for now, we had better check that we all agree about the basic properties of the New York Times quote. This should be a simple process of observation, but I've learned that you can never be too careful with these things, so I want to make sure that we all agree about this before we move on to more delicate matters. I would summarize the quote as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) better putting it in context

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

b) introducing contrasting viewpoints

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clash did show that the best athletes play the sport of Aerobics. AIRcorn (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I thought the point I was making was rather clear. If no source of comparable neutrality and quality to the New York Times example can be found that appears to compare rugby union favourably to rugby league, then why should Wikipedia? What is it that you guys think the word 'proportionately' in the opening sentence of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view refers to? If the majority of views published by reliable, third-party sources appear to compare rugby league favourably to rugby union, apparently Wikipedia would be failing in its core objectives if it did not do the same. And that's not even what's at issue here. What's happening here is that despite a greater proportion of sources appearing to compare one game more favourably to the other, we're all willing to compromise (in the name of neutrality and goodwill towards all sports) and have Wikipedia's article give equal treatment to both, yet some editors are still unhappy with this, claiming 'imbalance'. We all know that Wikipedia is merely a slave to what's already published by reliable, third party sources. The higher quality the sources, the more weight given to them. Policies have been designed so that contributors' views are not permitted to impact on these sources' views. Stradivarius, I can appreciate that you want to produce an outcome that pleases all editors, but you're right, that is indeed going to prove difficult when some are unwilling to compromise. And I'm not referring to myself. When you said, it seems that something needs to be done to reduce the emphasis on the quote, whether that is by better putting it in context, or by introducing contrasting viewpoints what exactly did you mean by "introducing contrasting viewpoints"? Noleander, the last thing you said was, I agree that quotes should probably be omitted from the lead where they would generate more heat than light; but in the article body they can and should be presented in a neutral fashion. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I took that as being an expansion of your previous point about tit-for-tat quote boxes. In addition to Mattlore and myself that's three a side (not that arbitrary numbers on talk pages are anywhere near as important as core policy). I appreciate that to an editor just passing by, the quote box's use may seem to have a neutrality issue, but if you research the topic you'll know that there is in fact nothing controversial about it. If an observation is shown to be uncontroversial and neutral, it should make no difference how prominent it is (unless it adversely affects the article's layout). Aircorn has said, "The only reason to keep it in a quote box is to draw readers [sic] attention to it and there needs to be a good reason to do so." How about this reason: it is the single most informative bit of text in the entire article (and not only that, it is from the most neutral, highest quality source found so far, so that's two reasons). Readers with no idea about the article's topic have now learnt more having read it than any other passage (including the now absurdly inadequate lead section). Readers with knowledge of the topic who are neutral will already know that its claims are axiomatic. And, of course, the more passionate rugby union fans won't like it. A lot's been made of how it's 'just one man's subjective opinion' but if you look at the language used ("...has shown itself to be"..., "...some officials admitting that...") he has actually distanced himself from his observations. Contrast this with "I definitely prefer union to league now". But enough comparing apples with oranges. I want to compare apples with apples. After a quick look around I found this candidate for a quote box.

Rugby (union) is a global participation sport. The game has grown phenomenally over the past ten years and there are now more than 3.4 million registered players around the globe, a jump of more than 50 per cent since the game went open 11 years ago. And now there are 115 Unions in membership of the governing body, the International Rugby Board, up from 74 countries ten years ago.

International Rugby Board, Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2007^[25]

Now I'm pretty sure a better one than that can still be found, but this is what I'm getting at. My preference would be for the section entitled 'History' having quote boxes at the two major turning points, 1895 and 1995 (as it already does now), plus a third that shows rugby union in a favourable light, and provides a contemporary snapshot that puts the NYT's 1995 snapshot into context. So then readers with no idea about the article's topic will now learn even more. Readers with knowledge of the topic who are neutral will continue to know that all the claims are axiomatic. And, of course, the more passionate rugby union fans still might not like it, but should be satisfied with the balance.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see where you're coming from. I've been confused because you agreed with my initial suggestion that we need to treat both rugby league and rugby union as being of equal worth. Now that you have made clear that your opinion is that the majority of secondary sources view rugby league more favourably than rugby union, your choice of quote and your actions here make much more sense.

I think we need to examine this claim very carefully, though - the claim you are making here is very strong, and per WP:REDFLAG, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To justify treating rugby league more favourably than rugby union in the article, we will need very good evidence that this is also how it is treated in the vast majority of the sources. For this kind of analysis, newspaper articles simply don't cut it - what we need are scholarly books and journal articles, with the most weight given to systematic reviews of the available scholarly literature. There has been an awful lot written about rugby union and rugby league, and we need to trust our judgements on weight to authors who have the time and the resources to go through it all.

I had a look at the sources in the article, and though there are some scholarly sources there, they tend to deal with the historical aspects of the game and not the modern incarnations specifically. Because I was interested in this, I had a brief look through Google Books to see if I could find evidence of league being treated more favourably than union, but I didn't come up with anything. None of the sources I looked at that compared the two codes made that kind of judgement. I'm curious to know what you're basing your claim on here - is it based on a general feel for the sources you have got after doing your research, or did you look through the sources systematically? Or maybe there is some other factor at work here? Let me know what your thoughts are here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I have made a draft of two of the paragraph from the history section, including just a short quote from the NYT and an expanded international section. I do not think Gibsons Flying V's position above is tenable as it is based on opinion pieces. At the least I think we have enough consensus here to provide opinions as inline quotes. I would suggest if he still feels the consensus here over the presentation of quotes is incorrect he launch a WP:RFC to get a wider opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a sneaking suspicion that I was typing all that out for nothing. Sometimes it really stinks being right all the time.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is a diff from nearly a month ago meant to illustrate ? Gnevin (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assam#Etymology

Assam#Etymology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

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

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

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

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

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

Assam#Etymology discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks !

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

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

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

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

File:Kakati1953 early aspects assamese pp1,2.pdf

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

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

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

Thanks for opinion !

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

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

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

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

Banikanta Kakati says -

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

Satyendranath Sarma says:-

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

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

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

Thanks !

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

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

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

Thanks !

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

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

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

Chaipau (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Peace !

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

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

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

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

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

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

My version for Etymology of Assam

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

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

Thanks !

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

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

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

Thanks !

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

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

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

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

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

Thanking all for cooperation !

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

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

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 19, 2012 at 06:53 (UTC) Reason: Discussion stalled, nobody seems to have a solution. Perhaps posting to WP:RSN might help?

Thank you for your input and help. I shall take up on the advice and go to WP:RSN. Thanks to all who participated. Chaipau (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is not reached after requesting a Third Opinion and a Dispute Resolution, the next steps seem to be

Mediation and if this fails too
Arbitration

Read the related Wikipedia pages carefully for the correct procedure to follow. --H tan H epi tas (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BP

BP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

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

Here is the discussion: [[26]] Here is the edit in question: [[27]]

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

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

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

Rangoon11 (talk · contribs)
Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussion and POV noticeboard

How do you think we can help?

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

petrarchan47^T c 01:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BP discussion

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

Here are 2 discussions regarding other edits which look like POV pushing to me [removal of BP oil spill financial aftermath] and [removal of the fact that BP's oil spill was the largest accidental oil spill in marine history]. petrarchan47^T c 02:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, the above violates the request to 'keep it brief'. Let me know if it's better to move this to my talk page, with a link. Thanks. petrarchan47^T c 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The intro is in clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines for [Wikipedia:LEAD]. This is what we're here to remedy. Discuss.petrarchan47 ^T c 22:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This needs a bit of thought and work however.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"BP had 518 safety violations over the last two decades, compared with 240 for Chevron and even fewer for its other competitors. Since those statistics were compiled, in 2009, OSHA has announced 745 more violations at two BP refineries, one near Toledo, Ohio, and the other in Texas City, Texas, where 15 people were killed and 170 injured in a 2005 explosion. In the last decade, OSHA records show that BP has been levied 300 times more in fines for refinery violations than any other oil company." Per OSHA [[28]]

"Analysis found that their green campaign overemphasizes their investments in alternative forms of energy, when those investments are just a blip on their history of huge investments in and profits from fossil fuel energy. In the first quarter of 2010, they made $73 billion in revenue, $72.3 billion of that came from the exploration, production, refining and marketing of oil and natural gas. Only $700 million came from solar and wind energy.[[29]]

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

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

[on humans]

[on Gulf shrimp]

[on science]

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

petrarchan47^T c 04:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Dormskirk, it looks like you changed the third paragraph. I was responding as if you had quoted the version I'm used to, the one that includes "BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period." That is how it reads now.petrarchan47 ^T c 04:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rangoon, please see the following from the spill article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rangoon suggested to replace the green claims with more about BP's history particularly it's acquisitions. He also said the single sentence about BP's troubles is fine the way it is. I disagree with both points. I would need to be shown why more about BP's history and acquisitions merit space in the lede. These arguments only seem valid from the POV of BP or someone hired by them to make sure BP looked good on the internet. But maybe I'm missing something?petrarchan47^T c 21:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on this and other Wikipedia guidelines, let's make a very rough draft for an unbiased Lede, starting with 'the third paragraph'. petrarchan47^T c 02:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Rangoon, company articles have no different guidelines at Wikipedia than do other types of articles. It's easiest to refer to the Wiki guidelines when going forward, which is why I continue to quote them here. Otherwise we're arguing "I'm right, you're wrong and my friend agrees!" which could take forever.petrarchan47 ^T c 20:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Before we go any further, where are the official guidelines/policies for Leads? We need get on the same page. Also, is there a different policy for writing an article about companies? (Seems I've been referring to essays rather than official policies.) petrarchan47^T c 21:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rangoon, please reread Dormskirk's comment, you have misquoted them. They referred solely to the third paragraph and changed it slightly before saying it looked fine.petrarchan47 ^T c 22:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47^T c 22:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding my comment as I was invited at my talk to join this discussion by both involved parties. I am not the major editor of this article; however, I have previously made edits about issues related to this discussion, e.g. concerning Deepwater Horizon and BP Solar. Altogether, between 25 May 2010 and 16 June 2012 I have made 35 edits to that article, of them 10 edits are minor. If I understand correctly this dispute resolution is limited to the lead of the article, so I will comment only the lead.

As a general rule, the lead should only summarize the article and all specific details should be provided in the relevant sections. Therefore, I don't think that the lead should discuss individual accidents or particular investments. However, against this understanding I added to the third paragraph the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as an example. My intention was to have this addition as compromise. However, as I said, if mentioned in the lead, it does not need its own sentence or paragraph. If there will be consensus that no cases should be mentioned in the lead, I have nothing against removing this mentioning.

As of the rest of this paragraph, I think that the fact that "In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change" is justified to be in the lead. At the same time, I don't think that the information about renewable energy investments should be there. At its current stage, it may give an impression of "green washing". Therefore I propose to remove the last sentence of the third paragraph and to modify the last sentence of the first paragraph as following: "It also has renewable energy activities with annual investments over US$1 billion in the development of renewable energy sources, such as biofuels and wind power.

Concerning the lead in general, I also think that some information mentioning BP's different roots such as Anglo-Persian Oil Company or Amoco would be useful. However, I don't have any specific proposal concerning this. Beagel (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only have experience with one other corporation, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store. Note that the lede contains an entire paragraph regarding controversy, and the largest paragraph at that. I believe that it must be repeated: BP was found almost totally responsible for the largest accidental marine oil spill in history and one of the worst environmental disasters in the U.S. To suggest that it doesn't even need its own sentence is preposterous. Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The company has more than 100 years history and there is a number of things being the first, largest etc, which even not mentioned in the lead, not talking about their own paragraph. Deepwater Horizon has its own section and right now it is mentioned in the lead. By my understanding this is present in the balanced way. Beagel (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am content that the latest drafting shows some good balance:

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

I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think when seeking balance, context is required. "BP has been involved in a number of accidents" --> "In the last decade, BP has been levied 300 times more in fines for refinery violations than any other oil company"[[30]]; BP's "culture of recklessness" was found to be the reason for this, and this understanding should be mentioned in some form.[31][32][33] I agree with Gandy that the DWH disaster does deserve it's own sentence(s) with context - "it was the biggest...". What I find truly helpful is to imagine we are writing for a printed Encyclopedia. I grew up with those. They were pure facts and I never saw evidence of bias in them. This is how I judge my contributions to Wikipedia and to this discussion. More, not less, information - especially if it provides context - is encyclopedic.

The "company wide target to reduce greenhouse gasses" - if that is mentioned, it should be more than a 'plan' - what were the results? Remember, BP also promised to put up a $20 billion escrow after the DWH disaster, but now is trying to settle for $15B. I would disagree that a plan (target) is worth mentioning in the Lede, unless it was implemented and reliable sources show that the results were a big deal. Otherwise it might be better placed within the body of the article, rather the Lede.

I still see the placement of these 2 ideas within the same paragraph as biased, as that is bordering on greenwashing. I don't see how they relate except in terms of a rebuttal, which violates NPOV.

Again, would someone point me to the Wikipedia guidelines for Lede? Also if there are different guidelines for articles about companies we need those as well. We all seem to have have slightly differing ideas regarding these guildelines and it would help to begin by getting on the same page. Thanks. petrarchan47^T c 04:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to mention of BP investments in alternative energy, it was agreed to earlier in the discussion to scrap those sentences. If we did mention it, I would rather it be in the form of a percentage (context), as 1 Billion sounds like a lot, but actually even before BP quit Solar, their investments were never more than 4% of annual budget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrarchan47 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed sentence about renewable energy investments. So, having mentioning Deepwater Horizon and removing renewable energy investments, it seems a decent compromise between different POVs. As for Deepwater Horizon – for the context we have a long section, not taking about the series of Deepwater Horizon articles. Beagel (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Beagel is sidestepping the real issue here when he suggests that a decent compromise has been reached with one sentence regarding environmental issues (now with a mention of the spill) and the following sentence praising BP's good work for the environment. BP's extremely long list of negative environmental practices and events, as listed in the lengthy sections of the article, need a separate paragraph in the lede rather than be combined with mention of their efforts to combat greenhouse gases, which has very little copy in the article. One could make an argument if BP had a long history of environmentally friendly activities with many references to back it up, but that is not the case at all and to give equal copy in the lede, in the same paragraph, and immediately following their poor environmental record, is very misleading. Gandydancer (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this discussion and, although I defer to the experienced editors here on the issue of balance in the article's introduction, I thought I might be able to help with some of the figures that are getting confused. Before I get into that, Petrarchan, here is the link to the Wikipedia article guidelines for companies, and a couple about writing introductions:

Regarding the figures quoted by Petrarchan for Deepwater Horizon: BP has spent almost $23 billion on the response and claims, including $8.5 billion on claims, advances and other payments so far, not counting the $7.8 billion additional claims that have been estimated as part of a legal settlement. The escrow amount that BP committed to put aside was $20 billion. The $15 billion figure that has been in the news is just speculation — as you can tell from the wording of news articles that mention things like "an unnamed source familiar with discussions" — and is not related to BP's announcement of the $20 billion set aside right after the spill.

In response specifically to what Petrarchan was saying, that it shouldn't just be a plan for reducing greenhouse gas that's mentioned in the lead, I think the following release provides the information he's seeking here:

BP Beats Greenhouse Gas Target By Eight Years And Aims To Stabilise Net Future Emissions, 11 March 2002

I hope that this information is helpful. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo, your help is greatly appreciated. As for the greenhouse emissions, the article from BP may not be enough to warrant inclusion in the Lede, I believe we would need a reliable secondary source. As for the $20B Escrow, Feinberg was planning to spend $6B and return the remaining $14B to BP, so it gets confusing.

Thank you also for the 3 links. The Company article guidelines show that there is no different set of guidelines when writing an article about a company. The essay about Ledes is good, but Rangoon has suggested essays aren't really relevant as they aren't official guidelines, so it is of no use to us here. The article about Ledes is what I have been referring to. Here is the section which shows our one single sentence mentioning environmental issues and the spill is not sufficient: the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The 'explaining' part is why I suggested adding context to the accidents.

Beagle, I do agree we will have to compromise at some point. But the article is roughly 1/3 to 1/2 dedicated (rightly so) to environmental and political issues. The intro is supposed to let folks know what they'll be reading in the article. This is why to dedicate a paragraph to these issues in the Lede seems appropriate.petrarchan47 ^T c 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To newer editors to this discussion, note this is focused on the Intro, but I also brought up the fact that content was being removed from the article, and that the POV problem does not end with the Intro. Please see my first comment in this discussion... petrarchan47^T c 02:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I've understood correctly, the guidelines for the introduction refer to a standard for an ideal form of article. The BP article as it stands is not in perfect shape and much information is missing about its operations, leading to an imbalance of information about environment and politics. Would it not be better to generally improve the article first, then return to the introduction later once the other issues in the article have been addressed?

Meanwhile, here are some secondary sources for the reduction in greenhouse emissions:

There were also some news articles, but these tended to report meeting the target as "the company announced" or "Lord Browne announced". Hopefully the above sources work well enough. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

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.

Ancient Egyptian race controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

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

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussed on talk page.

How do you think we can help?

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

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

Ancient Egyptian race controversy discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir Shawn's attitude is the major problem. I see no willingness to have a serious discussion or WP:AGF (believe in the good faith of other editors). The word 'bullying' seems a bit ironic here. Statements such as "Your attempts to revert the edits from back to what they were is nothing more than biased censorship and blatant lies" don't make me want to discuss anything with this editor, and certainly don't suggest the possibility of a constructive dialogue. Nor does " If none of you three can justify why these contributions don't belong on the talk page then don't touch the article." I'm not bothered by removing the 90% thing until we can be sure of the source (looks like it might be in a similar book) but that's mainly because the genetic issue is much more complicated and that oversimplifies it. No one is trying to censor anything, and indeed Wdford replaced some of the Oxford stuff at [34] and [35] (although you wouldn't know if from the comments above). Reading the article's talk page gives a better insight into the problems being encountered.

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

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

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

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

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

WDford your problem with the "reliability" of my source(s) is mind boggling. First of all I have cited four prestigious encyclopedic references who all give a summarization on the issue of the "race" of the ancient Egyptians. Are honestly saying that Oxford (the actual encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt), Fitzwilliam[36], Manchester[37][38], Nat Geo[39], The Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of ancient Egypt [40] and Britannica are all biased? You seem to have a problem with my sources because they all support one particular theory and discredit others. Well tell me what does that suggest about the "controversy" of the issue? To me it suggest that most contemporary scholars have their minds made on the issue. If for whatever reason you feel that this neglects the opinions of other modern authorities then why not simply CITE other MODERN authoritative institutes (which represent the majority opinion on these issues) which say different, rather than trying to censor what the major ones say?

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Political activities of the Koch family, Koch family

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

Dispute overview

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

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

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

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

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

Yes.

To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Political activities of the Koch family, Koch family}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Endless discussion on both Talk pages.

How do you think we can help?

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

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

Political activities of the Koch family, Koch family discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the actual edit. The original piece I cited [[41]] was done by The Guardian in London, England. I chose it because, as you'll see, is has no palpable allegations of bias. Arthur Rubin didn't like it because he thought the article itself was written more like an editorial. I agreed in part, and offered to use only the hard data from the editorial. We'd rewrite the conjunctive phrases together. Well then, suddenly it's not "relevant" in the Koch family article. Because the section it was going in was a synopsis of the main Political activities of the Koch family. It was recommended from another user that the primary iWatch [[42]] article from which the very neutral The Guardian article was written on, be used. No objections were raised by Arthur Rubin. In fact, we had agreed to edit what Arthur Rubin thought was the opinion (and I agreed to greater or lesser extent) out of the verbatim. Ultimately, Arthur Rubin dropped this initiative after my edit, wherein I was very accommodating. Then, upon my arrival at the Political activities of the Koch family my edit was greeted by immediate and un-discussed reverts (WP violation ≈ "Don't just revert an edit. Start by discussing on the Talk Page.") both by User:AdventurousSquirrel and Arzel. Once knee-jerk editors realized I'd already started a thread on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family then only did they begin to express their concerns. Arthur Rubin begins by pointing out that the creation of a "Controversy" section is generally discouraged, but being an admin has conveniently fialed to mention starting a "Criticism" WP:CRITS section, which the article could use. In fact nobody brings this to light. With as much oppositional knowledge as these parties, including an Admin, have nobody wanted to breath a word about it. More bad faith. Finally, in the end, I found the WP:CRITS section and recommended it. By then it was too late. I listed areas wherein I had made concessions on 4 occasions and had none made by User:AdventurousSquirrel or Arzel. Only "remove, remove, remove".

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

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

I do not agree that either the iWatch article or the The Guardian article quoting it is reliable; however, if it were, the material for which we do not already have better (and more accurate and more precise sources) should still be distributed to the appropriate sections of this article. You are absolutely wrong that an editorial can be used for anything potentially an opinion, but only for clear facts. Total lobbying and number of lobbyists are verifiable; the specific bills lobbied are verifiable; the context of what the lobbying is about or the company's motive for lobbying may be opinions, and should be attributed solely to the author of the article, only if he/she is a recognized expert journalist, and no WP:BLP considerations are involved. (I don't see any BLP considerations in the material I have agreed to; I'm just pointing out that editorial may not be used if there are BLP considerations.)

I had agreed at, first, that a controversy section would be appropriate, per WP:IAR, but, having read the article more carefully, some of the material is already more precisely included with better sources, and the specific subject lobbying (derivatives, toxics) should be distributed to the appropriate sections. I don't think anyone other than XB70 has expressed an unretracted opinion that there should be a controversy section. As it clearly would violate WP:Criticism#Controversy articles and sections, we would need a clear consensus to include such a section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please write your proposed entry/ies here, Arthur Rubin. If they are too disembodied here, since you said they could be integrated into various sections, then we'll have to find a solution for that. Perhaps using the last word already in the article prior to the entry, in bold, and the first word appearing after the entry, in bold.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per section 1: Agreed text is "Although still a small fraction of Koch Industries gross revenue (Approx. $100 Billion Ann.), $20. million was spent on lobbying efforts in 2008 and $20.5 was spent over the course of the following two years."

A more precise statement on the totals already is in the second paragraph of the section "Lobbying for oil, gas, and chemical industries"; $20 million in 2008 and $12.9 million in 2009. The total revenue (which I suggested, although XB70 didn't originally like it) might be interpolated there, somewhere.

Per section 2: Agreed text is "In 2010 the firm employed 30 registered lobbyists."

Probably also in that paragraph, if desired. I don't know if it's notable, but it would be OK.

Per section 3: Agreed text is ""Koch Industries has lobbied to affect more than 100 pieces of federal legislation."

Probably also in that paragraph.

Per section 4: XB70's proposal is "...including lobbying to loosen regulations on potentially toxic materials such as dioxins, benzene, and asbestos."

No objection to it being in that paragraph

Per section 5: Agreed text is - "The Kochs, directly and indirectly, have donated to foundations which promote efforts to discredit climate change science."

Existing text is "In an article about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (Chair Richard A. Muller), Los Angeles Times reporter Margot Roosevelt called the Koch Brothers "the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning"." Certainly more specific, but perhaps less reliable. However, The third paragraph is even more specific than the agreed text. Perhaps a note as to IER's goals in the third paragraph.

Per section 6: XB70's text is "Koch interests have lobbied to prevent increased regulations on financial securities, such as petroleum-based derivatives."

Seems also appropriate for that section, although I can't decide whether it should be a new paragraph or included in the 2nd paragraph.

Is that sufficiently detailed? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with verbatim on all counts. I spliced the statements about lobbying on 100 pieces of fed leg and potential toxins and I spliced together the climate change/fossil-fuels. They can be separated again if need be, but I think they make good sense in this form.

"Although still a small fraction of Koch Industries gross revenue (Approx. $100 Billion Ann.), $20. million was spent on lobbying efforts in 2008 and $20.5 was spent over the course of the following two years."

"In 2010 the firm employed 30 registered lobbyists."

"Koch Industries has lobbied to affect more than 100 pieces of federal legislation, including lobbying to loosen regulations on potentially toxic materials such as dioxins, benzene, and asbestos."

"The nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning, the Kochs, directly and indirectly, have donated to foundations which promote efforts to discredit climate change science."

"Koch interests have lobbied to prevent increased regulations on financial securities, such as petroleum-based derivatives."

Placement I'll let you make the additions, allowing for possible critique on placements, but I really don't know where that could go wrong.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have posted earlier but I was visiting my father over the weekend and also decided to take a small break from Wikipedia to cool down since I had a lot of personal attacks thrown at me in the last few days and I want to remain civil. I'll focus only on content as Guy advised. From the very beginning, the only points I was making on the talk page were that it should be discussed before adding and that the source was not reliable for creating a 'Controversy' or 'Criticism' section (my first talk page post on the topic). So I am in agreement with what's being discussed here at the DRN.

Out of the points above, I believe the 4th bullet needs to be revised if it is to be included. This part: "The nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning" is the opinion of Margot Roosevelt and needs to be attributed to her, just as it does in the article currently. So, if we are to keep the "nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning", it should start with "According to Los Angeles Times reporter Margot Roosevelt," Other than that, I'm okay with the additions going into appropriate sections. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since XB70 has posted an defamatory attack on me on YouTube, (and, I'm not convinced his sources are reliable, although I have no doubt the statements are accurate), I'm not going to make the additions. If one of the other participants wants to do so, go for it. We almost have agreement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk's note: This noticeboard has since its inception reserved the right to terminate a discussion due to incivility. In light of the effort of XB70Valyrie to manipulate the discussion process by making public accusations against Arthur Rubin via YouTube video and making complaints against him to the Wikimedia Foundation, I intend to take the unprecedented step of closing this thread without further discussion unless XB70Valyrie publicly apologizes to the Wikipedia community and takes down the YouTube video within 24 hours after this posting. I have not studied this dispute and do not know whether the accusations made against Arthur Rubin are true or false, but the means by which XB70Valyrie has pursued this matter are wholly unacceptable and it is my opinion that this noticeboard should not provide any additional assistance to him so long as he maintains this stance. Documentation:

If after examining the documentation any other regular mediator/clerk here at DRN objects to this intervention, please feel free to decline this notice. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Update: XB70Valyrie took down the video while I was in the process of posting the foregoing note. I still intend to close the thread if an apology is not forthcoming, however. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the thread stay open. I plan on reading through some of the sources and see if I can provide any input. At first glance, it looks like there is some merit in adding some of the material under discussion. --Noleander (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second Noleander's statment. To close this attempt at content dispute resolution because of a matter under discussion in an ANI thread would set an unfortunate precedent. I would note, btw, that comparing the dollars spent on lobbying only to gross revenue seems questionable to me. Lobbying isn't a traditional cost of doing business in the same way paying salaries or leasing office space is. I'm not sure what a more representative comparison basis might be, but simply comparing to gross revenue doesn't tell readers much. --OhioStandard (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I third that statement. An apology is unlikely to be forthcoming since the user in question is currently under an indefinite block, and it's possible that the thread can still be salvaged and constructive progress made. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this closed and at the same time a new one opened on the same general topic with a new dispute overview. I just don't see the current dispute overview as being a good place to start from. Some of the material in the current version could be copied over, of course, but the flaming should be left behind. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that with the indef block that there's not much point (and I doubt that XB70 will be allowed back without some form of contrition, in any event), and I withdraw the closing notice in light of same, though I believe Guy's idea has some merit and deserves some discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you and Guy 100%. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Punisher title volume numbers

List of The Punisher comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Punisher: Purgatory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

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

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

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

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

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

How do you think we can help?

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

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

Punisher title volume numbers discussion

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

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

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

The rules I refer to are the ones in the bog blue box at the top of this page. In particular, "This page is for resolving content disputes.".

You were not "dragged here" nor is this the place to "defend against accusations." You can completely ignore DRN if you wish. By design, we have no authority of any kind here. All we Mediators can do is try to help you to resolve your conflicts. If someone accuses you here -- whether true or not -- they will be told in no uncertain terms that this is not the place for that.

If you choose to participate, we may be able to help to resolve the issue. The first step is to stop talking about other editors. Just stop. If they talk about you, sit back and watch without commenting while they get yelled at. Focus entirely on article content; what is the specific wording that this dispute is about? Talk about what should be in the article in a clam, cool, and rational manner.

If, after dealing with the article content issues, you still think that there are user conduct issues, let us know and we will advise as to where to take them. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and apologies. I'm tired of logging on only to find my changes reverted with no explanation about why they are wrong, only claims that I'm violating such and such with endless messages on my talk page, of which this was the last in a long line of. I do feel that I was 'dragged here', since jumping through these hoops seems to be the only way to get anything but another explanationless reversion. I'm certainly aware that it wasn't you doing the dragging, though, and this is the very last I'll say about that. I care only about one specific point in the article and related articles. I'm not a habitual editor, and I have absolutely no interest going through whatever channels exist to complain about other people if that point is resolved. If I'm acting improperly on this page, as I seem to have been, be assured it's through unfamiliarity rather than malice.

This might take some time to explain, and it might seem to be original research on the outset, but it's not, and I'll appreciate if you bear with me for the duration. I'm going to try to explain as if you don't know the first thing about the subject matter, so I apologize in advance if that comes across as condescending. Far from my intention, I just want to be thorough and clear.

Right. So. List of The Punisher comics. The purpose of this page is to easily distinguish between, identify, and, when possible, link to the pages concerning, the different comic book series starring The Punisher over the years. It's currently split up in between Ongoing Series--series that began without a fixed endpoint and typically continued for some time before ending or being cancelled, or are still continuing--and Limited Series, series that began with a fixed, typically very short, duration, and are usually tangential to the main and most prominent stories featuring the character. Four to six issue limited series are typical. This is how the article was organized prior to my interaction with it, and I have no issue with this arrangement, though it is somewhat problematic in and of itself. I'll elaborate on this more later.

The article also uses volume numbers to distinguish between the various series that have been published over the years. Volume numbers, in reference to comic books or magazines, exist as a manner of distinguishing between separate titles with identical names. Another alternative system is to refer to them by the year of their original publication: Ex. The Punisher (1987 series) as opposed to The Punisher v2/vol. 2. This is the system used on the titles of all linked-to articles, it appears, but not the List article itself. This is, again, how the article was organized prior to my interaction with it, and I again have no issue with this arrangement. Changing to a year-based system seems to have been suggested on the talk page in the past, but never implemented.

The root problem is with the series currently referred to as The Punisher: Purgatory. My contention is that that is not the name of the comic in question, and I've cited two sources from sites devoted to comic books, here and here, that refer to it simply as The Punisher. My own investigations confirm that the Purgatory subtitle neither exists on any of the title pages of the series, nor its indicia--copyright information frequently given higher preference when it comes to series nomenclature--making it Punisher vol. 4 or Punisher (1998 series), depending on how we choose to notate it. The indicia actually claims that it is Punisher vol. 2, but this is due to a persistent error on Marvel's behalf noted elsewhere and by another editor on the talk page: They erroneously listed the third series as vol. 1, and continued to count upwards from that point, rather than the true first two series. Because of many similar issues, Marvel stopped using volume numbers in an official capacity in recent years, putting the ISBN numbers directly in the indicia. However, they're still frequently used by fans and collectors for the sake of convenience. Regardless, that's besides the point, I'm just leading up to pointing out that the relevant series is currently listed as 'The Punisher: Purgatory vol. 2', and why the vol. 2 is understandable but incorrect, because there is no Purgatory anywhere on any relevant parts of the comic, and because there was never any Purgatory vol. 1.

Anyway, the reason this matters is because it's shifting all of the other numbers down by one. Because the correct vol. 4 is not included, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are referring to different series than other sources are, and causing confusion and misinformation. The current series is listed as vol. 8 when it actually is vol. 9, etc. It's not a wording issue, but a numbering one, which is why I don't understand the difficulty I've been having. I would think this should be very simple, as it's not like there can possibly be room for most of the pitfalls that cause these kind of disputes, if you know what I mean?

Going to have to talk about users a bit more, sorry, it's relevant. As previously mentioned, the article's split into Ongoing and Limited, and the only expressed objection I received to my changes was that putting 'Purgatory' in the Ongoing section as Vol. 4 is incorrect because it's not an ongoing series. That's perfectly true and correct; however, it is from the same chain of titles as all the other 'The Punisher' titles. There was not another title called 'The Punisher' being published at the time, it fits between 3 and 5, regardless of length, and it could cause confusion if one section jumps a number without explanation. In addition, the first series was indisputably a limited series, it in fact says "The Punisher was a five-issue comic book limited series" right there at the beginning of the ongoing section. So I proposed we either move both volumes 1 and 4, both limited series, to the limited series section, or keep them both in the ongoing section. 1-9, or 2-3, 5-9. Either's acceptable, depending on whether we're aiming for clarity or correctness. The proposition was ignored, and it again went 1-3, 5-9, and then, incorrectly, 1-8. Alternately, we could just change to ([year] series) rather than volume numbering, and put only ongoings in the ongoing section without worrying about skipping numbers. As the first series was the first solo series the character received, however, it does make good sense to keep it in there even if it isn't strictly correct. I'm rambling now though, this is just me explaining that I'm open to a great deal of compromise but that I think my core contention, that 'Purgatory' is in fact vol. 4/(1998 series), is incontestable. This position appears to have been put forth on the talk page by multiple previous editors, but all I see is a response by Fortdj33, followed by no further discussion. It does not appear to me to be consensus, but simply people who never came back to argue. To clarify, any IP addresses commenting on the talk page in May or June of this year are me. I signed in when I realized that this would take time to sort out and not benefit from such confusion.

In addition, I did several things to clear up the List page and the series pages from 4 to 9, that have been repeatedly reverted without regard for changes made unrelated to the numbering/nomenclature issue. I've expressed this repeatedly, and been ignored repeatedly. I'm not particularly inclined to be calm and negotiate when any contribution I make is repeatedly annulled without discussion, but even so, some blame is likely mine for letting such actions anger me and predispose me to courses of action other than calm discussion. Such changes include expanding the entries for Purgatory, vol 5 (currently 4 on the list), and vol 6 (currently 5 on the list), but I believe those changes finally stuck. Additionally, changing the PunisherMAX entry on the list to 'was' rather than 'is', since it has ceased publication. In addition, I added the previously uncredited co-writer to the Purgatory page (the name really should be changed, but I don't really care), and cleared up the titling on the 2004 series page (vol 7, currently vol 6 on the list). It later changed its title to 'The Punisher: Frank Castle MAX' with issue 66 (of 75), and the page referred to it as 'The Punisher: Frank Castle', and 'The Punisher MAX', both of which are technically incorrect and shouldn't be used in any official capacity. It's now there as a 'sometimes referred to' note, which is where it should be, rather than as listed which issues comprise the collected volumes.

Anyway, that's all incredibly picayune and boring. The point is they were all repeatedly reverted along with the numbering, no matter what I said on the talk page. My edits appear to be there now, the incorrect numbering is only on the locked List page, but I'm quite surprised they've lasted this long. As I've said repeatedly, I'd be much more inclined to discussion if anyone had respected my contributions enough to only remove the parts which offended them, rather than reverting everything with little-to-no explanation. I think that's it, and I still can't believe I'm writing this much about a number or six, but there you go. Snakebyte42 (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Guy Macon, for your attempt to calm things down, so that we can debate the content being disputed, instead of taking things personally. I brought the issue here, because Snakebyte42 was directing comments at me personally, even though I am not the only editor who has reverted his edits. And instead of discussing things on the talk page after he was first reverted, he just kept reverting back to his POV. If he had presented the above information before edit warring, we may have been able to reach a consensus before now. But as it is, please allow me to address the points that he has made.

Regarding the List of The Punisher comics, the article was cleaned up by me and a few other editors last year, which in itself was not without some controversy. The current format has Ongoing series and Limited series in separate sections, with the entries in the Ongoing series section listed by volume. These volume numbers do not correspond to the indicia on the comics themselves, rather to their order chronologically, because of errors that Marvel Comics has made in titling some series "Punisher" and others "The Punisher". Therefore, the volume numbers were arbitrarily assigned, based on the order of Wikipedia articles about ongoing Punisher titles.

The main issue here, is with the placement of The Punisher: Purgatory. It was placed in the Limited series section, because it was never intended to be more that a 4 issue limited series. However, the title is misleading, because the incicia for the comic simply said "The Punisher". It was also labeled as vol. 2, because it was the second mini-series with that title at the time, the first being the original Punisher mini-series from 1986. This was an error on Marvel's part, because the first ongoing series was also labeled vol. 2, as it was a continuation from the first limited series. That continuation, is why the first limited series was listed at the beginning of the Ongoing series, in the list of Punisher titles. And even Snakebyte42 concedes that "as the first series was the first solo series the character received, however, it does make good sense to keep it in there even if it isn't strictly correct."

Now, as I pointed out on the talk page last year, the 1995 series is referred to as v3, because it was the third ongoing series titled "Punisher or "The Punisher". I understand that The Punisher: Purgatory would chronologically be vol. 4, but since it was never intended to be an ongoing series, and it was not a continuation of the 1995 series, it does not belong in the Ongoing series section. Therefore, the 2000 series was listed as the fourth ongoing series with that title, which led directly into the 2001 series as the fifth, and the first MAX series was the sixth (before it was retitled The Punisher: Frank Castle), even though the MAX titles are not considered to be part of mainstream Marvel continuity. This may seem like original research, but it is based on the information presented in the various articles about Punisher titles on Wikipedia.

Again, these volume numbers are completely arbitrary, but they are designed to present which Punisher titles were considered ongoing and which were limited, in an encyclopedic way for people who may not be familiar with The Punisher. It has been suggested that we drop the volume labeling system, and use a system solely by publication year, but since there was never a consensus on that suggestion, I have strived to maintain the current format. That's why I initially reverted the changes, and asked for discussion per WP:BRD, but an edit war broke out before any discussion took place. I apologize for my part in that, and I hope that we can use this discussion to come to a consensus about how to properly display the information on the list. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presented this information repeatedly. You ignored it. Please stop veering from fact to make yourself look good. Whether a series is ongoing or limited has nothing to do with which volume it is. Volume simply refers to the chronological order of series titled 'Punisher' (or 'The Punisher). This 'Purgatory' title appears nowhere, is cited nowhere, and simply does not seem to exist. Volume numbers are not arbitrary and you do not get to invent them. They are a common metric used by fans and collectors to determine which series is which, not an arbitrary metric made by Fortdj33 to organize Wikipedia with. Whether something was 'meant to be an ongoing or limited series' has nothing to do with its volume number or its name. And even if it did, your list would still be incorrect, because as you just admitted it is starting from the volume 1 LIMITED SERIES. I have no idea where you've come up with this crazy idea, but just because something only has four issues does not magically produce a subtitle or make it any less called 'The Punisher' than the eight other series, regardless of duration, also called 'The Punisher'. I said this on the talk page as well. You ignored it. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above in a mix of discussion about article content (which is good) and discussion about user conduct (which is not appropriate on the dispute resolution noticeboard.) Both of you, please stop talking about other users. Just stop. In particular, don't make excuses like "Going to have to talk about users a bit more, sorry, it's relevant" No. It is not. I don't care what your reasons are. Stop it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how the objections my edits were met with, that I attempted to address, is not relevant? I was not complaining about conduct, I was addressing the history of the dispute, which seems to be rather the point of a dispute resolution board; not 'he said X, whine whine, my feelings are hurt', but 'I proposed X change and it was met by this user with this criticism, which I shall now address:'. What on earth else should I be talking about? And what kind of response are you expecting here, exactly, after telling us to 'stop'? 'Stop' is not productive. 'Stop' is not a path forward. 'Stop' does not leave either party satisfied, it simply leaves us stopped. I do hope you have something better to say than that. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you came to a noticeboard that says right at the top "This page is for resolving content disputes." and you are now telling one of the regular clerk/mediators that you know what "the point of a dispute resolution board" is better than he does? No, we don't care about "the history of the dispute" This noticeboard is for discussing article content, not "the history of the dispute". Please stop discussing anything other than article content.

You ask "What on earth else should I be talking about? And what kind of response are you expecting here?" Which part of "This noticeboard is for discussing article content, not user conduct" are you having trouble understanding? It's a simple idea. You think the article should say one thing, Another editor thinks the article should say something else. So you go to the dispute resolution noticeboard and talk about the content of that particular part of the article. Not about other editors, Not about the history of the dispute. Not about anything other than article content. And especially not about the many reasons why you believe that the rules about only discussing article content don't apply to you.--Guy Macon (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snakebyte42, I realize that we got off on the wrong foot with each other, but once again I ask you to please stop taking this personally! This discussion is designed for us to resolve a content dispute, regardless of who started it, or what you think was ignored. At this point, our past edit warring is irrelevant. The only way to resolve this, is for us to set aside our differences, and compromise on presenting the information in a way that both of us can live with...

Therefore, I propose that we do away with the volume numbers, and simply present the Punisher titles on the list by year of the series. That means including the 1986 series in the Ongoing section as an exception, because it was the first series titled "The Punisher". All of the other articles about Punisher titles that include (xxxx series) in the title would remain there, and any volume information can instead be included on their respective articles. As for The Punisher: Purgatory, I still think that it should remain in the Limited series section, regardless of its volume number. Even if the Purgatory title is arbitrary, that title was clearly given to that article, in order to differentiate it from the other series. The List of The Punisher comics was meant to be just that, a list to help others find information about the various Punisher titles on Wikipedia. Any volume information for The Punisher: Purgatory can be included on that specific article with the appropriate references. Fortdj33 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that's not a compromise at all, don't you? I've said over and over again that the only thing that matters is that Purgatory receives its correct, non-arbitrary title, which I have provided sources to back up, and that as a corollary, if volume numbers are used, they are correct. I don't care about whether you use years or volume numbers, I don't care which are ongoing or which are limited, and I don't even understand why you want the one limited series but not the other in the 'ongoing' section. However, I think I see an unrelated compromise in regards to that, as that seems to be where your objections are stemming from. Why not simply change the 'Ongoing Series' header to 'Main Series'? This seems to remove your objection to including Purgatory in that section. EDIT: Oh, and all of the article titles currently have (xxxx series) in them, and while it would be nice if Purgatory's title was changed to reflect that, I don't really care about that either. It's clearly a pervasive enough informal title to get some use. By the same token, I wouldn't mind if the article title of the MAX series was 'The Punisher MAX', as long as the correct title information is on the page.

EDIT: It's possible I've misunderstood what you're proposing: You may need to disregard the 'that's not a compromise at all' bit. Did you mean to list Purgatory under Purgatory, or under 1998 series? And for that matter, why does what past editors have done without leaving sources or reasons matter at all? Your entire argument seems to hinge on protecting erroneous information because you assume the people who did it had a reason to do it, and therefore it should remain. I've demonstrated that the title is incorrect. I don't see why it should remain differentiated, and 'because past editors differentiated it' is not a sufficient argument to convince me. This should be based on fact, or as close to fact as we can get, not assumed intent.

Guy Macon, while I apologize for speaking heatedly, that was far from what I meant. You don't want to talk about user conduct--fair enough, I genuinely misunderstood the relevance of the history of the dispute. I thought it essential to your understanding of the dispute to explain what has been discussed between users about article content, I saw a major distinction between complaining about user conduct. However, what annoyed me was writing all that out and for nothing to come of it but picking at how I said things, and not addressing what I said, as that is what has been pushing my buttons this entire time. In the heat of the moment it seemed to me like that was you closing the discussion and that the issue would remain unresolved. Obviously I misinterpreted that. Snakebyte42 (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The goal of mediation is to help the two of you to reach an agreement, and long experience has shown us that the best way to do that is to focus on article content, and to force everyone involved to have a calm, rational and logical discussion about the article content and nothing else even if they recently had a screaming match on the article talk page. I know its hard, but its the best way.

Getting back to the subject at hand, I want to see references to what the publisher calls the comics. Normally we ask for links, but if both of you have a copy of a comic in front of you and agree on what the wording on the cover is, that's good enough. In theory I could go to a comic book store and verify the claims. So let's start there. What does the cover say? Does the interior say something different? Does the publisher's catalog call it something else? How does the publisher's catalog describe multiple comics -- series, volume, or what? If the publisher is silent, do third party sellers have a standard way of describing things? Lets find the sources, use the exact phrasing the sources use when we can, and try to figure out what is best when the sources are unclear or conflict. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can do you one better, and upload images of the comic in question. I'll just do the final issue, and assume you can take my word that the other three follow suit, but I can provide those as well if necessary. Here is the cover, and there's a smaller image of the cover of a previous issue in the page for The Punisher: Purgatory. Here is the interior credits and indicia. It does say Purgatory with the interior credits, but that is in reference to the title of the story, not the series. Pretty much all comics have titles for individual stories or story arcs, and such a thing doesn't change the title of the series or series would have no common name at all, it just happens that in this particular instance there is one four-part story arc and only four issues of the series. The cover and the indicia, the part of the interior concerned with the name of the series, agree that it is simply 'The Punisher'.

Of course, it also says Volume 2, but I believe we're in agreement that this is an error on the part of the publisher; many such errors exist, due to publishers not often keeping the best records about series they've published, which is why--to answer your next question--the publisher no longer uses volume numbers on its current publications, referring instead to ISBN numbers in the indicia. The publisher does not maintain a catalog that goes back that far, to my knowledge, and I have no idea what it was solicited as at the time. They're primarily concerned with selling new series, not with organizing old ones, so they simply use the name and issue number of series, and no longer distinguish between past volumes in their promotional material. The series is too old for there to be any online records by third party distributors of what it was sold as at the time, as far as I'm aware, and said distributors are rarely standardized. In any event, I've never found a reliable online source for archived solicitations or sales information that goes back before late 2002, and this was 1998: I'm sure there's people selling old comics, but not old pages of the comic being sold when it was new. The most reliable source in these matters, in my experience, are online comics databases uninvolved with any publishers or in selling comics, two of which I've linked to. I can't speak to who maintains them or their policies or anything like that, just to how exact and complete I've found them to be in the past.

Putting volume numbers aside for the moment, I now have one primary source and two secondary sources that establish this series to be named 'The Punisher'. Adding the year, to be cognizant of other identically titled series, makes this 'The Punisher (1998 series)'. If you then gather all the series titled 'The Punisher' or 'Punisher' and order them chronologically, this becomes the fourth, which is why I believe it should be referred to as Volume 4 if volume numbers are used, disagreeing with the Volume 2 on the actual issue. Regardless, it is clearly not 'The Punisher: Purgatory Vol. 2' as currently listed in the article, because there is no 'Purgatory', and for that name to be correct under how volumes normally work, there would need to be a preceding The Punisher: Purgatory Vol. 1, of which there is not. If you're morbidly curious, the actual printed volume numbers go 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, not specified, not specified, not specified, which is why I think it's safe to disregard them. Snakebyte42 (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snakebyte42, your example of the actual volume numbers, is exactly why I said that they were arbitrary. The current volume numbers were designed, for people not familiar with The Punisher to see the progression of his various ongoing series. However, this whole debate has been because a few IP editors and I have been trying to preserve the information as it is currently presented on Wikipedia. You and I both clearly want the information presented as accurately as possible, but you went about changing it the wrong way.

Therefore, there are apparently two issues here. If you look at the talk page for List of The Punisher comics, you'll see that the current header of "Ongoing series" was decided on in place of "Primary series", when the list was reorganized a couple years ago. That's primarily why the idea of moving The Punisher: Purgatory to that section was rejected. If we do away with the volume numbers as suggested, then that section will need to be retitled, in order for it to contain all of the volumes of comics books simply named "The Punisher".

The Punisher: Purgatory being a misleading title, is a separate issue. Any proposal for changing the title of that article, should have been brought up on the talk page of that article, before changing it on the list of Punisher titles. If the article is changed to "The Punisher (1998 series)", then the list and template can be changed to reflect it that way. But as is stands now, The Punisher: Purgatory does not belong in a list of ongoing Punisher titles.

So I think that for both of us to be satisfied, the changes need to be made to The Punisher: Purgatory article first, with the references that you provided above. Then, for that information to be accurately presented on the List of The Punisher comics, the list will have to be reorganized, to either identify all titles named "Punisher" or "The Punisher" in one section, or for ALL of the limited series to be moved to the proper section chronologically. Whether that is best done with or without volume numbers is still debatable. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, they're not arbitrary. Because Marvel made errors does not mean that you get to. Volume numbers are chronologically applied to comics or magazines with identical titles. You're also continuing to be hypocritical. The 'Ongoing Series' header by your admission already contains a limited series, the series we both agree is the first volume. You can't have your cake and eat it too, and because information is currently on wikipedia says nothing about its veracity. Telling me I 'went about making changes the wrong way', etc., is, again, a discussion of user conduct. If I can't do that, neither can you.

As I've already said, I have no objection with strict adherence to the Ongoing Series heading, providing that the adherence is indeed strict, and Vol. 1 is moved out of there as well. You seem disinclined to do this, applying special rules to one thing but not the other, which is unacceptable. However, we do both agree that having the Ongoing Series only have volumes 2-3 and 5-9 is confusing and lacking clarity, so perhaps a change is for the best. I'm fine either way, providing vol. 1 is treated the same way as Purgatory.

I've also said that I have no issue with the title of the article being something other than the title of the series, provided the information provided in the article regarding the title of the series is correct. However, if that's what you say needs to be done, then fine, whatever. I have not been arguing about what the title of any article should be, but about the correct title of the series as presented in these articles. I also have no opinion regarding whether to use years or volume numbers in the List article, provided all series are titled correctly. My personal preference is slightly biased towards volume numbers, but if it's going to be a point of contention then years are absolutely fine by me.

EDIT: I noticed you changed the title of the Purgatory article. I've changed the template to reflect it.Snakebyte42 (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be a bit swamped with work for the next couple of days and won't have time to look at the issues above in detail (I invite any other Mediators who have time to jump in and help) but I would like to express my appreciation for the effort both of you are making to focus on content. I know it is hard, and I caution you about slipping back into talking about other editors, but you are doing a good job. Try to do the same elsewhere on Wikipedia while we are working on this; a personal comment elsewhere can poison what we are trying to accomplish here. If you really want to get into a fight, please wait, OK? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANOUNCEMENT: Because of recent behavior at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#User:Snakebyte42 I am recusing myself from this discussion. I no longer believe that I can remain impartial and unbiased on this topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First of all, both of the posters here (F and S) are way too verbose. Please read WP:TLDR. If you cannot succinctly make your point in 3 sentences, that is a good indicator you don't have a point to make. Second, as far as the List article goes: Top priority is simply utilizing the titles that are presented on the covers; if there are two or three different interpretations of what the name should be within the list, give both options, with a brief explanation for both viewpoints ... use footnotes or parenthetical comments to explain the ambiguities. No need to pick one or the other: supply both. Regarding "year" vs "volume" listing: it is okay for a List to contain two lists covering the same items, as seen in List of court cases involving the American Civil Liberties Union, so consider that as an option. --Noleander (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk Comment: As per this WQA discussion, the matter seems largely resolved, but I'll leave this page open for another 48 hours or so in case there's any further discussion. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Enroll

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.

Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Enroll (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

I first met Grizzly on a WikiProject and then invited him to become my student as part of the CVUA. After that I started to teach him some things about vandalism and how to enable twinkle. He then asked me several times to teach him how to use it but I was either away or busy at the time [43] [44], I responded saying that I am busy and will help you as soon as I get a chance. Grizzly then went and requested a new instructor thinking I did not have time for him when I actually just needed more time to reply. [45] I replied saying I am only " I am extremely busy at the moment/today, that we already started training and I also stated he would have to follow wikipedia's writing format if he wished to be trained by me. [46]. The co-ordinator responded to my message thinking I was complaining and it aroused a mini-argument that ended in a civil matter. [47] We then proceeded like nothing happened until Grizzly reopened the argument saying I stalk him (I was monitoring his edits and most of his edits came through huggle), criticize him and won't train him. [48]. I then agreed on the fact that he needed a new instructor because we obviously didn't match [49] and I was tired of cleaning up his improper edits [50] [51] [52] [53]. He then personally attacked me by calling me names, made claims saying I could be a vandal and that I was stalking him again. [54]. My response was adding the admin help template and stating that I wanted an administrator in the conversation. [55]. After that Grizzly tried removing the evidence and my comments three times (which I undid and warned him for.) (article history)

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

Grizzly1110 (talk · contribs)
Riley Huntley (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Enroll}} --~~~~ 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 requested admin help and I warned the user.

How do you think we can help?

I am requesting that a 24 hour block be placed on the user so he cam calm down and rethink his actions or I would like an administrator to talk to him regarding his actions and how they were inappropriate.

Cheers,
Riley Huntley (Click here to reply) 22:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Enroll discussion

Comment - This dispute may be better off at another forum, such as WP:ANI or WP:RFCU. This forum, WP:DRN is focused on "content disputes", which are controversies over which material to include (or exclude) from WP articles. The issue here seems to be a behavioral issue centered on a page that is not a normal WP article. Probably best to bring this up at forums dedicated to behavioral problems such as WP:ANI or WP:RFCU. --Noleander (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, for what it is worth, my advice to R. Hunter would be to simply ignore the other editor, I'm sure they will calm down and move along to other things shortly. Escalating to WP:ANI may drag it out longer than just ignoring it. --Noleander (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a fellow CVUA Instructor, I agree with Riley. We are trying to help serious students learn about vandalism and get rollback, and we have already had to drop one student this month. We aren't interested in taking students who are personally attacking instructors, or who are vandals themselves. I agree with Riley that a block might possibly be in order, although this might be a borderline "cool-down block", which are forbidden. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk Comment: The issues discussed here are beyond the scope of this noticeboard. For user conduct issues, please go to Wikiquette Assistance. If you are seeking blocks, discuss the issue with administrators at the administrator noticeboard. Thank you. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Vassula Ryden

Vassula Ryden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

I am editing a highly controversial article which is subject of intense debate. The debate has intensified over the last months following the involvement of a group of 2 or 3 editors who seem to be editing the article in a WP:GAME fashion. One editor in particular, IRWolfie, refuses to allow a WP:BALANCE to develop in the article by allowing edits to remain that are contrary to the edits he is making. The insertion of the material would bring a more WP:NPOV to the topic but by refusing to allow this material to be inserted it leaves it somewhat one sided.

The material I want to insert is based on a book, published by Oxford University Press, written by an theologian of repute and subject matter expert named Hvidt. Furthermore, Hvidt was a primary witness this material which makes him an invaluable source.

Here is a summary of what occurred:

IRWolfies primary argument to keep the aforementioned material out was that Hvidt was not an WP:RS despite considerable efforts to point out the contrary.
When it became clear that the discussion to justify that Hvidt was an RS was not going anywhere I went ahead and sought WP:CONS by posting on the WP:RSN to get outside opinion regarding Hvidts work to see if it was in compliance with WP:RS.
When I attempted to get some outside opinion by posting in the WP:RSN IRWolfie attempted to thwart public opinion about my RS and divert attention before other contributors had a a chance to review it. It was nonetheless subsequently approved as an RS by the commentators involved.
Despite the approval of Hvidts work as an RS by uninvolved editors, IRWolfie has continued to deny (see comment 13:57, 4 June 2012) that Hvidt was an RS and continues in his efforts to remove it.
Hvidt not being a RS was used as a primary justification to keep his material out until the RSN process was concluded. Now he has put full focus on the WP:WEIGHT argument since he lost the RS argument regarding Hvidt.

Now that IRWolfie has put full focus on WP:WEIGHT, I remain certain that even if I was to prove WP:WEIGHT regarding Hvidt, IRWolfie and certain other editors would likely resort to consensus to block any text based on Hvidts work as there are at least 2 other editors in the article that share his questionable views. Their prejudice against Hvidts work was also noted by Fifelfoo, who commented that "the treatment of Hvidts work was appalling". I have not included the other editors in this dispute as their activity seems to have subsided ever since the Hvidts source was approved in the RSN about 10 days ago, and it is IRWolfie alone that has undone my insertion of the CDF text, hence this DR is addressed to him alone.

Furthermore, IRWolfie has inserted material based on a source which he himself criticized (see comment 14:20,3 June 2012) which begs the question if IRWolfie is capable of WP:NPOV on this article or does he have a WP:COI? Either way, this, combined with his continued denial of Hvidt as an RS seems to indicative of tendentious editing.

With IRWolfie being a more experienced wikipedian than myself I would have hoped that WP:DONTBITE would have applied to my being WP:BOLD in editing my first wiki article. The edits I have made to this article had taken it from a rather undeveloped page a couple of years ago to a more comprehensive version which was live until a couple of months ago following which numerous edits performed in a rather WP:GAME fashion resulted in the article being trimmed to this version. During the cdf tlig debate I revealed that I had comparatively in depth knowledge of the Rydens dealings with the Vatican and mentioned that it was necessary to have such knowledge of the subject matter to edit the Church Stance section of the article. When I did so, it was automatically assumed that I was a WP:COI. My points regarding wikipedia guidelines were ignored and instead the WP:SPA card was also played on me (see comment 12:51, 24 May 2012). As a result I went ahead and explained why my wiki contributions have been primarily focused on this article and where my knowledge came from.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

IRWolfie- (talk · contribs)
Arkatakor (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

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

Absolutely. The talk page speaks for itself. The discussion has lasted at least 3 weeks and also involved an RSN post. The steps that were taken to attempt to resolve the dispute can be read in points 1 to 5 in the Dispute Overview section.

How do you think we can help?

By arbitrating the dispute and make judgement on the inclusion of the CDF material in the Church Stance section.
To make sure all editors adhere to wikipedia guidelines by allowing properly sourced material to be inserted in the article and removing any material that is based on primary sources such as this one.

Arkatakor (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vassula Ryden discussion

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

This whole DRN is phrased as an attack focussing on me and not on the issues. Note that there were a number of other individuals involved in the discussion who appear to have not been informed. Note also that two other SPAs have been pushing this issue, one with a disclosed COI who opened a previous notice here on the exact same thing: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_31#Vassula_Ryden. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have a number of sources that say there has been no acceptance by the catholic church of Vassula Ryden, exceptional claims to the contrary require exceptional evidence. Hvidt is an active supporter of Vassula's who has met her on a number of occassions (see "He made specific mention of his apparent heroine, Vassula Rydén, who has made a name for herself " [56]). [57]: "Dr. Niels Christian Hvidt, a very active Danish supporter of Mrs Ryden. Dr. Hvidt has done much to promote the TLIG messages in Denmark and in the world. ". This was not considered at RSN because comments were not allowed. WP:REDFLAG specifically requires multiple high quality reliable sources.

The text is phrased to mislead the reader into thinking the catholic church has accepted Vassula even though this is contradicted by other sources (WP:WEIGHT) before and after the event.

The primary source I have added supplements the points in the rest of the section, I make no analytical claims and have used the source carefully, it is not misleading and this meets WP:PRIMARY. Note also that the arguments raised above are also self defeating, there is mention excluding primary sources above, but Hvidt is a primary source; he was a primary witness according to Arkakator! IRWolfie- (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also I never claimed the source was unreliable at RSN, nor did I refer to it being an unreliable source post RSN for the claim that the meeting occured (that I can see anyway). I suggest other uninvolved editors look at the diffs and links posted above by Arkatakor rather than taking them at face value as there are a number of misrepresentations of my actions. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned previously, I have not included the other editors in this dispute as they have not been involved in editing the article nor have they actively posted in the article's talk page since Hvidt was approved as an RS 10 days ago. It is IRWolfie alone that has undone my insertion of the CDF text which cited an approved RS and who commented accordingly. As the CDF text is the primary focus of this DR post, this DR was addressed to him alone. However, if the commentators feel its necessary to alert the other users, I will go ahead and do so, though it seems that they have opted out of this article. I will not refer to IRWolfie's other points, rather I will leave that to the commentators. Arkatakor (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You specifically mentioned that there were other editors in your above statement. There are other reasons why besides reliability that text is rejected. Per WP:BEANS it's good to not mention every issue all at once, just because a source is reliable source for a sentence doesn't mean we should add that sentence. It is not the job of RSN to form a consensus about inserting material, and noone did so. Note that you also misunderstand what noticeboards are for, they pool interested editors together into a single board, they are there to offer a second opinion. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "one with a disclosed COI who opened a previous notice here on the exact same thing: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_31#Vassula_Ryden" - My text and reference differs substantially from that of Sasanack. This has already been explained to you in the RSN - see my comment dated 14:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC). Arkatakor (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved editor: I am one of the editors mentioned obliquely by Arkatakor above. I agree with IRWolfie that the source, though published by a university press, is not reliable enough to offset reliable sources backed up by official Vatican documents. The author of the source is an avid champion of the subject of the article by his own admission, and was not only a witness of secret Vatican talks, but was a partisan participant, as well. His report and conclusions are seriously inconsistent with those in the other reliable sources available. These facts were not available to the editors who gave opinions on RSN, so I do not hold their opinion as well-informed or binding.

Furthemore, as IRWolfie says, WEIGHT is a serious problem with the material proposed by Arkatakor, as the addition appears to undermine and misrepresent the official public stance of the Vatican.

Last of all, consensus is pretty firm about not including this material. The addition has been reverted by several editors, including me, user:IRWolfie-, user:Sgerbic, user:LuckyLouie, user:Eldamorie and user:SkepticalRaptor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus;

RE: "These facts were not available to the editors who gave opinions on RSN".

The commentators of the RSN were given the link to the Catholic Stance section so they could check the sources for themselves
The commentators of the RSN stated that they were aware that Hvidt was a follower of Ryden. One of them even said "I understand that he is a follower of Ryden. I do not believe this outweighs his substantial credentials in this field. There is no evidence that is a case where he has put his personal beliefs ahead of his scholarship that I can find. Hvidt is an RS source for his claims.". All these comments have been linked in this DR report.

RE: "not reliable enough to offset reliable sources backed up by official Vatican documents" and "His report and conclusions are seriously inconsistent with those in the other reliable sources available.". Which other reliable sources? EWTN? The only official Vatican document used to back up the Church section is the 1995 notification. Everything else that discusses the Vatican's views is backed by EWTN, a confirmed primary source, strictly prohibited in BLP's.

It is rather interesting that IRWolfie and Dominus continue to deny that Hvidt is an RS in this discussion. In doing so they have further showed how they refuse to get the point. Yet they seem content with leaving text in the article that uses primary sources like EWTN. Being greater in number does not make you right, nor does it mean that the users that you listed are necessarily adhering to wikipedia guidelines. Arkatakor (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EWTN is not being used as a source, but as a site on which a Vatican document is available. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a regular editor at RSN, and I commented on the original RSN question brought there. I received a note on my talk page, and after looking at the comments here, I have a couple of things to say.

First of all, I want to be clear, I have nothing to say about WEIGHT or other issues.
Secondly, the RS value of the source is completely independent from other sources (Other regular editors at RSN aside from myself also found the Hvidt source to be RS). Finding other RS sources that have different conclusions in no way reduces the RS value of the Hvidt source. That argument is incorrect/false/wrong, take your pick, unless there is a multitude of RS sources that directly address the Hvidt source specifically and its conclusions. It is completely possible, and in fact, not uncommon, for RS sources to have different, and even opposing, material. It's my opinion that the RS value of the Hvidt source is not in doubt, it is RS for the material presented at RSN. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 19:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and agree about the reliability of the source. The arguments I was using against it fall under WP:WEIGHT, but still support excluding the material and the source from the article, regardless of its reliability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclogyro

Cyclogyro (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?

Variable IP (likely same user due to their comments including "again" and the like) keeps reverting changes without reason. Said changes were justified in the edit summary and on the talk page. IP has repeatedly been pointed to the talk page, but hasn't commented on or even acknowledged it. Diffs:

Comments in History referring to Talk Page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyclogyro&action=history

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

I'm pretty sure the IPs are the same person, judging from their comments (use of "again", etc.)

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

Yes

To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Cyclogyro}} --~~~~ 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. Via discussion on talk page, and edit summaries pointing to the talk page. I assume they're reverting in good faith but I can't get them to look at the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I'm not sure what to do, especially since it's a changing IP and they don't seem to read/see comments or the talk page. This is my first dispute so I really don't know.

UnclaimedUsername (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclogyro discussion

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

Followup: The IP has commented on the talk page here: Talk:Cyclogyro only to resort to ad hominem attacks. UnclaimedUsername (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CueHi there. I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN. I see this is your first dispute; I'll give you a bit of advice here. You're doing the right thing by trying to take this to the talk page first and by assuming good faith. First, even though the IP's methods of addressing you might not have been the best, have you taken the time to examine his/her concerns? Sometimes, editors come across as uncivil, but some of the things they say still have merit even though they are uncivil in their presentation. Second, if you have a valid reason for thinking that the information should be removed, your best starting point (if it is not attributed to a source) is to tag the objectionable material with "citation needed" tags. You can do this by adding {{cn|date=June 2012}} where you want to put the tag. If the tag goes for a long period of time without being addressed, the material can then be removed. If your addition of the tags is reverted, then present your case on the article talk page; if that doesn't generate some discussion, then your next option is to come here again. I will leave this case open for now in case the IP editor has additional comments. In any case, your edits are not vandalism - that's just a misunderstanding. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CueYou can request semiprotection which stops ips from editing an article at WP:RFPP.Curb Chain (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India

India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

I am requesting that the infobox on the India page have an 'Establishment/Formation' section rather than merely an 'Independence' section. I am including the entire discussion that has happened thus far: Establishment/Formation

The info-box should have an Establishment/Formation section, not merely an 'Independence' section. The British occupation and end thereof are a miniscule portion of the history of India. 'Independence' from the British and Islamic occupations are signposts not beginnings or ends in themselves. India as an entity has been in existence for thousands of years. It seems silly for this page to subscribe to the nonsensical notion that India is a recent construct or that it came into existence at the end of the British occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.115.163 (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

   This article is about the modern country of India and as such didnt exist before 1947. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is about the 'modern country of India' then why is there a History section that mentions 'Ancient India' and 'Medieval India'? By your logic there shouldn't be a single shred of information about anything that happened before the end of the British occupation. Governing systems, dispensations and even geography may change but the page is about the cultural and geographic entity that has been known as India for millennia. [Side note: I find it amusing that an Englishman is the presiding judge deciding on matters concerning the India page.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, if this page is solely about the 'Republic of India' then there cannot logically be a mention of 'independence', because it was not the present republic that gained said independence. If we are confining ourselves to the republic then surely we must state that it came into being (once again we must use the word formation) on August 15th 1947. Sticking to the logic of this page the entity that gained independence was not the current republic but that thing which preceded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

   Nothing wrong with having information about the history before independence to put everything in context. But the present "India" in this article didnt exist before 1947 which was larger and different hence the information to put it all in context. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Was the People's Republic of China established in 221 BCE? Was the current Federal Republic of Germany formed in 962 CE? Like I said earlier geography and dispensations may vary but the entity in question remains unchanged. The present 'Germany' in the article on that country didn't exist in 962 did it? The India before 1947 may have been larger or smaller but it wasn't different and that is the point. This is clearly a serious matter that calls for a serious discussion and a re-think on the very nature of the India page. I think we need some higher level people involved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.116.232 (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

114.143.116.232 (talk · contribs)
MilborneOne (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.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

The discussion is ongoing but I believe more people need to get involved.

How do you think we can help?

You could use the same template for the India page as is used for other country pages such as Germany or China or any other.

114.143.116.232 (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India discussion

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

First this forum is not for "ongoing" discussions and is not a place where you can "get more eyes". Second, are those years used as the formation of the People's Republic of China and the Federal Republic of Germany? Those dates on those articles need to be changed to match the political formation of those polities, and not India to change the other way around.Curb Chain (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s ^t ^u ^v ^w ^x ^y ^z ^aa ^ab ^ac ^ad ^ae ^af ^ag ^ah ^ai ^aj ^ak ^al ^am ^an "The Zeitgeist Movement: Envisioning A Sustainable Future". Huffington Post. Mar 16, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s ^t ^u ^v ^w ^x ^y ^z ^aa ^ab ^ac ^ad ^ae ^af ^ag ^ah "Resource Based Economy". The Venus Project.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s ^t ^u ^v ^w A dream worth having, Rhonda Swan, The Palm Beach Post, April 30, 2009
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q "They've Seen the Future and Dislike the Present". New York Times. 2009-03-16.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k Quotations and citations in this Wikipedia article are based on the translation from Hebrew to English of The Filmmaker Who Helped Recruit Millions for the Global Protests of the Bottom 99%, original Hebrew article by Asher Schechter, TheMarker (Israel), January 19, 2012.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p Quotations and citations in this Wikipedia article are based on the translation from Hebrew to English of Imagine, original Hebrew article by Tzaela Kotler, Globes (Israel), March 18, 2010.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j "He's A Dreamer From Venus", Mike Thomas, Orlando Sentinel, Feb. 12, 1995. Cite error: The named reference "OrlandoSentinel1995" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference TVP-R was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[huffpost-1] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s ^t ^u ^v ^w ^x ^y ^z ^aa ^ab ^ac ^ad ^ae ^af ^ag ^ah ^ai ^aj ^ak ^al ^am ^an "The Zeitgeist Movement: Envisioning A Sustainable Future". Huffington Post. Mar 16, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[TVP-RBE-2] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s ^t ^u ^v ^w ^x ^y ^z ^aa ^ab ^ac ^ad ^ae ^af ^ag ^ah "Resource Based Economy". The Venus Project.

[PalmBeachPost-3] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s ^t ^u ^v ^w A dream worth having, Rhonda Swan, The Palm Beach Post, April 30, 2009

[nytimes-4] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q "They've Seen the Future and Dislike the Present". New York Times. 2009-03-16.

[TheMarker20120119-5] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k Quotations and citations in this Wikipedia article are based on the translation from Hebrew to English of The Filmmaker Who Helped Recruit Millions for the Global Protests of the Bottom 99%, original Hebrew article by Asher Schechter, TheMarker (Israel), January 19, 2012.

[Globes20100318-6] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p Quotations and citations in this Wikipedia article are based on the translation from Hebrew to English of Imagine, original Hebrew article by Tzaela Kotler, Globes (Israel), March 18, 2010.

[OrlandoSentinel1995-7] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j "He's A Dreamer From Venus", Mike Thomas, Orlando Sentinel, Feb. 12, 1995. Cite error: The named reference "OrlandoSentinel1995" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[TVP-R-8] Cite error: The named reference TVP-R was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

@@ Line 750: / Line 750: @@
 : Thank you for your input and help.  I shall take up on the advice and go to [[WP:RSN]].  Thanks to all who participated.  [[User:Chaipau|Chaipau]] ([[User talk:Chaipau|talk]]) 12:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
+* If consensus is not reached after requesting a [[Third Opinion]] and a [[Dispute Resolution]], the next steps seem to be
+# [[Wikipedia:Mediation|Mediation]] and if this fails too
+# [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Arbitration]]
+Read the related Wikipedia pages carefully for the correct procedure to follow.
+--[[User:H tan H epi tas|H tan H epi tas]] ([[User talk:H tan H epi tas|talk]]) 20:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 == BP ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards