Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:

Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

Open/close quick reference

To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Naseem Hamed	Closed	Mac Dreamstate (t)	13 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours
White Zimbabweans	In Progress	Katangais (t)	3 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours
Bernese Mountain Dog	In Progress	Traumnovelle (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 19 hours	Traumnovelle (t)	1 days, 6 hours
Macarons	Closed	62.211.155.242 (t)	2 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 19 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 03:46, 9 June 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

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Example case

Spore (2008 video game) (Example case)

(Example post)

Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)

Me and Example (talk · contribs) are having a bit of a dispute about an article, Spore (2008 video game). Some of the references in the article support the genre being a god game, others support the genre being a life simulation or a simulation game. I think we need to come with a way to have both listed in the article, as all references seem reliable.

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Steven Zhang (talk · contribs), Example (talk · contribs)

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

I have tried talking about the issue with Example on the article talk page, but I need some extra input on what I can do here to move forward with resolving this dispute, as there are numerous sources supporting the different genres.

What can we do to help resolve this issue?

Direct me to ways to resolve this dispute, or where I can get assistance in resolving the dispute. We need to come up with a compromise as how to move forward with the article. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....}

Discussion

Resolution

The dispute at hand seems to be to me that there are multiple possible genres to the article, and many sources backing up the different genres, however the issue of which genre best fits is still an issue. A mediation cabal case might be useful here, the assistance of a third party editor could assist in working out a compromise that works well. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....}

2011–12 FC Barcelona season

2011–12 FC Barcelona season (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?

Content dispute and edit war. The original content dispute involved the display of names in the section "Squad information". I (User: Digirami) changed it in favor of displaying the first and last name or a generally acceptable common name (a similar edit I have made to other articles); the other editor (User:Lafuzion) favored displaying what's on the back of the player's jersey. After a brief edit war, the dispute was taken to the talk page. Another editor (User:Vanadus) got involved in the discussion. That other editor and myself agreed on a resolution; Lafuzion did not, or did he provide much content-wise to discuss over. Upon continued insistence, the issue was taken again to the talk page, epsecially after Lafuzion changed the display of names to their full legal names and more continued reverts by him. Requests to the other editor to continue to take the issue to the talk page for more discussion (primarily to understand his reasoning) went nowhere. In addition to all this, the other editor reverts other edits made by myself to the article without any obvious explanation (perhaps spite). Invention is needed because it has reached a massive impasse.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Digirami (talk · contribs)
Lafuzion (talk · contribs)

On a side note, I'm quite aware that my actions at this points (edit warring and breaking 3RR) were wrong. It shouldn't have reached that level. I apologize for not behaving appropriate in respect to those actions. Digirami (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving the dispute

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

Taken the issue to the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Any way possible.

Digirami (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 FC Barcelona season 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 neutral in this dispute, having not heretofore participated in it and having no history, as far as I can recall, with any of the involved editors. I'd like to perhaps start by setting a foundation. WikiProject Football has a section that reads:

Manual of style

Guidelines and help pages for writing articles and other contributions.

Article

Manual of style for a few common types of article:

and when you click on the Club seasons manual of style link, it takes you to a sample page in which the player's names are listed in full. Though as discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Player_name_display_on_club_season_articles there are a few templates which direct the use of jersey names, those templates are not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Templates which says that it is "intended to be used as a guide on template standardization" and the squad templates which are listed there use, to the extent that there's any indication at all, full names. It would appear to me to be the standing consensus of the project that full names are to be used and that this ought to set the best practices standard across football articles. However, it has to be noted that none of the pages I've mentioned claim to be setting guidelines or policy and, moreover, the position of Wikipedia is that while uniformity between articles is a good thing to have, that it is not mandatory in most cases (including this one). In short, there are no policies or guidelines which require a particular result in this case, which means that it has to be decided by consensus on a case by case basis, but there is some consensus that the best practice is to include full names. Having read and evaluated the arguments, I note that the only substantive argument being made for the use of jersey names is that the full names are given in the team article and that there is no need for them to be repeated in the season article, but I find no argument presented as to why jersey names should be used in this article in particular. While there may or may not be some merit to the argument in general, it is an argument which would be better pursued at WikiProject Football or at MoS than at individual article pages, since the latter tends to disrupt Wikipedia far more than the former. (I also note that the issue has, indeed, been raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Player_name_display_on_club_season_articles, that it was to be so raised was mentioned at the talk page of this article, and that the editor in favor of the use of jersey names, Lafuzion, did not to express his opinion in that discussion, which further suggests that he/she was more interested in the use of jersey names in this particular article than in general but without expressing any reason to justify that preference.) I, therefore, believe that the best thing to do in this article would be to follow the established good practice of using full names in season articles and that the proposal that jersey names should be used in season articles ought to be made at a more generalized forum. The editors who have commented upon this matter are mostly in favor of using full names, with only Lafuzion in favor of use of jersey names. At something like 3 to 1, and with the weakness of Lafuzion's argument in respect to this article, that would appear to me to be a consensus. If, however, consensus has not already been clearly established in favor of using full names at this article, you may add my position in favor of that consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: While my opinion favors Digirami's position on this matter, and I give Digirama a modicum of credit for bringing this matter to dispute resolution, I would note for anyone who might be considering how much weight to give to his apology, above, for edit warring that since March 2009 he has been blocked twice for edit warring (both were in May 2010, with his request to lift the block refused in both instances) and has been warned 5 additional times about edit warring (4 times in 2009, once in 2011), with the most recent of those 5 having been (and not for 2011–12 FC Barcelona season) just on 29 July 2011. One hopes that his apology and use of DR in this case signals that he has amended his habits, but in light of his history I have not taken his apology into account in coming to the conclusions I've reached, above. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete waste of time. I don't even know why I bother but the article was fine w/o any changes and followed the format from past seasons.. I don't understand why we need to put the full name as this is an article concerning BARCELONA CURRENT SEASON. If I need further reading on a certain player then I'll just click on the link and be on my merry way. When you first click on FC Barcelona, all the player's full name are displayed. Once you're on the current season, there shouldn't be a need to repeat this information as it has not been done for the past seasons like here, here, here, here and here. If you look at the 2006–07, Giovanni van Bronckhorst is shown as Gio as it was shown on his jersey while playing for Barcelona. So the original way the names were displayed is following the format used in past season. La Fuzion (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It not just the names in the squad information. You revert a vast majority of my edits to that page for no apparent reason. I adjusted the transfer record to reflect that two players went to free agency and not a complete transfer from club to club: reverted. I display the full names of referees for matches (as is standard): reverted. I display the full names of stadium (as is standard), not just a simple nickname: reverted. I add template:sortname to the transfers list to better sort the player's name by their surname: reverted. I display the last names of scorers (as is standard) in box scores instead of what's on the jersey: reverted. Half of those edits I made because of a level of inconsistency within the page itself. In one section, the full names of referee is displayed, but not in another. Same goes for the stadiums and the use of the "location" parameter in the box scores (fortunately you warmed to that one). You display a high level of ownership when it comes to that page and that is really troubling. You also have to understand that just because things were done one way in previous seasons, doesn't mean it has to stay that way for subsequent season. Things we may have never thought about in previous season article come to light in the present and being willing to adjust to them is paramount. Digirami (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb si player p: player's name on jersey and link to his article and that's the template. La Fuzion (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As someone else has said, templates can change. They have, and it really should in this case (it has because, in a separate issue, there was also a big MOS:FLAG violation within the template). FC Barcelona proves how very inconsistent the practice of names on the back of the jersey is, something I'm sure the creator of the template never imagined. One player has his full name. The other his first name. Another his last name. Another his last name with first initial. Another his nickname. The practice of full/common name (i.e., first and last name) is far more consistent from player to player (granted, Brazilian for example are a large exception to that practice) and is far easier to understand.

And you never responded to the my concerns and reversion on other parts of the page. Digirami (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to have a discussion when the other editor seems to have abandoned it. Digirami (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 FC Barcelona season resolution

Is there any resolution? The other editor in dispute seems to have little interest in keeping this going. Digirami (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of his nonparticipation, there's not much more that can be done here. I'd say change it to full names and, if he reverts again, leave the reversion in place and take it to a request for comments or informal mediation and feel free to point to my opinion as a neutral. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well organized and follows the original template. I thought I made that clear when I added the link for it. I didn't know there was a need for me to spell it out. His counter argument is nonsense as he feels the way it is as not being good enough for him. If we're going to make changes then it should be to make the article better. No one has had a problem with how the template was/is since it was made. The same format has been followed from the first article to now and the sudden need for change is unwarranted. Like I've stated, this is an article on BARCELONA'S CURRENT SEASON and all the common names of players can be view on the main FC Barcelona article. La Fuzion (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I request that this be closed by another neutral due ~~to the discussion stalling~~ non-productive discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Amended from "stalled" to "nonproductive," but close still requested. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"non-productive discussion." from whom? Because I'm not agreeing to this silly request I'm "non-productive"? So if I had agreed, everything would be good and dandy and we're all best friends? La Fuzion (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yadav

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.

Yadav (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 articles concerning Yadav, an Indian caste, contains the sentence:

"However, their varna status is contested, as at times Yadavs have been labeled within the Shudra (cultivator) varna as "upper Shudra""

"Shudra" is a ritual classification in the Hindu varna system. It is apparently nowadays a deprecated word in the eyes of the government of India.

The statement is supported by four sources:

Bindeshwar Pathak (1 January 1992). Action sociology and development. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 119–. ISBN 9788170223191. Retrieved 22 May 2011.
Sandria B. Freitag (1989). Culture and power in Banaras: community, performance, and environment, 1800-1980. University of California Press. pp. 122–. ISBN 9780520063679. Retrieved 22 May 2011.
Norman Gerald Barrier (1981). The Census in British India: new perspectives. Manohar. Retrieved 22 May 2011.
Sabyasachi Bhattacharya (2002). Education and the disprivileged: nineteenth and twentieth century India. Orient Blackswan. pp. 54–. ISBN 9788125021926. Retrieved 22 May 2011.

MangoWong and Bill clinton history both believe that the sentence should be removed and have done so several times, of which the more recent include here, here, and here.

It is the assertion of those contributors that the sentence is "misleading" and that consensus for removal has been obtained via this talk page thread. Bill clinton history has produced various sources which they claim demonstrate that the caste belonged to a different ritual group & that this means the caste could not belong to the shudra group.

Three users involved in that thread - Sitush, MatthewVanitas & Qwyrxian - hold the opinion that the statement is reasonably sourced, that more sources could be forthcoming, that the sources for the alternative ritual group are far from perfect (SYNth, OR, unreliable, PRIMARY etc) and that there is no consensus for removal. They have also asked MangoWong and Bill clinton history whether there is any preferred wording, and across various similar articles in which all of these users are involved it has been suggested that both classifications could be mentioned provided both are reliably sourced etc.

A game of ping-pong has ensued. - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

This particular issue has recently existed on several other caste articles, notably Kurmi

Resolving the dispute

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

Talk page

How do you think we can help?

Is the sentence suitably sourced? Is there consensus for its removal? Is it a reasonable depiction of the sources?

Sitush (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yadav discussion

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

Request for clarification: Who said where that "consensus" for removal has been obtained?-MangoWong (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and we're off. Straight in with the lawyering & pedantry. See edit summary of Bill clinton history's removal referred to above. Plus, it is sort of implicit in your own removals of the content, which had existed in the article for some time prior to your involvement. Now, please can we concentrate on the matter at hand since even if neither of you had claimed consensus, I am asking whether there is consensus for your actions. Qwyrxian has said that there is no such consensus in a user talk page thread that you have responded to, and you have misrepresented my own point on the issue in the article talk page thread. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the assertion of those contributors that the sentence is "misleading" and that consensus for removal has been obtained via this talk page thread. You are clearly saying that myself or User:Bill clinton history hold that consensus for removal has been obtained. I do not think that such a consensus has been obtained. Looking into Bill's edit summary, here I think User:Bill clinton history is saying that consensus has been obtained that the sentence needs some modification and is improper in its present form. That means, neither me not User:Bill clinton history thinks that consensus for removal has been obtained. As such, your claim that both of us assert that consensus for removal has been obtained is false. If you misrepresent other folks view, and would not allow requests for clarifications, and launch into accusations of lawyering & pedantry just because of a request for a clarification, it becomes hard to concentrate on the meaningful issues. And I never misrepresented you. Trying to define what I make of what you said is not misrepresentation of your views. Please hold back on your accusations for a while.-MangoWong (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like both of you could use a cup of tea. Can we focus on the content issues? --Nuujinn (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hating to be disagreeable (and maybe this just isn't the place for behavioral issues), but the above comment from MW. There is no way to read Bill clinton history's edit summary as anything other than a direct statement that xe believes that there is consensus to remove. This type of statement is common, and is one of the key problems: someone makes a statement that is pretty clear and unambiguous, and then they or someone else says, "No that's not what we meant".

As for the content dispute, the broad issue is how to deal with deciding what to put in Wikipedia. The best examples of the back and forth can be seen in Talk:Yadav#Kshtriya. Bill clinton has fundamentally rejected the entire line, but has provided very little specific concerns for what is wrong with the line or the sources that support it. However, the only specific objection xe has raised is that each of the sources deals with only a part of India, even though the sources do collectively cover a very wide area and the statement in the article doesn't make any sort of dramatic, overall claims. When Sitush has pressed the issue, Bch provide no further information to say why the sources are bad, don't meet RS, or whatever. MW has, generally, fallen back on "the claim is misleading", with little specifics. The issue is complicated by the fact that MW seems to believe (though with varying degrees of commitment) that we should be able to point to a single, specific quotation from an article to verify every point, even though that is not a WP requirement. In fact, it's very often better to take the whole of what a source says, in a paragraph, page, or chapter, and summarize that into encyclopedic level detail. This is especially true since MW and others have been known to pick out quotes from passages that say, "Person A said X is true", and then want to include X in the article, even though the rest of the source either says that A is unreliable, or that A's theories are no longer generally accepted, or whatever.

It has been quite difficult to make forward progress, because it seems very hard to pin down exactly what problems MW, Bch, or others have, even though they refuse to move past their claims that there are problems or that they've already fully explained. So I guess what we need is, here, for Bch and MW to explain very clearly and carefully why those 4 sources don't meet WP:RS, or WP:DUE, or are being improperly synthesized, or we're misinterpreting them, or whatever they think is wrong. It needs to be more specific than "its misleading" or "the conclusion is wrong". And if they would like to re-raise their own sources, then we could, one more time, explain exactly what problems we find in those sources, and then (if those claims are valid), there would be no more recourse of "but we have lots of sources". Qwyrxian (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, Assume Good Faith unless you'd rather have it not be assumed on your behalf. Hasteur (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please allow me to get to the content issues. The first of our sources is Bindeshwar Pathak. This guy does not seem to be a Professor and seems to be a social worker. In his book, there is a table [1] about castes in Bihar and classifies Yadavs as Shu***. The book seems to give no reasons for concluding that Yadavs are S*****. So, NOT professor, does NOT talk about Yadavs in general (is only talking about Yadavs in Bihar) , does NOT establish what it says about Yadavs. I discount this source entirely for these reasons.

The second book is by Sandria B. Frietag. It is not about caste etc. at all. It is about Benaras, a city in India. It has a passing comment where it talks about a single Yadav person being associated with the Shu*** varna. And it says this within a bracket.[2] The book is NOT “on topic”, does NOT go on to establish what it says about Yadavs, and only has a passing comment. I discount this source because of these reasons.

Nobody seems to know what the third book says. So let’s leave it.

The fourth book is by Sabyasachi Bhattacharya. This book is also off topic. It lists Yadavs in Andhra Pradesh (a state in India) as Shu*** 1901, 1911, 1921, 1931. The table is principally about literacy rates.[3] So, this book too does NOT go on to establish what it says about Yadavs. Does NOT say anything about Yadavs in general, (only about Yadavs in Andhra Pradesh in various historical times.) I discount this source because of these reasons.

So, we do not have any “on topic” scholarly source which establishes that Yadavs as a community are S*****.

From these sources, we have drawn this generalization about all Yadavs…."However, their varna status is contested, as at times Yadavs have been labeled within the Shudra (cultivator) varna as "upper Shudra"…."

I think this is completely misleading because we do not have any scholarly source saying anything like this about Yadavs as a caste/community. What we have is passing comments/ baseless conclusions from off topic sources, about Yadavs in one or two places, and at some particular times. Our own material is talking about Yadavs in general. So, what we have is a giant generalization, i.e. a synthesis. Nothing else. There is no source which is talking about Yadavs in general. Yadavs are spread over a large number of states in India. Not just in Benaras(city)/ Andhra Pradesh(state). Secondly, I have already said that the first source is a non professor, and nobody seems to know what the third says. That leaves the second and the fourth source only. I have already said that both of these are off topic books. They do not say what the article says. Do not show any basis for what they say. What we have is a synthesis. It is misleading. It should be deleted.-MangoWong (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pathak is a sociologist with a PhD who has spent the last few years working in the area of social reform. He has had at least one festchrift published in his honour and just take a look at GScholar.

Freitag is published by California University Press, the book in question is about a large place and over a long period of time (1800-1980). Her GScholar search shows this & she has been Executive Director of the American Historical Association, the announcement for which post gives a lot more background about her.

Bhattacharya is more difficult to pin down as the name is rather common, but GScholar for the name shows this, some of which are clearly irrelevant. The book in question was the outcome of a university conference. I am fairly sure that they are/ were a professor, given the dates of publication of various books shown at GBooks.

I & others have previously explained to you that we do not dismiss sources just because we do not have them. Barrier is obtainable. Indeed, I obtained a chapter from it only a couple of days ago via WP:RX. I know that the person who sent me that chapter actually has a copy of the book in their possession, so I can chase this up.

One of the beauties of this range of sources - which, by the way, appear to be only a small selection from the many available - is precisely the variety of academic angles which all are stating the same thing, ie: Yadav are/were shudra in the varna system. Yes, it is true that none of them cover the entire of India; but it is equally true that between them they cover different, disparate areas and I did suggest (but you ignored) perhaps changing the wording oh-so-slightly so that it said, for example, "at some times and in some places ..." I would rather not do that because it is vague but it seemed to be a possible solution.

It has been explained to you on several occasions that it is not necessary for reliable sources to be specifically devoted to the subject matter of the article, although it helps. In many cases, this is simply not possible and if we applied your rationale of strict topicality to every statement in every article then the number of words at Wikipedia would drop perhaps 80% and the articles would mostly be stubs.

You have for a long time admitted that your desire is to see the word "shudra" removed from every article on Wikipedia because "it is a lie". This POV is what is causing most of the problems, as you have been shown time and again numerous sources which use the term over a prolonged period and over a fair range of castes etc. The fact that it is a banned word in India (supposedly, although the government seem to use it) has no relevance to WP, which is not censored. You are allowing your dislike of the word - which was a formal ritual rank - to cloud your judgement even though you seem not to object to mentioning the other three ranks in the varna system.

Do you want me to list some more sources? I did this for you at Kurmi but you still refused to accept the point even though there were uninvolved people who thought it was clearly notable and clearly relevant. Can I assume that you will be more receptive to the weight of reliable opinion on this occasion? This, btw, Hasteur, is one reason why AGF is running a bit thin: people have bent over backwards to work with MW. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three more, for your edification:

Singh, Kumar Suresh; Bhanu, B. V. (2004). People of India: Maharashtra. Volume 30 of People of India. Vol. 3. Anthropological Survey of India. Popular Prakashan. p. 1971. ISBN 9788179911020.
Bayly, Susan (2001). Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. The New Cambridge History of India. Vol. 3. Cambridge University Press. p. 209. ISBN 9780521798426.
Sharma, Shalendra D. (1999). Development and democracy in India. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 173. ISBN 9781555878108.

Note that this now brings Maharashtra into the picture, along with the existing Andra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Banares. And that the Maharashtra source is under the auspices of the Anthropological Survey of India. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some further investigation on Bindeshwar Pathak. The life mission of Bindeshwar Pathak is around promoting some new type of TOILET design!!!! That he has a PhD does not make him an RS on anything. Being a professor is only a nursery hurdle, and this source does not pass that even.

That Frietag is an office bearer of AHA does not make her an RS on anything. Getting elected as an office bearer depends more on how energetic one is, social skills, etc. Most of her works are around communal/religious issues etc. not about caste at all. In any case, the particular book is about a CITY, i.e. off topic. What she is says is a passing comment, about a single individual in a single city, and occurs within a bracket. There is no way we can draw a giant generalization from it. The whole book and the particular phrase are trash grade source for that article and for the material in question.

If you are not even sure who this Sabyasachi Bhattacharya is, why are you even talking about him/her? Sabyasachi Bhattacharya too is only making a sort of passing comment, and it is only in a table of literacy rates in Andhra Pradesh in the period 1901-31. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya is saying something about LITERACY RATES. Caste is not his/her issue at all. Yadavs being x/y Varna is not his/her point. The book is also off topic. No chance of drawing a giant generalization from this source. Since we do not even know who this Sabyasachi Bhattacharya is, there is no way of knowing what his/her field may be. Just drop it. Don’t waste other people’s time talking about passing comments from off topic sources whose expertise is unknown.

Since the rest of the three sources are trash, it is good reason to assume that the fourth source must also be trash+ is being used for synthesis. Until you show what it says, it is trash. “Yes, it is true that none of them cover the entire of India; but it is equally true that between them they cover different, disparate areas…” That you say this much is enough to establish that you guys are doing synthesis. We cannot make an India wide generalization from disparate sources. End of matter. Beat it.

“Three more, for your edification.” This page is meant for discussions, not for teaching anything to anybody. I do not need to learn anything from googlers who can only do synthesis on passing comments from random sources with dubious/unproven credentials. If you want to teach, you should get yourself an assignment with some university. Otherwise, when you log onto WP, please keep your teaching instincts zipped up. You can delete the comment which you think can be edifying for me. I don’t need it.-MangoWong (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user:Fowler&fowler: This dispute seems to be taking place on a number of Wikipedia Hindu caste related pages. Although at first I was dismissive of what Mango Wong and Thisthat2011 were saying, I am now more sympathetic to their point of view. I feel that Sitush (and party) are not seeing the forest for the trees. They have, to be sure, marshalled a few sources that seem to suggest that caste X is "shudra," but the citations are usually taken out of context. A good example is Susan Bayly's book, which I have just finished reading (and which is still sitting on my desk as I type this). Bayly says that the Kurmi (like the Yadav and many other communities) were free cultivators well into the early nineteenth century. In the middle decades of the century, some land-owning upper classes attempted to label them "shudra" for various social, economic, and political reasons. But it not was a label that the Kurmi ever accepted themselves. (William Pinch (see below) makes the same point.) It is inaccurate to say that Susan Bayly says anywhere that the Kurmi are "shudra," which was the implication that Sitush (and party?) had inserted in the Kurmi lead (citing page 209!) until I removed it. I am now reading William Pinch's Peasant's and monks in British India. Although I have only read 70 odd pages, I can already tell that Pinch has been quoted out of context by Sitush (and party?) in the Kurmi article. We live in an age in which there are sources for the most outlandish assertions. We need to be careful with a topic like "caste." It is a complicated and sensitive topic. Finding a few sources doesn't prove anything. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS Since we are talking about "edification," here is the first paragraph of the first chapter of Susan Bayly's book, Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age.

Caste is not and never has been a fixed fact of Indian life. Both caste as varna (the fourfold scheme of idealised moral archetypes) and caste as jati (smaller-scale birth-groups) are best seen as composites of ideals and practices that have been made and remade into varying codes of moral order over hundreds or even thousands thousands of years. The context for this fluidity has been the subcontinent's remarkable diversity in culture and physical environment, and above all the diversity of its states and political systems. Those conventions of rank and corporate essence that are often seen as the defining features of caste, have been shaped, critiqued and reconstituted in all sorts of ways, both century by century and region by region.

Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make this clear: I have added no citations to either Kurmi or Yadav regarding the shudra position. I re-used one existing citation in Kurmi when MangoWong asked for a citation in its infobox but they are not my sources. I, too, have read many of the sources listed but have already stated that some of them (eg: Barrier) are not available to me. I maintain that numerous people have noted Yadavs as being of the shudra caste; I also maintain that this does not mean that any alternative points of view cannot be added also, if there are RS for these points.

I have always accepted that there is/was fluidity in varna and that, for example, there are even historic debates regarding what constitutes caste (eg: Crooke vs Risley); this does not alter specific examples if those specific examples are defined in the RS. Bayly's introduction is not a specific example but I have previously stated that it would be good in a general article on caste/varna.

Also note that I have pointed out that the phrase used in Yadav includes the words "at times" and I did suggest an amendment - repeated above - that should satisfy the synthesis issue that MangoWong claims to exist. Finally, MW, lay off the "googlers" accusations, please. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for Fowler&fowler: you state (quite fairly) that "finding a few sources doesn't prove anything". This is a sensitive subject, you're right. However, Wikipedia's usual rule is to decide things based on what reliable sources say. If looking at sources in detail, considering the context of those claims, and ensuring the sources used meet WP:RS, what then, is necessary to establish verification in this case, in your opinion? I'm a little worried that in our desire to be "sensitive to complexities" we may instead end up saying nothing, which is not what we should be doing as an encyclopedia. As a side note, I actually have never encountered an editor who reads sources in more detail and greater length then Sitush, so I think your claims about him aren't accurate; and his use of sources is far better than others in the caste articles who have literally said that they don't need to read anything other than the snippet view of something--no context is needed if an exact quote says something, even if a page later it says the exact opposite. I'm not accusing any specific editor of that, because I honestly don't remember which caste/clan/jati articles specifically and which editors did this, but I do know if has been a very common problem facing Sitush and Matthewvanitas at many of these articles (that, and the desire to rely on primary sources or sources that have been subsequently rejected by modern historians). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not suggesting that what was in place before you, Sitush and Matthew Vanitas ran a red pen through the articles was correct or should be brought back. I am also not suggesting that we should not use the word "shudra" or should censor what the predominance of sources say. I am (obviously) also not suggesting that the various editors who had edited the caste-related articles before Sitsh, MV and you were in the right. Obviously, it is wrong to rely on primary sources (or very old secondary sources); obviously, it is wrong to claim that legendary origins need to be treated as any more than legend. However, I am suggesting that you all have got both Susan Bayly and William Pinch wrong. Sitush cited Susan Bayly (page 209) in his last reply to Mango Wong ("for your edification"). I am suggesting that he got it wrong, notwithstanding your assessment of him. I am saying that one can't get three or four sources and make a blanket assertion about as complex a topic as caste and then stick it in the lead to balance exaggerated claims that have been put in there by other people. I am saying that an article on an ethnic group should have all kinds of information (history, population, customs, language, ...); we can't make it about "caste" and then spend 3 months upping the ante, sort of like Hynkel and Napoloni at the barber shop in Chaplin's Great Dictator. In other words, the best solution is to move the caste discussion out of the lead (and the infobox) into a section, or even a subsection. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where it goes is not the point of this discussion. The point of this discussion is whether it exists. MW appears fundamentally to be saying that it should not exist at all, which is their usual position because any mention of "shudra" is wrong in their opinion; Bill clinton believed that there was consensus for removal. I think that you are aware of the reasons why it is positioned where it is, which is basically that it was inherited from past, totally unsubstantiated claims regarding Yadavs being in another varna classification altogether & which, as usual, were the subject of inter-caste edit warring over a prolonged period.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, I have read Bayly but I have not read all of Pinch because it is not all available to me. Since the words "caste", "varna" and "shudra" should be linked, any general discussion can be deferred to the article that deals with the generality. All of which, I am pretty sure, probably also need some solid input from people who are detached from the subject. I include you, F&f, in that category. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop lying. User:Bill clinton history never said that. And what I hold is for me to define. And I am going to edit these articles. These articles do need input from eds with an Indian background. You can't keep eds with Indian background away from India related articles. Its a stupid wish.-MangoWong (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then please will you define your position? As you have removed the content on several occasions and have in the recent past stated that the shudra term should not exist in any article, are you saying that is not a subtext here? In other words, if the sources are found to be reliable etc then will you be content? - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already defined my views on the matter in my comment 07:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC). You can read it again if you want. The material in question is rubbish. If you find some other sources, they too are likely to get examined by myself. You can't extract any promises from me. If I make a promise now, it may be possible that someone might claim that their new set of sources (which are also all results of googling and are being used to perform synthesis on passing comments) are OK, but MW is breaking earlier promises by objection to them. If you can get proper sourcing and write something in keeping with other policies, we will see. Until then, this material should be deleted because it is a synthesis and is misleading.-MangoWong (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another source, which is one of many that discuss how caste orthodoxy is being replaced by caste orthopraxy (to use the words of Myron Weiner):

Gupta, Dipankar (October 2005). "Caste and Politics: Identity Over System". The Annual Review of Anthropology. 34: 409–427. {{cite journal}}: line feed character in |title= at position 29 (help)

The author is/was of the Center for the Study of Social Systems, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University. I am not a great fan of quoting abstracts but the one for this is perhaps illuminating:

To integrate conceptually the relationship between caste and politics, one must appreciate that the pure ritual hierarchy operates only when backed by wealth and power. In fact, there are multiple hierarchies in the caste order because each caste overvalues itself in relation to others. This can be gauged from their origin tales, which, without exception, claim an exalted past regardless of the actual status a caste occupies on the ground.

With regard to the specific issue of Yadavs and the way in which they have become politically astute (or, at least, a few of their leaders have), the author points out that:

Also in North India, traditional peasant castes that were classified as lowly shudras, according to Brahmannical ranking, were forming their own associations to press for their rightful status under British rule. The Kurmi Caste Association, for example, was set up as early as 1890 in Lucknow, and the Ahir-Yadava Mahasabha began in 1919.

- Sitush (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, Qwyrxian, and MatthewVanitas: Have been a total time waste, and don't understand a squat about Hindu Castes. Their immediate priority is to put Shudra in certain castes articles in the lede. Till now everyone has been dealing with this humongous waste of time, but it's gone too far. Anyone else trying to correct these guys is either abused to the point of madness, or is labelled WP:Tendentious. I fail to understand why these guys are not getting topic banned from editing caste related articles. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me instances where I have put the varna stuff into the lede of any caste article, other than by reverting unexplained removals of cited content or removals that do not appear to have consensus. Even on Paravar, which I pretty much totally rewrote, the information was there prior to my editing the article. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not going to be topic banned because nobody is going to take any action against them regardless of the number of misrepresentations, misleading statements, cherry picked statements they put into numerous articles and regardless of the number of articles which stink because of them and regardless of the number of policies they violate daily. And Sitush, you ARE responsible for everything you insert. And you ARE also responsible for everything you reinsert, even if you are not the original contributor of that material. You can't escape that responsibility.-MangoWong (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic banned? For supporting WP:NPOV and WP:RS? Yes, that is unlikely. However, if you can point to any specific place where I have broken policy, I will be happy to meet you in the forum (WP:ANI, WP:AN, etc.) of your choice. Also, MangoWong, please don't attempt to remove the information from the article while discussion is on going here. The whole point is that we have a dispute that we're trying to resolve; edit-warring during that process is, well, not really helping the resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your view is not in keeping with NPOV and the sourcing policy is WP:V, not WP:RS, and the present sourcing is not in keeping with either of them. Why do you reinsert misleading information repeatedly? You still sure it is non-misleading? Please also see WP:DRNC. If you want to revert, please show something more meaningful than "no consensus".-MangoWong (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess it wasn't clear. Yes, I consider the information to not be misleading, as those sources do appear to pass muster to me, along with the additional ones that Sitush is providing. Please self-revert; I don't know how we can have a civil discussion if you are going to edit war on the article at the same time. To clarify, for those not watching the article, MangoWong has used the mere existence of this DRN as grounds to remove the information from the article (or is perhaps asserting that the claims made here someone prove xyr point, which they do not). So far, MangoWong has offered no alternative phrasing and has rejected RS on highly specious grounds. My understanding is that this is because for MangoWong, it is prima facie true that Yadav were not Shudra, and that the term Shudra should never be used any more under any circumstance. In other words, I don't believe that it is possible to satisify MW's concerns, since, by definition, any source which uses the term must be unreliable by xyr standards. I really don't know what we can do to advance the discussion under these circumstances. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material is WP:SYNTHESIS. This is basic WP policy. If the material cannot pass muster, it must fall because of that reason alone. The other proposed sentence is also synthesis. So, that too is unacceptable. If this material is against WP policies, it is not my fault. It is unreasonable for you to blame me for the material failing to pass WP policy requirements. I am entitled to challenge the material per WP policies. Discussing the new sources or finding some new material is not within the mandate of this DRN process. Look at the starting posts by Sitush. This DRN is meant to decide only whether the present sources are OK for the material or not. They are not. They fail WP:SYNTHESIS. If my view be correct, the material should be deleted. ASAT. And I have already explained that those sources are rubbish for the material in question. You have not even cared to counter my objections by showing how my objections are wrong. If you want to propose new sources and new wording, it should be done separately.-MangoWong (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC) This DRN process is only about the current material and sources in question. I am not going to discuss any new sources or material within this DRN process.-MangoWong (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modus Operandi of the said group:

Start irritating users by baseless and senseless comments. Once the user is irritated, they can be brought to ANI. See examples here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kurmi#Importance_of_Legendary_Origins.2F_Mythological_Section

Notable quotes by Sitush:-

- "forget the Bible and those prompting you behind the scenes, as I suspect that they might be doing"
- "I merely said that I think you are misguided if it is going on and you are dancing to that tune"

Work as a team to make sure no one else is able to put any word in the article i.e. improve the article

Sitush makes an edit on the main article with the following comments: "I don't think this is 3RR but I am not taking a chance on it - someone else will be along shortly,"

Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurmi&offset=20110807024721&action=history

And can someone guess who is the someone else who shows up:- our friend Qwyrxian. Well, what a team work!

(cur | prev) 00:31, 7 August 2011 Qwyrxian (talk | contribs) (30,222 bytes) (→Legendary origins: Please summarize this--we cannot just drop long quotes into an article. see talk) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:15, 7 August 2011 Sitush (talk | contribs) (33,326 bytes) (Undid revision 443427856 by Sitush (talk) self-revert: I don't think this is 3RR but I am not taking a chance on it - someone else will be along shortly, no doubt) (undo)

I am sorry to say, but the entire India related articles are stinking due to such a great team work by Sitush, MatthewVanitas, and Qwyrxian.

Anyone with a different view is POV pusher, sock puppet, meat puppet, etc. Get the other guys blocked due to one or the other silly reason. You MUST have a policy that editors should report suspected cases on ANI etc. rather than running to 'friendly admins'. Sitush is an expert in getting the attention of 'friendly admins'. WHY? How can this be allowed. Is this correct approach. Let me know

It is good for Wiki to look into such issues. Enough has been said, now ACT! Nameisnotimportant (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have managed to work out what I think are the relevant pages from the Barrier source cited in the statement at present. I have requested a scan of the entire chapter from the book but, of course, it is the weekend and things may be delayed. MangoWong, as was recently explained to you at WP:RSN, we do not just dismiss a source without at least trying to work out what intent existed in citing it. This one clearly mentions "upper Shudra" in connection with Yadavs but I need the entire chapter in order to sort out the context etc. Although I would not use them to support this particular statement, there are instances of court cases reflecting the shudra point. One that I have just come across again is quoted in Galanter, Marc (2007) [1968]. "Changing legal conceptions of caste". In Singer, Milton; Cohn, Bernard S. (eds.). Structure and Change in Indian Society (Reprinted ed.). Transaction Publishers. p. 305. ISBN 9780202361383., the editors of which are both profs. of anthropology. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to find out the relevant page numbers, and get to look at the contents of Barrier, why don't you request the original contributor? That contributor must be knowing full well about the page numbers and contents of this book. The original contributor seems to have devoted a FULL 120 seconds of time in finding+ reading+ formatting the ref for this cite. They must know all about this ref?-MangoWong (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did; you didn't. Happen I like to be a constructive contributor. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedian whom I know to have a copy of the book has just replied to my request for a scan, saying that they'll sort it out for us but are away until around Thursday 18th. - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and the original contributor?-MangoWong (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion did not even paying attention the points i have raised on yadav talk page.i am again saying this conclusion and intermixing of ancient concept with modern yadav and seprate yadav/yadava article are making yadav topic completely useless and historically wrong.Bill clinton history (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it very difficult to continue this discussion. Despite the fact that those lines have been in the article for the long time, Bill clinton history continues to remove the lines despite clear, direct objections to his removal, based on specific policies. Bill, you cannot "force" your way on Wikipedia. I understand that you think that there are problems with those lines. The way we solve that problem is via discussion. A number of your concerns have already been discussed. For example, your claim that the sources are about a limited area have been shown wrong, as sources have been provided for many different parts of India. I don't understand this last claim you've made; I think you're saying that ancient Yadav and modern Yadav are different...well, of course they are. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss both in the same article. But we cannot do that while you continue to try to dominate the article by reverting over and over again the same lines, or by bringing in a new editor to do the reverts for you. I really feel like you're not actually trying to work through a discussion here, that you insist that no matter what we decide, demonstrate, or prove, you are absolutely right and your version my be retained in the article. That's not going to lead to a successful resolution of this dispute. Are you willing to discuss the issue here, and stop reverting on the article? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Qwyrxian. A sign of positive intent regarding this would be if you self-reverted your last removal of the content, Bill. I reverted for you but then decided to leave it to someone else because it put me at three reverts in < 24 hours - and since then someone else has come along and changed something else despite a clear consensus on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, your claim that the sources are about a limited area have been shown wrong, as sources have been provided for many different parts of India. What Bill has been saying is RIGHT. And there is no question of allowing synthesis.-MangoWong (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, what did the original contributor say about the page numbers and contents of Barrier?-MangoWong (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original contributor did not give any details about the page numbers and contents of Barrier?-MangoWong (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original contributor vanished?-MangoWong (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MR.Qwyrxian you are again ignoring and misrepresenting my points and sources.i have never said modern yadav different from ancient yadavs.but infact while reading Yadava topic from barious sources i find them same and as continous stream of history without any break.Yadavas from ancient period always considered chandravanshi kshtriya and in modern period only those writer label them shudra which dissatisfied from there reservation policy for social justice.

My point is if you apply religeous text based varna system concept from ancient period than how can you make conclusion based on these modern sociologist who's views themselves affected by modern political situation in india.and they make conclusion without any bases.

i thanks Sitush and MW for this healthy debate.i am completely agree with the point that we first reach consensus on this topic and then edit in article.Bill clinton history (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, the lead already mentions the Kshatriya claim and this was done in the interests of balance. However, as you, I and others have discussed time and again, this is just a claim by the Yadavs themselves. Few people other than Yadavs recognise it as valid, although presumably they got a tame Brahmin on board somewhere along the line in order to "prove" the descent from a mythological background (the Lunar Dynasty). The claim arises from exactly the same socio-political movement as occurred with numerous other castes from around 1890 and is commonly thought to be a direct consequence of Risley's definition of the system, which culminated in the classifications used in the 1901 Census. Regardless, there is nothing at all wrong with an article showing both this claim and the opinion of modern academics etc. As a project, we need to show all sides - subject to the usual policy/guideline provisos - & not just the one that a particular group likes. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, there is nothing at all wrong with an article showing both this claim and the opinion of modern academics etc. There is a lot wrong when one performs WP:SYNTHESIS. As a project, we need to show all sides - subject to the usual policy/guideline provisos - & not just the one that a particular group likes. Right. We don't need to perform WP:SYNTHESIS and violate WP:V to pour in hundreds of instances of a word which a particular group loves.-MangoWong (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,again you are only focusing time period of last 100 years.around 1890AD there was a socio-political movements in yadavas of mainly Uttar Pardesh and Bihar.but yadavs found in every part of india with various names.and time period of just 100 years is only a small component of there history of more than 3000 years old history.so social status in varna system should be decided from entire history strted from around 1500BC when they first mentioned as vedic tribe of aryan.

the present article has very narrow and wrong approach towards yadavs history.i am working on this topic from various sources.i have already shows sources on talk page how yadavas in different time period and in different region established their kingdoms and greatly contributing in the culture of india.but i found in this article that we are only focusing on last hundread years.section like caste politics again i find very strange in article.how can you blame a single community for caste politics in india.this is completely wrong.in india every politicle parties involves in caste politics right from the beginning of electoral process in india.

so this article needs complete reform.we should not mention material from last 100 years based on these baised journalist and sociologist which has no historical relevance.they are only part of a political propaganda.

we should rely on proper historical sources from ancient india to modern india about yadavas.18:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill clinton history (talk • contribs)

Bill, you have been told on the article talk page what this discussion relates to. The rest of the article is pretty much irrelevant to this process. Your kshatriya point was borderline, but your last message is for the most part way outside the topic. Take a look at the start of this discussion point, where the parameters are set out: that is what this process relates to, otherwise we would end up asking people watching here to review the entire articles and that is a big ask. The way you are approaching this article and others akin to it reminds me very much of Ancient indian historian, & related socks who worked on pretty much the same subjects & in the same way. Keeping discussion focussed makes for better outcomes as a rule.

Mango, everyone has seen your synthesis line here & I'd guess that most people are now aware of your general desire to remove the shudra word from articles, regardless of the grounds. I don't think it likely that you have to keep repeating it, unless of course you are actually going to advance the point in some way. I know that you think you know policy & are keen to advise new contributors etc. We will find out in due course whether you are correct or not. It would be easier if you were prepared to co-operate but you have said that you are not willing to look at additional sources etc for the sentence under discussion, which seems a little cynical to me given that sources are central to this entire issue. However, if you want to opt out of a process then there is nothing I can do about that. I do accept that the additional source do not form part of the current statement but, of course, if they are not challenged here then it is quite possible that they may be used as well as or instead of the existing sources.

Both of you, please re-read what the lead says. It does not say that Yadavs at all times and in all places were considered to be shudra, although I think that there is a preponderance of evidence pointing to that. Since it does not say that, arguments about synthesis are simply irrelevant. Each source stands alone for the statement it makes.

I have offered a tentative proposal to ameliorate the issue still further but for some reason you do not want to collaborate in this way. I find that to be disappointing. At an extreme, we could even say "modern scholars variously commenting on issues in Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, A, B, C, X, Y and Z, have referred to Yadavs as being shudra", but it starts to get unwieldy. The Barrier book will most likely confirm that the term was used in Bihar also, but we'll have to wait for the scan to turn up in order to confirm.

Does anyone actually know what the distribution of Yadavs is in India? There has been no caste census since before World War 2 but my gut feeling from general reading around various caste issues is that UP,, AP and Bihar are the dominant areas & have been for a very long time. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read my last post. Just in case someone gets the wrong end of the stick, in the above I am not accusing Bill clinton history of socking. There is a significant difference between that contributor and Ancient indian historian, which is that the latter generally refused to communicate. My apologies to Bill if anyone thought otherwise after reading my message. My point was that this is old territory and that the similarities in viewpoint/method/articles of interest etc might make it worth Bill's while to read up on what has gone on in the past. If I did think Bill was socking then, believe me, I would have filed an SPI; oddly, the only SPI to show no connection of the many that I have filed involved one of the other contributors here. I apologised immediately. - Sitush (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush. Your above comment looks hypocritical to me. Within that comment, you are accusing Bill of various things because Bill is talking OUTSIDE the parameters of this discussion, but accuse me of being uncooperative because I am staying INSIDE the parameters of this discussion. You accuse me of wanting to take down that word, while it is well known that you guys are generally obsessed with inserting and reinserting as many instances of that word as possible, in as many articles as possible and by whatever means possible. I have mostly neglected to deny your accusations because I want to avoid having the discussion lose focus. It does not mean that your accusations are correct. Will you hold the accusationavalanche and focus on the meaningful issues at hand? I have to keep repeating the points about synthesis because I want the discussion to stay focused on content issues and within the parameters of this discussion.-MangoWong (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC) We have one sentence, and four sources to examine. Please focus on that only.-MangoWong (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If things are to progress then people need to drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. That is why I have proposed things both here and on the article talk page and why I have found more sources to substantiate what currently exists. Just repeating yourself is unlikely to be conducive to a solution, in my experience. Sure, I don't entirely feel that I need to compromise & would rather not, but I am willing to explore options in the interests of collaborative editing etc. I have no idea if the options are realistic & they do pain me somewhat, but at least I am trying to develop the issues. You have demonstrated an absolute unwillingness to collaborate in this discussion. That is your right, of course. We will get nowhere if we all just keep repeating the same personal mantra. It may be that the additional sources sway things, it may be that alternative wording sways things; whatever, something needs to be swayed & whether that comes from me or someone else does not really matter. But I am trying, in good faith. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose alternative sources and alternative wordings, you can always do so on the article talk page. It is not desirable that we examine extraneous issues here ( I think you are likely to dump ten/twenty sources here and want me to examine them. If all of them them turn out to be cherry picking/ misrepresentations/ synthesis, etc. I would immediately find myself straddled with another twenty sources obtained from googlebooks. Bill too seems to have a dozen or so sources which need to be examined.) This page is not meant for things like that. If you accept that the present sentence is a synthesis, we can scrap it and end this discussion. Then get on the article talk page and propose whatever you want to propose. If we still disagree, come back here. No need to extend the scope of the present DRN process endlessly. OK?-MangoWong (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not synthesis. You are misunderstanding, perhaps because you appear to be fairly new to WP. I have explained & Qwryxian, at least, seems to agree. Perhaps Fowler&fowler to some extent also, although there are provisos. There is absolutely no reason why one sentence should have to ping-pong between WP:DRN and Talk:Yadav umpteen times. If the sentence needs to be amended then so be it, but removal is not an option because there are reliable sources for retention of the basic point (and, as you have suggested, there may well be more on the way). Let's get it sorted, right here, right now. I am fed up of the incessant warring & dealing with your POV. Let's try some diplomacy instead. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, alternative wordings were suggested on the article talk page. You were not interested then and appear not to be interested now. Your own talk page speaks volumes, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is synthesis. It is synthesis. It is synthesis. The alternative was also a synthesis. You and others have been reinserting synthesis umpteen times in direct violation of WP:V. You have no respect for WP's core policies. To my way of thinking, deleting synthesis is a very logical and viable option. I see no reason to keep synthesis. Deleting it is a good option. You have reinserted it again. Please go and delete it. I am not going to discuss alternative sentences and alternatives sources in this DRN process. It is outside the scope of this DRN, it will take volumes of talk page space, and should be done on the article talk page. It is likely that all the new sentences which you propose will also be synthesis/ misrepresentations/ cherry picking/ based on passing comments/ unverifiable sources/ toilet designer sources/ off topic sources, etc. There is also no doubt that myself and others will have to keep swimming against a combination of Amazon and Grand Rapids of accusations, incivilities, irrelevancies, threats of blocks, warning signs, ANIs etc. etc. etc. We should do some preliminary investigation on the article talk page before bringing them here. I am not going to discuss alternative sources and sentences in this DRN.-MangoWong (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to involve in personal allegation.i believe in collaboration, consensus and team work.

Moreover these lines not only synthesis but a misleading and historicaly wrong synthesis.and my points on caste politics,reservation policy,link between ancient and modern yadavas are completely within the framework of debate because they are directly related to the topic.those who are supporting these lines see the history of yadavs from a very narrow approach and make their points based on last 100 year sources which mainly of sociologist adversly affected by political rise of yadavs and their reservation policy.they have no historical relevance in broad frame work of yadav history.they are only a social and political propaganda and labelled yadavs as shudra.there is no point to maintain these lines in article.i have already shown how ahirs related to ancient yadavs and abhiras and recognised fromm ancient period Brahman and Kshtriya also.moreover the source which mention them shudra has been incorporated in ahir article.yadav is a broad term incorporating various communities.

Instead of getting personal i hope a collborative attitude from both sides.

Moreover I have first debated on ahir article.i provided many sources in support of my point then admitted them.now i find double standard following by same contributor by admitting these lines based on very poor sources.Bill clinton history (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is as well that you do not take notice of someone casting aspersions of socking etc. on you. Anyone who disagrees with them automatically becomes a sock/meat/tendetious etc.-MangoWong (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mango, what I'm largely hearing you and BCH saying: you don't want to use modern historians because they're biased, you want to use 19th century sources that off-handedly refer to Yadavs as Kshatriya, and you want to proceed with the assumption that such groups such as Yadav/Yadava and Ahir/Abhira are the exact same thing and represent an unbroken lineage, this despite the fact that we have clear cites showing Ahir cowherds were explicitly encouraged to take on the last name "Yadav" at the start of the 20th century. If your argument is that current academic scholarship is wrong, there's really not much we can say to you, as it is not Wikipedia's goal to correct academia, or to ignore the most current scholarship because a few editors on WP don't like what modern scholars say. This would be quite akin to saying "I don't like modern historians writing about the settlement of California since it criticises the white settlers, so I want to use 1920 books which praise them and don't talk about racism or discrimination." From what I'm seeing of it, earlier sources in India are not keen on digging into the verifiability of caste/varna histories, whereas modern scholars do; you and BCH seem to resent this, and so you want to eschew modern scholarship. Do you disagree? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Mango?-MangoWong (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the burning questions of our age. Who is the contributor known as MangoWong (and contractions thereof), indeed? <g> - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"MangoWong" is MY username. If "Mango" is being used to refer to me, I take exception to this grotesque caricature of my beautiful username. I have never caricatured other eds usernames. Not intentionally at least, except in some edit summaries where I have used initials due to restrictions of space. You guys should also show the basic modicum of respect. I too can take to referring to others as "Matti" / "Situ" or some other exceptional construction.-MangoWong (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In ancient and medieval period mostly yadavs did not mention there surname as yadavs.they were either adopting simply name as in ancient yadavs or Singh,Rao,Rai,Rana etc.kshtriya titiles in medieval period.Yadava as a surname became more prominent in use in modern period.so i dont understand whats the logic behind surname use and origin decision.AS i have already provide enough sources on ahir talk page how these people comes under broad yadava community from ancient periods.so adopting there caste name as surname is a modern phenomena which is more related with political mobilisation rather then origin.

I support the inclusion of material based on from ancient historians works to modern historian work but modern sociologist who are greatly affected by the political rise of yadavs and their reservation policy.so they not have any historical relevance but only a socio-political propaganda to defame yadavs.yadavs historically always classified as kshtriya in Varna system.Bill clinton history (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haqve fixed your indenting (again), Bill. As for the points in your message well (another "again"), they are mostly irrelevant to this discussion. We are not looking at Ahirs and we are not looking at old familial names. You have provided nothing other than a vague claim of defamation by a wide range of academics. Well, legal issues do not affect much content here and Wikipedia is not censored, as has been explained before. Provided that the sources are reliable etc, the only possible issue is one of weight. How do you feel about my suggestion of rewording, noted above? - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The things being said in the comment 14:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC) by the user who is the latest participant in this discussion looks completely irrelevant to me. That user is the original contributor of the sentence + the four sources in question. But that user seems to have done nothing to address the meaningful issues.-MangoWong (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources which we are discussing mention Ahir as shudra of a particular region and then apply it to all yadavs of india and nepal.so my points are completely relevant.relation between surname use and their origin is mentioned by Mathew first not me.i am not supporting this baseless and historicaly irrelevant relation in deciding varna status.these lines based on comletely irrelevant and inadequate sources have no use in this aticle.Bill clinton history (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MangoWong, grow up please. You have been called by the contraction on and off for a while & have never complained previously. Bill, which of the sources listed at the top of this discussion are referring specifically to Ahirs? - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the source among those disputed four sources which based on bihar region.and you are still not responding my arguements against these sources properly rather making personal allegation against me.this is not fare.Bill clinton history (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never noticed anyone referring to me in that disagreeable way. If I had noticed, I would have objected then and there. Anyway, it is up to others to maintain their respect. I too will feel free to caricature the user names of those who caricature mine. And why are you guys discussing extraneous issues? Bill is a new user and is inexperienced in these issues. But it is unacceptable that you should try to move the discussion away from the mandate of this discussion.-MangoWong (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These controversial sources does not even represent authentic miniority view.they are completely mislaeding in broad yadava article.they may find place in article like ahirs,gollas etc. seprately.in ahir article they have alredy incorporated so whats the point to push them in yadava article.collectively yadavas as group always classified as chandravashi kshtriya by authentic historical sources.Present reformed yadava article gives more real picture of yadava history.Bill clinton history (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you all have had your talking past each other time. Now in less than 100 words for each side summarize your point. I'll try to understand it along with the reams of content that has been posted. Stay on topic and try coming to a resolution. This constitutes the warning to keep the discussion on topic and productive. Hasteur (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100w/side, not per person? In that case, Sitush and Q feel free to edit my words below -MV

Summary: MW and BCH exhibit persistent bias in attempts to remove the term "Shudra" (a labouring social class, a term regularly used by modern academics) from Yadav. "Our side" argues both Yadav documented self-identification as Kshatriya (warrior social class) as well as external-identification as Shudra should be proportionately noted. MW and BCH have largely refused to directly critique our many given sources, and instead claim endemic bias (both on WP and academia), cite ancient legends, Victorian writers, and other non-RSs. This type of caste/sect POV/COI is common in India articles and a precedent of low tolerance for caste-glorification should be set. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary. I think folks indulge in accusation mongering only when they have nothing substantial to say. IMO, the sentence in question is a synthesis, and is not attributable to any of the books in question. My content related points are in comments 17:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC) and 07:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)-MangoWong (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:Summary. Sources are not synthesis when the sentence uses phrase such as "at some times" or "some people", + cites to examples. I have offered to discuss specific rephrasing & got nowhere. I have also offered additional sources & have been told that they will not be considered. I am still waiting on a copy of one of the existing cited sources. This is wikilawyering gone mad and has featured before at ANI etc. There is a stated desire to see the word shudra removed (so much so that MangoWong cannot even abide typing the word and prefers to say "Sh****". WP is not censored. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Per side? This is ridiculous, but I have struck mine out.[reply]

Summary.these sources are completely misleading the status of yadavas in varna system.yadavas classified in kshatriya by mainstream and authentic historical sources.these sources are region specific and particular group specific so have no relevance in broad yadavs history.contradictory sources also avaliable on talk page and in article also which are more comprehensive and authentic.but MV and Sitush arbitrarly rejects them and shows no respect to other side valid points.the sources mentioned by them are misleading they did not open in google books.how one can beleive their content without seen them.on the bases of available sources these lines should be deleted from article.if in future they are able to provide adequate,authentic and comprehensive sources than we are open to discuss them on talk page.i have made some valid objection in above discussion also.plese read them before taking decesion.Bill clinton history (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary by uninvolved user:Fowler&fowler: I believe both sides are being intransigent and both are incorrect. The Yadavs, like Kurmi, were free peasants, for much of their history, with no rank in the formal four-fold caste system, or varna, but regarded as respectable. As I've said elsewhere, it was not uncommon for a Brahmin (highest class) widow to remarry someone from one of these backgrounds. In the first half of the 19th century, some (upper) landed castes (under economic pressure) attempted to label both Yadav and Kurmi, shudra (or lowest class) in an effort to exact unpaid labor from them, which it was claimed was customary. In response, both Yadav and Kurmi, like many groups before them, especially as they themselves gained economic power, fought the accusations by promoting an upper-caste Kshatriya heritage for themselves. Neither the original imputations of low-caste status, nor the creation of upper caste heritage in reaction are a significant part of these groups' history. Each lasted but fifty years. In independent India, they have yet another classification, which I don't know too much about, but it is neither Kshatriya nor Shudra. By adamantly wanting these outdated appellations in the lead of the article, both sides of the dispute are not only showing no flexibility, but are also inaccurately portraying the history of these groups. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Wikipedia cannot accept the position that modern historical/sociological research is equivalent to primary religious sources, chronicles of colonial domination, or promotional works done by involved groups. We must use the best sources; these are the one currently presented. BCH’s approach is to say the opposite. MW’s approach is to say that we must have an exact quote to verify everything we say; this is not how WP:V or WP:SYN work. However, I am willing to accept F&F’s approach to move the information out of the lead if and only if the information is retained elsewhere (and probably expanded upon). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You think WP:V means we can say whatever we want regardless of whatever the sources say, and regardless of the quality of sources.?--MangoWong (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yadav resolution

This discussion has continued for too long. I am going to take a few hours to read over it and then close the discussion, and leave comments as to what I think the consensus of the discussion is. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:09, 16 August 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, Ayr United F.C.

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:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ayr United F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Dispute over the inclusion of Scottish Football League Division One at the above page. My view is that the league should not be included on the list, as it is not fully professional. Fellow contributors from the newly formed Scottish Football taskforce, do not dispute that the league contains semi-pro and/or part-time teams and players, but conclude it should nevertheless be included on the list.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Issues around page ownership, canvassing, edit warring, misused vandal templates and uncivil conduct from Warburton1368. Also a premature ANI which circumvented proper dispute resolution.

Resolving the dispute

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

Ongoing discussion on talk, decided to register after previously contributing via IP. Contributed in good faith to a premature ANI complaint.

How do you think we can help?

I am concerned that a valid content dispute has been portrayed as "disruption" etc. with a very premature ANI. My IP was blocked for 31 hours with no explanation. Even allowing for understandable "IP bias", I believe this was a very poor admin decision by Black Kite. I think the failed verification and content dispute tags should remain on the article, to reflect the facts of the case. Or the name of the article should be amended to reflect the inclusion of leagues which are citably not "fully professional". In particular problematic sources relating to Ayr United and Queen of the South are repeatedly re-inserted into the article, although both actually militate against the teams being "fully professional"

PorridgeGobbler (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, Ayr United F.C. discussion

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

You were blocked for vandalising pages related to the discussion. You were warned many times but removed these warnings times from your talk page. No decision was reached and your continually disruptive edits, and nastiness towards other users was what prompted your block. While you have the right to debate the proffesional status of SFL1 you cannot make changes which are not in keeping with wiki policy. And continually doing this despite warnings is what got you blocked. Adam4267 (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and I have blocked this account as well, for making exactly the same edits as the IP did. I have, however, offered to unblock under conditions which can be seen on User:PorridgeGobbler's talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: I have given notice of this discussion to the users listed above who are not already involved in the discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Could someone please provide a link to the ANI discussion referenced above? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voila. Giant Snowman 13:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so here's what I can remember/add to the story. There was a link posted at WT:FOOTY to a discussion over at WT:FPL regarding the professional status of SFL1, which had started before I contributed, and which remains ongoing. The IP had removed SFL1 from the list, I reverted, and contributed to the ongoing discussion, per WP:BRD. From my interpretation of the discussions at both FOOTY and FPL, there is no consensus to remove SFL1 from the list - but the IP has completely ignored that, and continued to remove it, despite multiple warnings from multiple editors. Warburton asked me what could be done about the IP, I suggested ANI over DRN as I didn't view it as a content dispute when consensus existed on the talk page, but two admins over at ANI suggested here, something which I echoed to Warburton when he told me he was getting disillusuioned with the situation and was considering retiring. The IP was blocked by Black Kite (rightly, in my opinion) for ignoring - continually and deliberately - the consensus that existed on the talk page, and advice to continue discussing the situation without editing. I'm sure more will come to me in due course, but my memory ain't what it used to be! Hope this helps, Giant Snowman 13:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the Scottish task force has nothing to do with the overall reason for consensus to keep the SFL1 on the list all users involved with WP:footy are able to contribute to it and many users out with the new group have. There has been discussion on the main page and on the talk page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues re this and although its agreed thats its one of a few leagues on it that are borderline for now so far anyway the consensus is it should stay. A new proposal to change to a new system was also made by a member of the scottish football task force that was broadly turned down this would in all likelyhood have removed SFL1 and many others of the list. Which is another reason that the scottish task force cant be blamed for this. I question the need for dispute resolution on this matter as the broad consensus is in favour of it staying the way it is. This will be reviewed later down the line again and that may change. In regards to Ayr United F.C. the term part time club should definitely not be used in the intro i would be willing to say that it could be used in context maybe in the history section explaining how the club has changed over the years although i do question the fact they are part time as they are maintaining a compliment of full time and part time players so they are not totally part time. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a source I provided on Ayr United that caused some of the issues here. Due to a misleading introductory paragraph, I said that this source indicated that the team was currently operating full-time. PorridgeGobbler (as an IP) quite rightly pointed out my mistake as a "failed citation" and I accepted the error. After this, however, a number of other editors - only some of whom are attached to the Scottish Football Task Force - argued that the SD1 should nevertheless be retained for a number of reasons: 1) No definition of "fully professional" has been agreed for, or stated on, the page in question; I was told on the talk page that the list developed with a reasonable understanding of what it means for a league to be professional. This is open to debate and interpretation, and "all clubs in the league must comprise squads entirely of full-time players" was never an agreed criteria. 2) Other leagues, such as the Finnish Veikkausliiga and the Albanian Super League, are in a similar position, with most but not all players in the league being full time. A consensus was reached on allowing the Veikkausliiga and the Super League in the full knowledge that a proportion of players are part-time. 3) PorridgeGobbler has discounted a 'common sense' argument by other editors, feeling that this has no place in the debate. 4) There is no source to indicate whether most other leagues on the list include any full time players, let alone all. The SD1 is the only league with references confirming the status of players at all clubs. I provided a reliable source to confirm that all clubs in another league, the Azeri Premier League, train for just one and a half days per week, but there has been no consensus for removal. PorridgeGobbler has shown no interest in discussing any other leagues, and why they are on the list, and in contrast with his passion for removing the SD1 this may have contributed to others interpreting his actions as having a particular agenda with regard to SD1.

5) The SD1 has a higher average attendance than a number of the listed leagues, a factor others think should be taken into account when deciding upon professionalism of a particular league. 6) I have provided reliable national media sources (e.g. [4]) to confirm that Queen of the South are operating as a "full-time club" for the current season. I think it is unreasonable for PorridgeGobbler to contend that they should instead be considered part-time based on their squad list including a small number of youth apprentices paid, in whole or part, through a government scheme [5]. The "player profile" comments indicate that these players have mainly served as unused substitutes and reserves. Should this discount them from being considered a "full-time club", in contrast to the description used by the BBC & the Scotsman etc., other listed leagues such as the Dutch Eerste Divisie, where some clubs (e.g. Telstar) almost exclusively use players paid externally on loan deals from other clubs, would also need to be removed. 7) Ayr United have a mixed squad of full and part-time players. This is why that reference has been retained (by others, not me), simply for taking into account, there is no conspiracy to present this as proof that all players at the club are on full-time contracts. 8) PorridgeGobbler did not appreciate the debate widening out to discuss the criteria that determines which leagues are included, which for me is highly relevant. Other editors feel that the list has an arbitrary nature, and looking again at the criteria may have helped resolve the dispute on whether the SD1 should be removed before coming here.

Apologies for the ridiculously long comment (and I could go on), I just wanted to indicate the extent of the number of arguments in opposition to PorrigeGobbler's position. While I accept much of his input, and that the inclusion of the SD1 is certainly open to debate, myself and (in my opinion) a majority of other editors - Scottish and non-Scottish - who have contributed to the talk page discussion think it has a strong case for maintaining its place on the list. Deserter1 10:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, Ayr United F.C. resolution

Proposed Close: In light of the fact that PorridgeGobbler is currently indefinitely blocked and cannot participate in this discussion, I would suggest that

in reference to his block or blocks that this forum is inappropriate (he may either try an additional unblock request on his user talk page or, if he wishes to appeal it further, may take the matter to the Arbitration Committee by contacting the Ban Appeals Subcommittee in the manner set out at Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Appeal to the Arbitration Committee) and

in reference to the remaining disputes regarding content and behavior that those disputes have been rendered moot until and unless his indefinite block is lifted.

Unless I hear an objection to the contrary, therefore, this dispute will be closed after 21:00 12 August 2011 (UTC), subject to being reopened if the block is lifted. (If PorridgeGobbler wishes to object or otherwise communicate with this noticeboard in regard to this proposed close he should post the communication on his talk page, which I will be watching until at least 21:00 12 August 2011 (UTC).) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Proposed close withdrawn, as PorridgeGobbler has been unblocked. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i have made my point yesterday but someone has deleted them on this forum.this is not fare115.241.253.253 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the history and cant see an edit made to this section yesterday nor on your ip history. However if you have a point to add just add it again. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed close - this discussion is now stale and has been for a few days, so I see little point in it remaining open. Can an admin close please? Giant Snowman 14:52, 17 August 2011 (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.

Northwestern University School of Law

Northwestern University School of Law (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?

As being discussed on Alanscottwalker's discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alanscottwalker#Northwestern_Law_logo), the issue concerns which seal/logo should be used in the infobox for Northwestern University School of Law. Here are the three options: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NWLawSeal.png (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northwestern_University_Seal.svg (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NorthwesternLaw.svg

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Ivylaw (talk · contribs)
Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

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

I have started a discussion on the Alanscottwalker's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

(1) Please provide a general opinion about what logos/seals should be used in the school infoboxes. (2) Provide a general opinion about whether a seal, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NWLawSeal.png, is authoritative if it is nowhere mentioned on a school's website or in its marketing materials. (3) Provide a specific opinion about what seal/logo should be placed in the infobox for Northwestern University School of Law, after at least considering the following webpages: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/library/research/ http://www.law.northwestern.edu/ http://www.law.northwestern.edu/communications/brand/ http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jilb/ http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/

IvyLaw (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern University School of Law discussion

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

Starting a discussion on a user's talkpage is not the normal process to obtain WP:CONSENSUS - those discussions belong on the article's talkpage so that all editors on the article have the opportunity to discuss. An WP:RFC can also be opened to obtain wider input. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have now started a discussion here too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwestern_University_School_of_Law IvyLaw (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the Talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a neutral in this dispute. According to Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines#Article_structure the best practice is to use both the institution's seal and its wordmark in university-related articles. The fact that the law school's seal does not appear on the school's website does not necessarily mean that that the law school has wholly abandoned the use of the seal even if it is no longer using it in its public face or for promotional purposes. The school could still be using it on official documents such as diplomas or could even be retaining it as its official seal even if it does not use it on a day to day basis. Without at least some direct evidence (e.g. a press release or copy of a resolution saying that they were abandoning the use of the seal altogether) to the contrary, then it should be presumed that the law school still has the seal even if it is not in everyday use. Not only has no such evidence been brought forward, but the article cited in this edit at least weakly implies that the seal is still the official seal of the law school, and this page clearly states that "An official transcript bears the Northwestern University School of Law Seal". In light of those references, established best practices would suggest (but not require) that NWLawSeal.png ought to be the seal used in the infobox. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would also note that the image preferred by the complainant is already in the infobox at the bottom. It serves no purpose to have it in the article twice, and not have the school seal, at all. Indeed, doing so makes the article less encyclopedic, which requires that we make the article as informative as possible by the seals inclusion, in keeping with best practice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that this seal NWLawSeal.png is the current, official seal. I do agree that it was the official seal as of 1925. IvyLaw (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"An official transcript bears the Northwestern University School of Law Seal." As a Wikipedia Ambassador to Regions 5 and 1, I asked a Northwestern Law student to provide a redacted transcript. This is an image of the transcript: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6075/6044461858_0ed817d1b3_z.jpg Here is the correct seal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_University I think this dispute should be resolved and the Northwestern University seal placed on the Northwestern Law article infobox. The old seal could be shown somewhere else in the article. IvyLaw (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this has to be decided on WikiPrinciples at this point. You are improperly synthesizing the statement on the website, the actual seal on a transcript, and the absence of the seal on the law school's website and publications to imply that the law school has abandoned its school seal and adopted the university seal. (An alternative analysis, admittedly equally improper synthesis, could be that the statement on the website and the actual practice are simply out of sync; that the law school still has a seal, but no longer uses it on transcripts.) Alanscottwalker, on the other hand, has submitted NWLawSeal.png without any evidence that this particular design is now or, indeed, was ever the actual law school seal (and I also have some question about the adequacy of the fair use justification for that image, now I've taken a look at it). At this point, I think that no seal or image should be used at the top of the infobox until one seal or the other can be established through a reliable source. I, frankly, do not care much for this answer, but I think that it is the correct one for the time being. I am going to ask a WikiAcquaintance who is a guru on fair use and logo issues to take a look at the fair use justification for the image (I'm most concerned with the source of the image being simply identified as "Internet". That may be perfectly fine, but I'm a bit concerned.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we obtain an official correspondence from the school on this issue? IvyLaw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I disagree with TransporterMan that the seal's design is not adequately described in the reference I provided. Be that as it may, as the reference shows the seal was adopted by the School, a private letter that is not verifiable by others would not suffice, but a publication from the School that it has dis-adopted "its seal" should satisfy WP:V. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also updated the image summary at NWLawSeal.png , to indicate where I found the seal on the internet to upload: "Patent Docs" http://www.patentdocs.org/2011/02/index.html (entry for Febuary 18, 2011) Any user may also search Google images to find this.Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer particularly concerned about the fair use question, having obtained some clarification from another source. There's no indication of how the seal came to be on the Patent Docs site, so I don't consider that particularly good evidence of it still being the official seal today. But this image fairly clearly indicates that it was still in use in 2009, but its absence on the transcript (what, I wonder, is on the Spring, 2011, diplomas, though that wouldn't definitively solve the issue, either) and at this site (which admittedly isn't any more certain than the Patent Docs site) tends to cut both ways. I still think that there should be no image until this matter can be determined through reliable sources. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern University School of Law resolution

Merge of Super-logarithm and Super-root to Tetration

Tetration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Super-logarithm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

A mathematician named Arthur Rubin started a discusion at 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC) at Talk:Tetration#Inverse function articles proposing the mathmatics based articles Super-root and Super-logarithm to be merged with Tetration arguing that 'There's less than one paragraph that can be said about each.' Fixman, a programer, was the first to respond with 'Speed Keep.', stating that they are used differently to Tetration. Arthur Rubin Claimed this to be 'nonsense' and said they can not be expanded more, but afterwards a mathematician named Euclidthegreek argued, against the merge, that both article are expanding such as Pentation has done and Arthur just needs to give them time to expand, but Euclidthegreek argued this point using a sock puppet account named Professor Fiendish.[reply]

Arthur Rubin carried on to argue his point suggesting that expansion should instead be used on the inverse function section of Tetration and the mathematician sligocki joined in the discusion stating that although super-logarithm seemed to have an acceptable amount of content and references to warrent it's own article super-root did not stating 'It seems to me that there is not much to say about this function [super-root] right now and we should have it as a section and only expand it out if enough content and sources are added' and so merged it with tetration, but then I, Robo37 then reverted the edit as there was no clear consensus for the merge and then argued against the merge of both articles stating links between the functions and the complex plane and e.

After much arguing and many counter edits with sligocki stating he thought super-root 'it is still a stub with no indication of it's notability' Joule36e5 entered the conversation at 11:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC) and expressed support towards the merge stating again that 'The inverses don't seem notable enough at present', but not soon before a programer named Druseltal2005 argued against it, stating 'I recall that I found articles concerning the function x^x and its inverse independently of the tetration context. The authors discussed this for formulae in ballistics and some characteristics of driving (google for "wexzal", also I can provide a downloaded copy of that treatize). Also I recall vaguely a study which refer to x^x as function needed for computation of flight of airplanes.' User:Cliff joined the discusion at 15:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC) and argued for the merge for simular reasons mentioned above, and there has sinse be more arguing and reverts of edits which resaulted in Super-root being merged but not Super-logarithm as a compromise, but I am not happy with super-root not having an article of it's own and Cliff is not happy with Super-logarithm having a article of it's own.[reply]

So to summarize, Arthur Rubin, Cliff and Joule36e5 argued points for the merge with the main point being that the functions have very little notability and practically no references, Fixman Robo37 Druseltal2005 and Euclidthegreek argued points against the merge with the main reasons being that the functions are important to mathematics and are used for practical appliances such as in ballistics and airplane flight and thereby might be notable, and sligocki argued simular points for the merge of Super-root and points against the merge of Super-logarithm, and arguments and small edit wars have been going on over the subject for over two years now.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Professor Fiendish is a sock puppet of Euclidthegreek.

Resolving the dispute

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

We've discussed the issue and have came to a compromise, though the compromise is not agreed to be the right resolution.

How do you think we can help?

There needs to be more users showing their thoughts on the matter so a clear consensus can be gained and/or help from third party experts of the subject.

Robo37 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Super-logarithm and Super-root to Tetration discussion

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

I have been trying to resolve this problem for some time. I have no strong opinions either way, and am simply trying to remove a merge backlog. Robo37 indicates that there was a compromise but I am unaware what that might be. I am surprised to see this posted to DRN. Cliff (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that there's not much, if anything, which is or should be in Super-logarithm which should not be somewhere in Tetration. (Super-root has already been merged.) The only exceptions that I can see would be a general discussion of Abel functions of the exponential, which isn't actually in Super-logarithm, and the graph theory example. Specifics (as to the current version of Super-logarithm):

The first part of the "Definitions" section is already included in Tetration#Super-logarithm
- The "Approaches" in the Definitions section should be in Tetration, as they are also approaches to the real version of tetration.
The "Approximations" section is trivial rewriting of Tetration#Polynomial approximations
The first two "Properties" are in the inverse function section of Tetration#Super-logarithm.
"slog as inverse of Tetration" is a trivial rewriting of Tetration#Extension to complex heights, although the figure might also be included there.

I agree that there is not yet a WP:CONSENSUS for the merge, but I think it should be done.

I don't recall a specific compromise, either. Perhaps Robo37 could comment here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to change my view of the matter that it makes currently and in all foreseeable timeline no sense to keep something like "superroot" or "superlog" distinct. There seems to be no research *under this specific header*. I agree widely with that comment of Arthur Rubin that the only reason for a different page from "tetration" were if we had something more general like Abel-function/Schroeder-function in the context of iteration of functions. Gotti 10:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Druseltal2005 (talk • contribs)

I also feel that there's no reason to keep the articles distinct, though I have not been involved in the dispute up to this point. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Super-logarithm and Super-root to Tetration resolution

Coconut oil

Coconut oil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

A {{POV}} tag is being repeatedly added by a single editor after discussion on the talk page indicated there was no support for the tag. Tag was first removed August 2nd, replaced on the 3rd, removed, replaced, removed, replaced, removed, replaced, removed, replaced, removed, replaced, removed, replaced, and removed again. Only one editor thinks the tag is warranted while four believe it is not (based on edits to remove it). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussion occurred in April and there was no support for the tag. Discussion at the NPOV noticeboard found no support for the tag or dispute, and it was recently raised a second time again with no support. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think we can help?

I'm looking for ideas actually, perhaps further input regarding the process would be sufficient. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut oil discussion

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

There is something distinctly wrong with the way Lambanog has behaved during this dispute; the number of reverts to re-place the NPOV banner, against 4 other editors, outnumbers the number of comments to the talk page. No specific recommendations for improving the content beyond vague generalizations have been made, and they are the only editor to voice approval of this banner. It seems very suggestive that this editor is using the banner as a badge of shame. [Unsigned comment by Yobol 03:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)][reply]

If there is something distinctly wrong, it is the perfunctory way with which the editors I am in dispute with push their POV by systematically obstructing development of the article and removing perfectly valid sources that were brought up and found relevant at RSN by independent parties. Removal of sources should be done sparingly, with care, and as a last resort; haphazard removal can be considered vandalism. But apparently the obstructing editors have found the subject of the article not to their liking and whether by accident or design are tag-teaming and suppressing relevant information on the subject. Good form in a POV dispute is to come up with better sources to contradict POV bias, but those opposing me maintain their POV by removing good sources. They should also have informed me of this DR discussion and not engaged in canvassing. It should come as no surprise that if one inspects the records of those opposing my improvements to the article that they have little record building articles but are well-versed at removing information from them. A look at the article's history will show that my edits have generally increased the article size and the edits of the others have reduced them. If there have been any improvements to the article lately it's only because I embarrassed WLU into grudgingly adding stuff from sources I had brought up and my better article version. But the article remains woefully biased in comparison to write-ups on the subject one finds in newspapers or other sources. Lambanog (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've read through the article, the noticeboard threads, and the talkpage. Lambanog, will you accept me as an independent 3rd party and not label me as a PoV pusher? Those on the removal side, will you accept me as independent? I'm laying the groundwork for being neutral between the parties. But at quick glance I see issues with

Bold, Revert, Discuss
Abusive Edit Sumaries
Borderline Incivility.

I'll stand by and see what the disputants think, but I'm willing to help mediate this out. Hasteur (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have no issue with Hasteur acting as a mediator. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually prefer as many eyes and opinions as possible so that the issue can be addressed conclusively and can be said to be truly the will of a group representative of all Wikipedians, but I certainly have no issue with you giving your take of the situation and your recommendations. Forgive me also if I cannot respond much further; it is late in my neck of the woods. Lambanog (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lambanog, The idea is to not have to query every single editor, but to take a uninvolved neutral 3rd party. Your statement appears to suggest that if you do not like the recommendations you'll ask for even broader commentary in an attempt to canvas your viewpoint into a majority. Please confirm that you will accept a policy based reading on the viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur I think your implication of canvassing unfair and ask that you withdraw it. Canvassing suggests selecting or calling upon an audience predisposed to ones own line of thinking. This complaint was brought here by WLU not me. As this is a noticeboard, I was under the impression that it operates like other noticeboards in the manner I expressed preference for. I do not see why preference for standard operating procedure should bring to mind canvassing. WP:Dispute Resolution states the acceptable process. Seeking opinions on noticeboards or a RfC is not canvassing. Lambanog (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will not withdraw the implication of canvasing because you've accused 3 other editors on this page of forming a cabal against you, objected to previous noticeboard readings of the situation (RSN, NPOVN) and now you're challenging a 3rd party reading here. Frankly it may not be explicit canvasing, but rather WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Will you accept my reading of the situation and consensus or should this thread be closed for a proper RfC (which probably won't get any participation outside of the people arlready involved)? Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you insisting that I still accept you as a mediator? Lambanog (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also have no problem with Hasteur acting as mediator, and welcome independent eyes and evaluation in this case. Yobol (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut oil resolution

Heroes in Hell, Gilgamesh in the Outback

Heroes in Hell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Gilgamesh in the Outback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

A large, ongoing debate on ~~copyright ownership~~ issues regarding the usage of the terms "reprint," "first serial rights," and "originally published in" to describe a few stories (specifically Gilgamesh in the Outback and Newton Sleep) in a larger series called Heroes in Hell is occurring at its talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz argues that these stories were reprints from a prior magazine publication based on the sources he has found (some unreliable like this: [6], but others reliable like this: [7] and the author of Gilgamesh's own website). On the other hand, several other editors have argued that the use of the term "reprint" or saying that it is "originally published" in the magazine is misleading and wrongly suggests the original copyright is not owned by the series author, Janet Morris. Editors argue more accurately would be to say that the magazine had "first serial" rights. However, as of yet, no source points to the magazine having any such rights. They also argue that the story was intended to be written for the series, and as such, the magazine article is merely promotional, but not copyrighted. All of these arguments, however, lack sources. It is unclear whether it is standard for primary sources to provide this kind of "first serial" copyright information. Edit warring related to the above issues have occurred in the past week on both pages: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Guarddog2 has said she is Janet Morris, the author of the series (Wolfowitz has challenged this claim)
Bluewillow991967 has said she is Julie Cochrane, an author in the series
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, UrbanTerrorist, Bluewillow991967 have engaged in very, very lengthy debates. UrbanTerrorist's comments have sometimes been unreasonable "...I think you have are in a Conflict of Interest situation. I have no idea why you would be in a conflict of interest situation, but your irrational actions leave me no other conclusion." or just uncivil, "Wikipedia is always inaccurate until people like me step in and fix the problems. There's just too many idiots who think that they know what they are doing, and they to edit things.". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Bluewillow991967 have generally kept things cool, although it has been difficult to follow their arguments because of their sheer length and the number of other issues that are at hand with the article that I do not wish to discuss here.
I Jethrobot is me, and have done my best to remain neutral in this argument. I am, however, responsible for merging the individual Heroes in Hell book pages to the main series page due to a lack of notability of the individual books and general consensus to do so. I do not claim to be have any expertise with the publishing process or of contract/copyright law.
NebY, Hulcys930, and Knihi are only involved in so much as they have offered fair opinions on the discussion page and appear to have an interest in the page. Hulcys930 has made some edits that were justifiably reverted by Wolfowitz, but the edits were made in good faith.

Resolving the dispute

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

This issue has been debated endlessly at the talk page, among many other topics. I attempted to search for sources myself to support either side and also tried to clarify Wikipedia policies to participants (see [13] and Guarddog2's talk page. No resolution is in sight after I have attempted to make multiple proposals that were intended to avoid the contentious issues about copyright, the contentions over the use of "reprint," and even the order in which the story was published. These proposals had some initial consensus, but in my opinion, were appropriately rejected by Wolfowitz because of sources that support that these stories were originally published in magazines, then later printed within the series.

How do you think we can help?

I would like some consensus to be formed about whether it is important enough to include this copyright information, what information about Gilgamesh and Newton Sleep's prior magazine publications should be on the article page, how it should be phrased. Also, this issue seems to have been blown way out of proportion by several parties involved (myself included), and I am hoping that we can all work on trying to stay a little cooler in the discussion. There are so many issues involved with Heroes in Hell, that I cannot conceivably address them all here with any brevity. But I would like some help resolving this (and perhaps other) so that we can prevent any possibility of ongoing edit warring.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes in Hell, Gilgamesh in the Outback discussion

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

I happen to have a story in one of the recent volumes, but that's not at issue here. What most of you think you know about publishing is incorrect, and perhaps an article should be written to address that. You'll find that one of my three works for hire lists me as the (c) holder, even though Bill Fawcett and Assoc. owns the copyright. Publisher made an assumption and went to print. No one caught the error. It is also common for excerpts/shorts to premier in a magazine before official publication. In those cases, even though the periodical date is earlier, those are in fact reprints of the (later) original, with permission secured per contract. This happens all the time. I am constantly amazed at how many WP editors and staff are completely clueless about publishing, and toss around sales figures, numbers and money and try to attach significance to them. During the webcomic deletion debacle for example, one of the comments raised was that a certain comic "couldn't possibly have more than 100K readers," as if such a number were insignificant or not notable. I will go on record here that the WP community embarrasses itself publicly with these issues (such as regarding James Wesley Rawles, with hundreds of thousands of books in print, the go-to guy on disaster prep for CNN, the NYT, Fox, etc, whom a couple of editors persisted in WP:MOVINGTHEGOALPOSTS to try to claim was "not notable"). This is a repeat of that. Janet Morris is most certainly VERY notable in SF, and well-respected. Most, at the very least, of her works, are notable due to content, awards, sales figures, etc--certainly more notable than any of mine that have been contested and retained. There is certainly a personal bias here, which may be simply stubbornness on the part of certain parties. OrangeMike, despite his denials, has a very definite bias against her and should recuse himself from any discussion about her. To accuse her of not being who she says she is without checking first is hypocritical, self-aggrandizing, and pompous. Is it possible some of her lesser known works should be combined? Yes. Should any article be stomped on and erased within hours because some WPean can't be bothered to either aid in improvement, or do a little fact checking (rather than any BS about "consensus" from people demonstrably ignorant of the subject)? Not if this increasingly burdened and irrelevant bandwidth sink wants to retain any shred of credibility.Mzmadmike (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"even though the periodical date is earlier, those are in fact reprints of the (later) original". So reprints can take place before the original publication!? And TV shows can be rerun before they originally air. Let's do the time warp again! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I am Janet Morris (Janet E. Morris, Janet Ellen Morris) and I opened a new editor account only to deal with problems arising from the re-editing of a venerable series listed on Wikipedia entitled Heroes In Hell(TM). This series and franchise is my property and is a shared universe. I am not certain that it is appropriate for me to be here, although Jethrobot says that it is, since I am the proprietor of the Heroes in Hell series. I do feel it inappropriate for WP to be questioning my copyrights, contracts, and the terms and conditions of those contracts, some generated two decades ago and previously uncontested by principals. A debate over notability of various books in the series has morphed into one focusing on the articulation or purposeful obfuscation of the attribution of first serial rights, the deletion of a page called Rebels in Hell containing an award-winning story, and various disturbing and disparaging comments and unsupportable speculations from an editor called Wolfowitz: "By the way, Morris' ownership of the Heroes in Hell property couldn't have stopped Silverbob from writing the story without Morris's approval. She doesn't own all stories set in Hell, after all, just the original details that trademark the franchise. What she really owns via the franchise are some infernal bells and whistles and the occasional designer pitchfork." that show an intent to decouple certain works from the series that generated them (award-winning or nominated works with first serials) and minimize the importance of the series, which is listed on WP as "low" as opposed to some stories commissioned by me from various authors and written for the series, such as "Gilgamesh in the Outback" listed as importance "mid." Part of this dispute for me is whether or not editors with obvious, expressed biases (whether these biases count as COI in WP terms, I cannot say) against the series (or me) should recuse themselves from editing Morris/Hell pages. Please remove this comment if my participation is unwelcome. Guarddog2 (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a neutral/clerk in this matter. The listing editor has limited the issues in this process to "whether it is important enough to include this copyright information, what information about Gilgamesh and Newton Sleep's prior magazine publications should be on the article page, how it should be phrased."

1. Do the other disputants have issues which must be resolved here? If so, please state the issue as succinctly as possible and say how you think that we can help. Please keep in mind that the primary function of this noticeboard is to offer neutral analysis, comment, and mediation and that we have no power here to issue penalties, orders, or binding judgments.
2. As for the copyright information issue:

A. In looking at the diffs provided in the Dispute Overview section, above, I don't see any discussion of copyright though there is an obvious dispute over whether certain material was first published in one source or another. Does the dispute revolve around whether the specific words used in those edits imply, suggest, or have some legal effect upon copyright issues?
B. Is there any dispute over where or when the works in question first appeared in print, in a strictly first-time-anyone-could-lawfully-acquire-them chronological sense? If so what is the dispute?
C. Is anyone suggesting that there is no possible way to indicate their chronological printing order in these articles without having a potentially adverse legal effect on copyright issues? If so, why do you believe that, and why should Wikipedia, which is not a legal brief, contract, nor law journal, care about that implication, so long as it does not make an express allegation about the copyright? (And if no one is saying that there is no possible way to do it, then can any of those opposed to the current statements suggest a wording which they do not feel has that effect?)

3. Or have I entirely missed the point?

Note to other neutrals: By requesting this clarification I am not "taking" or "reserving" this dispute to my care, but am merely trying to get some clarification for whoever eventually chooses, if anyone does, to work on it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the questions by TransporterMan that I am able to address:

In looking at the diffs provided in the Dispute Overview section, above, I don't see any discussion of copyright though there is an obvious dispute over whether certain material was first published in one source or another. Does the dispute revolve around whether the specific words used in those edits imply, suggest, or have some legal effect upon copyright issues?

While the diffs do not explicitly mention copyright, the talk page of Heroes in Hell certainly does. See this section and this section for the copyright disputes.

Is there any dispute over where or when the works in question first appeared in print, in a strictly first-time-anyone-could-lawfully-acquire-them chronological sense? If so what is the dispute?

Yes. Wolfowitz had this to say in this diff...

There is no longer any dispute that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" and its two sequels, as well as "Newton Sleep," the other award-nominated story, were not originally published in the HiH series, but instead first appeared in magazines.

...whereas UrbanTerrorist has not agreed per this diff...

In your mind there may not be [any dispute]. In words that even you can understand, a story doesn't exist without a market. Benford and Silverberg could not have written those stories without Heroes in Hell as a market. My understanding from Janet is that they were given permission to take the stories to the magazine market by her. In the magazines there was a good sized blurb about the anthology. It's called advertising. Free advertising. Do you understand the concept?

...and Knihi also responded to this saying the following in this diff, citing that we should not avoid differentiating between first serial rights & reprints, and also is concerned that the individual book articles were merged because of this concern over reprints (though there were other reasons why the merger occurred):

I'm not sure why an encyclopedia would shy away from explaining terms like "first serial". The fact that it's little known outside the industry -- isn't that an argument for explaining it? To the point: I'm not sure "originally published" is the issue. Author is hired to write a story for an anthology. Author requests permission to pre-publish the story in another periodical. Permission is given. Story comes out in book for which it was originally contracted. Years and years later this discussion happens. "Aha," says an editor, "Story is a reprint! Strike the article on the book in which it appears, as without this story I feel the book is non-notable."

Is anyone suggesting that there is no possible way to indicate their chronological printing order in these articles without having a potentially adverse legal effect on copyright issues? If so, why do you believe that, and why should Wikipedia, which is not a legal brief, contract, nor law journal, care about that implication, so long as it does not make an express allegation about the copyright? (And if no one is saying that there is no possible way to do it, then can any of those opposed to the current statements suggest a wording which they do not feel has that effect?)

I feel this is an optimal solution, and prior to your suggestion, have already made changes on Gilagamesh reflecting the chronological publication order without reference to copyright. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, it's late and I may not be writing very clearly, but I feel I need to put on record that I don't think the listing editor should have identified this as a copyright issue. Another editor thought the question could be answered by looking at copyright, but that was a red herring.

The question is whether it's appropriate to use terms such as "reprinted" or "originally published in" to describe the work in question. Such terms may be at least neglectful and even denigratory. Yes, some books are collections of reprints, such as Best SF of the Year or Nebula Winners. Others such as Thieves World and its sequels contain work written for inclusion in those books. Such books are created with care in a creative process in which the individual authors knowingly collaborate, at the very least by working within parameters; they are not "mere" reprints.

Yes, works are sometimes published in periodicals, in full or in abridged form, before they're published in their final or originally intended form. That does not imply that the later publication merely reprinted the former. It's normal practice and good money if you can get it. NebY (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think this better captures the debate here. I apologize for not quite correctly describing the solution, but there is so much going on here, my head is in a fog whenever I begin to write about it. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has become a mess, because as with other recent ones involving editor-writer Janet Morris, a cadre of COI editors/SPAs has arrived to muddy the waters. There's been a significant amount of off-wiki canvassing going on, on Facebook, on a message board operated by Baen Books, the publisher of much of Morris's work, and elsewhere. None of these editors cite any Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or practices, or any external standards, relevant to the disputes. Several of these editors, including User:UrbanTerrorist and User:Guarddog2, who identifies herself as Morris, have advanced demonstrably false claims and engaged in lively invective about Wikipedia and its editors, always unsupported by facts or citations.

The basic questions here are simple. First, is it fair to use terms like "reprint" or "reprinted" to describe publications which meet standard dictionary definitions of those terms, the Wikipedia article's definition of such terms, and the relevant professional writers' group's explanation of those terms? I think the answer should be clear, and the (neo)editors who argue otherwise present nothing but vague expressions of dislike. Second, should the Wikipedia article on a fictional work identify its original publication? Again, I think the answer should be self-evident. This is a basic piece of encyclopedic information which is generally included in such articles; the articles on novels typically identify the first edition (excepting, of course, the out-of-compliance articles which consist only of plot summaries). As a relevant sample, I reviewed all the articles on works which received the Hugo Award for Best Novella, the award won by "Gilgamesh in the Outback." There are 24 such articles. 21 of the 24 identify the first publication (sometimes only in the infobox). Two do not include the information. (One is ambiguous; it lists a publisher in the infobox, but that could refer either to the story's original appearance in an anthology or its reprint appearance in a collection where it was the title piece.) A full list follows; the titles in normal type identify the first/original publication; those in italics do not (or might not) do so. Wikipedia practice is clearly established, and no one has explained (or even attempted to explain) why this story would be a special case where original publication -- in a more prominent source with a larger circulation -- should be expunged from the article.

List of relevant Hugo Award-winning stories

Riders of the Purple Wage by Philip José Farmer(1968)

Nightwings by Robert Silverberg (1969)

Ill Met in Lankhmar by Fritz Leiber (1971)

The Queen of Air and Darkness by Poul Anderson (1972)

The Word for World Is Forest by Ursula K. Le Guin (1973)

The Girl Who Was Plugged In by James Tiptree, Jr. (1974)

Houston, Houston, Do You Read? by James Tiptree, Jr. (1977)

Stardance by Spider Robinson and Jeanne Robinson (1978)

Enemy Mine by Barry B. Longyear (1980)

Lost Dorsai* by Gordon R. Dickson (1981)

The Saturn Game by Poul Anderson (1982)

24 Views of Mt. Fuji, by Hokusai by Roger Zelazny (1986)

Gilgamesh in the Outback by Robert Silverberg (1987)

Eye for Eye by Orson Scott Card (1988)

The Last of the Winnebagos by Connie Willis (1989)

Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress (1992)

Down in the Bottomlands by Harry Turtledove (1994)

Seven Views of Olduvai Gorge by Mike Resnick (1995)

Oceanic by Greg Egan (1999)

Coraline by Neil Gaiman (2003)

The Cookie Monster by Vernor Vinge (2004)

Inside Job by Connie Willis (2006)

All Seated on the Ground by Connie Willis (2008)

Palimpsest by Charles Stross (2010)

We're dealing with organized promotional editing on behalf of Morris and her works, and quite a few of the users involved are writers who have sold stories to Morris, or hope to do so.

Over the last few months, I've created dozens of articles concerning science fiction short stories and collections, and expanding scores if not hundreds of other articles concerning fiction in the genre. In virtually every case, if the information regarding original publication was not included in the existing article, I added it; and provided it in every article I created. Over many months and hundreds of articles, this has been entirely uncontroversial, because it represents basic encyclopedic information. The dispute here is manufactured for COI editors to disrupt normal editing and WP:OWN the articles involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfowitz, you assert that canvassing has been taking place on Baen's Bar. I'm a member there, and have not seen such canvassing. Further, several searches have failed to show any sign of it. Would you please show which thread in which sub-conference contains such canvassing, since I have been completely unable to find it myself? Thanks - Luke Jaywalker (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike's Madhouse Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a former moderator of Baen's Bar, I have to take issue with the totally unwarranted attempt to drag them into this mess. Personally, I'm a tad insulted that anyone would think that if there was actual canvassing of Baen's Bar there would be this poor a turnout. Don't drag them into this, it's not their mess. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above. And if the thread should somehow disappear, I've got screencaps. Now do I get another apology? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my not asking you where you were getting that, yes. For my thinking you're reaching looking for conspiracies, no. I feel you've overreacted to a simple issue of neutral point of view. The relevant stories were clearly developed in and for a shared universe and any neutral POV article would need to be consistent with that. Why that basic fact--that the stories were developed in and for a shared universe--seems to upset you I've no idea. All I can do is try to stay as civil as possible while we all look for some NPOV resolution. This will be my last comment on the matter. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I cannot debate armed with the intricate rules of WP, I want to bring up one point that has been missed that does relate to copyright. Heroes in Hell(TM) is a shared world or shared universe. This is stated on the original Heroes in hell WP page and elsewhere and no one has ever contested it. Shared worlds/shared universes are complicated collaborative undertakings and WP has an entire page on "shared universes/shared worlds. I recommend that anyone evaluation my concerns over copyright look at the shared universe/shared world page on WP, then check to see that live links between Heroes in Hell series page and that shared universes/shared world pages do in fact exist today. WP is an adequate source on how shared worlds work. Additionally, here are quotes from Heroes in Hell with citations from accepted sources quotes on the HIH page: "The shared world premise of Heroes in Hell is that all the dead wind up together in Hell, where they pick up where they left off when still alive.[1] The Encyclopedia of Fantasy states "In the long series of shared world adventures begun with Heroes in Hell, Hell becomes an arena in which all the interesting people in history can come together to continue the relentless pursuit of their various ends."[2] Brian Stableford commented that the series "adapted the backcloth of Dantean fantasy as a stage for violent adventures with ironic echoes of infernal comedy". [3] See Heroes in hell series page for live links.

I have asked someone from the SFWA grievance committee to look at this issue, so I hope this discussion will stay open for at least a few days. My concerns that my copyright and franchise will be diluted by imprecise wording of rights issues remains: a first serial (please see: http://www.asja.org/pubtips/wmfh01.php) which is a one-time use, is not the primary source of a shared worlds piece of fiction: the fiction is developed with the proprietor specifically for that shared world: the publication in the shared world first edition for which the collaborative fiction was written is the primary source. Such a story is not the creation of someone acting independently. The fact that both first-serialized stories from Heroes in Hell had copyrights for the first-serializing magazines does not change the fact that the stories were commissioned for a shared world series and under its rules and guidance, long before first serial rights were sold. As for awards, awards ballots commonly take the first publication cited, if not asked to ignore it for a later one.

I hope this helps. Guarddog2 (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about copyright, but even if it were, you're still misrepresenting an essential point. The Silverberg stories -- and as you've acknowledged elsewhere, there are three of them, not just one, all originally published outside your anthology series -- are based on his own original work, the novel Gilgamesh the King, conceived, written, sold, and published well before the Heroes in Hell franchise came into existence. The stories "cross over" between Silverberg's pre-existing copyrighted IP and your "franchise", and the claims made by you and your partisans denigrate his intellectual property and dilute his copyrights to at least as great an extent as you claim my comments do to yours. And what do you have in mind for the SFWA Grievance Committee to do? Griefcom exists only to handle disputes with "your editor, publisher, agent, or other writing-related business associate." I can't imagine they're going to be very impressed if you've shown up on their doorstep asking for them to expend their resources to take your side in a content dispute on Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has become a mess, because as with other recent ones involving editor-writer Janet Morris, a cadre of COI editors/SPAs has arrived to muddy the waters. There's been a significant amount of off-wiki canvassing going on, on Facebook, on a message board operated by Baen Books, the publisher of much of Morris's work, and elsewhere. None of these editors cite any Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or practices, or any external standards, relevant to the disputes. Several of these editors, including User:UrbanTerrorist and User:Guarddog2, who identifies herself as Morris, have advanced demonstrably false claims and engaged in lively invective about Wikipedia and its editors, always unsupported by facts or citations.

That is a total misrepresentation. I have been an editor here on Wikipedia for a long time. I have never had any problems with any other editors in all of the years I've been here, until I set up the original Lawyers in Hell page and Orangemike decided to step in. I had never seen anyone break rules the way that Orangemike did. I think that he set a record that may never be beaten. I may have had some disagreements with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, but compared to Orangemike, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz looks like Miss Congeniality.

That said, the paragraph above is essentially incorrect. To the best of my knowledge the only Single Purpose Account is Guarddog2 which is Janet Morris herself. Much has been made by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz of the fact that I know Janet. What Hullaballoo Wolfowitz doesn't take into account is that I'm a writer, and that I have the contact information for about three or four hundred writers in my electronic address book, and I'm in regular contact with about sixty or seventy of them.

Why would we cite Wikipedia policies, when the issue isn't a policy issue? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wants to decide things by consensus that are not properly the domain of consensus. This isn't an exact analogy, but the equivalent would be to try and decide the solution of a mathematical question. It's not the correct place to use consensus.

I would also like to see Hullaballoo Wolfowitz prove where I've used invective. That would be interesting. Its an easy claim to make. As to the demonstrably false claims, what he means is that we wouldn't fall down and play dead to his superior knowledge.

The basic questions here are simple. First, is it fair to use terms like "reprint" or "reprinted" to describe publications which meet standard dictionary definitions of those terms, the Wikipedia article's definition of such terms, and the relevant professional writers' group's explanation of those terms? I think the answer should be clear, and the (neo)editors who argue otherwise present nothing but vague expressions of dislike.

The basic question is not simple. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does not seem to understand that specialized fields use language in specialized ways. Writers and publishers have their own variation of English, as do Lawyers, as do Doctors. Because of this standard dictionary definitions are nonsensical when applied to those fields.

Second, should the Wikipedia article on a fictional work identify its original publication? Again, I think the answer should be self-evident. This is a basic piece of encyclopedic information which is generally included in such articles; the articles on novels typically identify the first edition (excepting, of course, the out-of-compliance articles which consist only of plot summaries). As a relevant sample, I reviewed all the articles on works which received the Hugo Award for Best Novella, the award won by "Gilgamesh in the Outback." There are 24 such articles. 21 of the 24 identify the first publication (sometimes only in the infobox). Two do not include the information. (One is ambiguous; it lists a publisher in the infobox, but that could refer either to the story's original appearance in an anthology or its reprint appearance in a collection where it was the title piece.) A full list follows; the titles in normal type identify the first/original publication; those in italics do not (or might not) do so. Wikipedia practice is clearly established, and no one has explained (or even attempted to explain) why this story would be a special case where original publication -- in a more prominent source with a larger circulation -- should be expunged from the article.

Since I haven't got the time to go over the list you've provided tonight, I really can't comment here. I'm behind enough as it is. However I would strongly suggest that you send the list to the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, where you will get an unbiased opinion from experts in the field. You could also ask them at this point what the difference is between First Serial and Reprint, and again get Expert help. I would think the fact that you are getting so much opposition from people who know something about the field should be causing you to start wondering about what exactly is going on.

You might also want to consider your consistency. You aren't willing to accept information from Janet Morris, but you are willing to accept information from Robert Silverberg. You have a choice. Either accept information from neither, or both.

As to the book Concise Major 21st-Century Writers: A Selection of Sketches from Contemporary Authors which you've been quoting at length, I'd like to remind you that it is only accurate, if the information that the writer had is accurate. If she had been using the current Heroes in Hell and Gilgamesh in the Outback Wikipedia articles for research, it would be inaccurate. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ignore all the personal comments and conspiracy theories from Mr. Wolfowitz, since they do not relate to this narrow discussion, except one issue, and on that one topic I will explain why his comments are immaterial: the fact that the mythical Gilgamesh character AS A CHARACTER WHO IS ALIVE was written by Silverberg in another book; and I will add that Benford used a fictional character he had previously used, when the fictional character was alive, elsewhere: previous stories about these characters when alive outside of Heroes in Hell are immaterial to this discussion: mythical characters cannot easily be copyrighted; rather, some specific version of them may be protected; mythical and fictional characters are often better protected by trademarking and then protection may extend only to a specific version of the character that some author has written.

On a much happier note, I endorse the solution and edit made by Jethrobot, who says earlier today in this debate, and I agree, "I feel this is an optimal solution, and prior to your suggestion, have already made changes on Gilagamesh reflecting the chronological publication order without reference to copyright.

So perhaps we have a happy ending. Guarddog2 (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Characters cannot be copywritten"? Are you kidding? If anyone wondered why I've been skeptical about Guarddog2's claims to be a certain notable editor/author, that comment ought to demonstrate why I have my doubts. "Copywritten" isn't even a word. And just to flesh out the shorthand, the copyright protection afforded an author under the Copyright Act extends to the exclusive right to create derivative works based on the characters in their original works. And if you can convince me I'm wrong, I'll quit Wikipedia and write a series of torrid novels about the heated romance between Harry Potter and Sookie Stackhouse. Maybe they'll have a threesome with one of those blue dudes from Avatar. Or at least a love triangle. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wolfowitz, it would be very helpful if you would consult a legal professional or an agent who represents authors in order to have someone non-biased in any way explain to you the legal terminology first serial and reprint since these terms are not used in contracts with the common usage definitions. I realize you have a great deal invested in making sure Mr. Silverberg in not "denigrated" in any way, so you argue this point illogically and endlessly when the issue could be solved very simply. It is entirely possible for you to learn the legal definitions of the terms you use incorrectly. It would also be helpful if you would stop the personal attacks, insinuations and sarcasm as that does not benefit yourself, WP or certainly this discussion. You might also look up the definition of "good faith." Hulcys930 (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - General apologies for being too quick and sloppy with delete key while seeking brevity. There was errata in the text above, that Mr. Wolfowitz caught. Text should have read, and does read now: when the fictional character was alive, elsewhere: previous stories about these characters when alive outside of Heroes in Hell are immaterial to this discussion: mythical characters cannot be copyrighted; rather, some specific version of them may be protected as written; mythical and fictional characters are often better protected by trademarking and then protection may extend only to a specific version of the character that some author has written. Please see: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/faqs.htm#P55_7616 Please also see on wipo: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/faqs.htm: Is a character protected by copyright? A character could be protected under copyright if it is an original expression of an author. Merchandising items such as toys, interactive games, books and clothing including characters can also be protected by intellectual property rights in certain circumstances, mainly copyright and trademarks, along with other areas of law. See the WIPO Report on Character Merchandising (Adobe PDF).

Mr. Wolfowitz, it would be to your benefit if you were to consult a legal professional or an agent who represents authors in order to have someone non-biased in any way explain to you the legal terminology first serial and reprint since these terms are not used in contracts with the common usage definitions (please do not attempt to portray this as a legal threat, since I am simply telling you how to obtain information that you lack). I realize you have a great deal invested in making sure Mr. Silverberg in not "denigrated" in any way, so you argue this point illogically and endlessly when the issue could be solved very simply. It is entirely possible for you to learn the legal definitions of the terms you use incorrectly. It would also be helpful if you would stop the personal attacks, insinuations and sarcasm as that does not benefit yourself, WP or certainly this discussion. You might also look up the definition of "good faith." Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These definitions have already been presented in the talk page by Wolfowitz, where this contract publishing information by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America and the Illinois State Bar Association delineates the definitions quite clearly (on pg. 15). Wolfowitz's comments appear to be consistent with those definitions, and any differences between his interpretation, common usage, and the legal terms seem unsubstantial. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply going by the fact that Mr. Wolfowitz seems to continue to insist that the chronology of the printing of a story controls what constitutes a reprint regardless of the actual, legal definition of reprint and first serial. I have searched the talk page (by that I assume you mean the Heroes in Hell discussion page) and do not find any reference to the SFWA/Illinois State Bar definition posted by Mr. Wolfowitz. Please give me a link so I can find what you are describing. I'm not trying to be difficult - I'm not sure I understand where you say this information was posted. Thank you.Hulcys930 (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfowitz added it in this diff, right after "SFWA's presentation." I'm sorry it's a long page, but it's there. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reference. As it plainly states in Mr. Wolfowitz' citation, "In SFWA's presentation "An Introduction to Publishing Contracts," online here [14], on page 15, "first serial" is limited in meaning to publication "prior to publication in book form," while "reprint" covers later publications in book form, including "collections."

1) The Heroes in Hell volumes are not "collections" (which infers gathering various stories together, stories not connected to one another, after previous initial publication.) All stories were written for and published in the "Hell" universe.

2) Stories written in and for a specific shared universe, using the individual milieu and rules of the shared universe, with the collaboration of all authors of each volume, are NOT "collections." Therefore, the "first serial" publication of Gilgamesh is in Mr. Asimov's magazine which was published contemporaneously with the initial Heroes in Hell publication in book form.

3) The month of publication in a magazine that actually sends out that issue of the magazine some weeks before the "issue date" is completely irrelevant.

I am sorry this very simple definition is the subject of so much contention and I doubt this explanation will silence those who disagree. This issue is controlled solely by the legal contracts between the publishers and authors and is not subject to a "consensus" or "opinion." (That's why contract lawyers make so much money and Contract Law is the most hated subject in law school.) Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I wrote in the Gilgamesh In the Outback discussion page: Both publications of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" have a July 1986 publishing date. To call a work as "originally published," one would need citations of such things as printing and distribution records, appearance dates at newsstands and bookstores, all of which would be difficult. I would suggest avoiding this unnecessary controversy by simply stating the facts: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1986 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell, published in July 1986 by Baen Books." I have listed the works alphabetically by title. To claim that the work was "originally" published in Asimov's implies that Silverberg wrote it for Asimov's first and then Janet Morris, the Rebels in Hell editor, reprinted it in her anthology. This allegation requires a citation. To support a reprint in Rebels in Hell one would have to look at Silverberg's Rebels in Hell contracts and his Asimov's contracts - again, another citation. But why go to this unnecessary work when for WP purposes a statement of the actual publishing history is sufficient? To belabor the "originality" claim raises issues of intellectual property and even libel, since they raise questions of the editors' skills. This article should state the facts simply and avoid potential legal claims. Dokzap (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dokzap (talk • contribs)

I agree with and endorse Dokzap's solution. I would also like to point out that it preserves notability, as I believe is appropriate, should one wish to recreate a distinct Rebels in Hell page. I also suspect he meant for this to be in the discussion section. :) Knihi (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with and endorse Dokzap's solution, which is appropriate as it lists both the first-serial publication in IASFM and the shared universe/shared world book publication in Rebels in Hell as having occurred in July 1986, which is the correct date and seems to fall within the Wikipedia rules. To do less would be incomplete. As for Wolfowitz's assertion that the July, 1986 date is wrong for IASFM's publication, at worst this is fabrication, at best it would be original research if it could be proved. I also urge all involved here to look at the Heroes in Hell series page where it says shared world and then go to the Wikipedia page about "shared universe/shared world." Not even Wolfowitz has dared to claim that these books were not shared world volumes. To be compliant with the shared world rules, no story could have been independently conceived and merely reprinted as a second serial. Guarddog2 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, "Janet," you're providing easily disproved misinformation. For virtually the entire duration of its existence, IASFM has provided "on-sale" dates for each issue in the pages of the one preceding it. It still does. Here's a link to the online posting of the "next issue" page from the current issue [15]. Here's a link to a Google scan for an issue from 1992 [16]. Here's a pair of GScans from 1989 [17]. While I can't turn up an online scan, I'll tell you that the June 1986 issue declared the on-sale date of the July issue to be June 3, 1986. You've just reported, from your personal knowledge of the book you edited, that the book itself actually went on sale in July. That should pretty much establish which came first. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the solution. The earlier agreed solution was a complete merge of all articles including all of the Heroes in Hell books and stories, and this is what I was trying to implement, and is what I think is still necessary. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of asserting which of two publications with the same month and year publication date appeared first, the burden of proof here is on Mr. Wolfowitz. In both the magazine and paperback distribution system at the time, publications with a month date of July could have been physically placed on a newsstand, mailed by subscription, or appeared at a bookstore prior to actual date of July 1. But which appeared first? And where? An advanced reading copy of Rebels in Hell could have been sent to reviewers before the Asimov's publication. A bookstore in Topeka might have received a carton of Rebels in Hell books in May. Who knows? Mr. Wolfowitz thinks he knows, but logically he has a heavy burden of proof here. For the purpose of the best scholarly accuracy, rather than expend useless energy counting demons on the head of pin, the better, and objectively least controversial solution is to state the best known facts. Both versions of Gilgamesh In the Outback have a July 1987 date. Move on.Dokzap (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap.[reply]

Okay, here's what I think, as a neutral:

(a) The resolution of this dispute needs to center on Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, not on extraneous issues.
(b) As I previously noted, Wikipedia is not a contract, law review, publication copyright page, or other legal instrument and is not making legal representations by the particular wording it uses. Even if words have some specialized meanings in those contexts, if they have a generally-accepted English language meaning then that is the meaning used and meant here unless there is a clear and unambiguous indication that the specialized legal meaning is intended.
(c) Moreover, even if some particular formula of words were to be used to avoid certain legal implications, there are significant practical problems with keeping it in place due to the wiki model, and that is especially true if the preferred locution is unwieldy or "clunky," in that there is no mechanism provided here to lock it in place and prevent it from being changed by the first WikiGnome who comes along and says "that doesn't read right." (And before someone jumps up and says, "We'll just watch it and make sure it isn't changed!" they need to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and also realize that the language must be inserted by consensus in the first place, that consensus can change at any time, and that arguing that "to change it the way you want it is illegal" is a disfavored, if not prohibited, argument at Wikipedia, which leads us into my next point.)
(d) While certain legal issues such as (but not only) use of copyrighted materials without permission, defamation, and threats of violence are dealt with in Wikipedia policy, dilution of trademark or copyright is not, so far as I can find, and the Wikipedia community should not take it into account in making editing decisions. Indeed, there is strong Wikipedia policy discouraging the making of legal claims within the Wikipedia online framework because, among other things, the legal uncertainty of such claims are "show stoppers" which interfere with the free flow of debate here. That does not mean that someone who feels, as Ms. Morris may now or in the future, that her legal rights have been injured should just go away and forget about it. Instead, it means that those specific concerns must be directed directly to the Wikimedia Foundation by email (the best address is probably info-en-c@wikimedia.org) and not be discussed here, per the just-cited policy.
(e) Whatever is introduced into a Wikipedia article must be, if challenged, documented with inline citations to reliable sources. That includes any representations about the sequence in which published works are printed. The editor who introduces or reintroduces material has the burden of providing and defending those citations. If reliable sources are not provided, then the information must be removed from Wikipedia, though the best practice is to give the introducing editor a reasonable amount of time to find and provide sources.

In light of the foregoing, if the printing order can be established through reliable sources, then a locution which states something like "first printed in x, subsequently printed in y" is probably preferable (and would appear to have some consensus support here), but "originally published in x and reprinted in y" is in no way forbidden or improper because that is, indeed, what happened when that locution is taken in its common English sense. I have some doubt about whether the "printed ... printed" formula will, however, survive in the long run here, but it might. Whichever form is used must be established by consensus. (And at this point, I don't see any consensuses being particularly affected by the alleged canvassing, but if anyone feels differently then they need to, first, read the canvassing rule carefully to verify that what they're seeing falls within the Wikipedia definition of canvassing, then report it to administrator noticeboard/incidents [here's my shorthand version, but your interpretation may vary: soliciting third parties to join in a discussion in a substantial way: fine, soliciting them to come in and just say "me too": bad].) Finally, I was writing this response when Urban Terrorist posted his note about merger and didn't see it until it came up in the edit conflict. I express no opinion about that subject, except that I suspect that it may well be a case of consensus can change in the light of the fact that no one has mentioned it here until now and that merger might well just move the dispute to a single location rather than solving it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Order - Please note that deciding whether something is a reliable source is very much a judgement call. A source may be reliable on one subject, but unreliable on another, due to the author's lack of knowledge of the subject matter, or lack of appropriate source material, a point which I was trying to make to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz earlier, and which he/she/it totally misunderstood. Consider for example Wikipedia's article on ISBN which is inaccurate because it is mostly about the American system, and does not cover the ISBN system in other countries. I'm very familiar with the Canadian system as I am a Canadian Publisher and it doesn't work the same way. Almost all books which you can find on publishing are about the American system, and therefore not reliable sources for publishers in other countries. The book that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is using as his bible may be accurate on some details, but may not be accurate on others. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As briefly as I can, two independent reliable sources for publication history, reporting the magazine appearance as first/primary: reference work [18], anthology permissions page [19]. Corroborated by Silverberg's authorized bibliography [20], by ISFDB [21], the Locus Hugo listing [22], and the Locus Nebula listing [23], even by the official awards site [24]. I have found no similarly reliable sources contradicting these reports. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Wolfowitz quotes these citations above as if they are all equal, which they are not, and equally applicable, which they are not. The DAW collection permission page quotes the first serial of GITO as its source, because it is a second serial and someone chose the attribution -- but this citation shows that any reprint MUST have an attribution and be used by permission. Rather than proving what Wolfowiz thinks, it proves that Rebels in Hell was not a reprint, since the copyright page of Rebels in Hell bears no such notice, but only Janet Morris' copyright and the statement A Baen Books Original. If Baen Books/Simon and Simon & Schuster had lied about the book being an original, they could have been sued. The quote from Silverberg's website is inadmissible by definition: it is Silverberg's website, and at best contains an error of omission or at worst purposely omits the fact that the story was created in a collaborative environment: I doubt Silverberg created his own website, so this is probably just lack of familiarity by the website text creator that a person as old as Silverberg did not notice. The ISFDB citation above makes no errors: It lists the two publications in the same year alphabetically, and lists them as having occurred in the same month. So a good number of those citations are inadmissible, and the ones derived from the awards information are incomplete: by choice or because of alphabetization, only one of the two relevant citations for that year were represented. This doesn't mean that the second attribution is not correct.

Can this debate be widened to include possible COI or overzealousness or editorial hounding, in whatever terms WP phrases these, on the part of Wolfowitz, who seemingly has an agenda to strip the relevant award winning and nominated stories from the Heroes in Hell(TM) series so he can then delete the Heroes in Hell(TM) series page and all individual book pages (except, it seems, my good friend CJ Cherryh's, which remains untouched with only one review from Locus cited)? Wolfowitz has stated his intention to prove that the Benford and Silverberg stories were not written for HIH (a "low rent series," said Mr W.)in a collaborative environment, but are instead the individual and pre-existing product of Benford and Silverberg's imagination, a premise that is unprovable without original research and which is incorrect. We have explained earlier that having used those characters while the characters were purported to live does not dilute the fact that when dead in hell they were created subject to the rules of the Heroes in Hell(TM) shared universe/world and both authors agreed to these conditions before writing the stories, which were commissioned for the various volumes in which the authors wrote. Under these terms and conditions, both authors wrote more than one story for the series. If the authors didn't have a problem writing for a shared universe/world, why does Mr. Wolfowitz have a problem that they did so? These continued assertions by Wolfowitz that because a first serial MAY have appeared earlier in July than the shared universe book and that the earliest date confers some primacy are getting tedious. Alls tories for a book are turned in, copy-edited, and processed long before the publication and copyright date on the volume. Please see the Wikipedia site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_universe, which has NEVER published a reprint, but only originals contracted for each volume. This site explains why no first-serial publication date in any way contravenes the collaborative nature of ALL stories written for the HIH series. The series is, multiple places (some cited above), and in reviews and on some volumes, clearly identified as a shared universe/world. Silverberg contributed not only once, but three times to this shared universe/world. Quoting from Wikipedia's shared universe page, we find: "A shared universe is a fictional universe to which more than one writer contributes. Work set in a shared universe share characters and other elements with varying degrees of consistency. Shared universes are contrasted with collaborative writing, in which multiple authors work on a single story. Shared universes are more common in fantasy and science fiction than in other genres. Examples include the Star Trek, DC Universe, Marvel Universe, Star Wars, Forgotten Realms, Babylon 5, Foundation series, Power Rangers, Man-Kzin Wars, and Cthulhu Mythos. A teen summer camp called Shared Worlds, started by author Jeff VanderMeer, is based around this concept." Is HIH listed there? No, but it could have been. Not all shared worlds are listed. As a matter of fact, many books are listed that are NOT shared universe volumes: A "List of CJ Cherry books" linked there in references shows group of titles on her website that can be purchased on Amazon from that link on WP's "shared universes" page, and very few of the Cherryh books being sold there are shared universes, if any. (Is this Wikipedia's vaunted neutrality? Or in business with CJ?) Since so far there has been no debate that HIH is a shared universe/world, the very fact that it is one and listed so on Wikipedia and in citations from several sources quoted on the HIH page on Wikipedia and stated elsewhere in Wikipedia, should end the debate about what the primary source of the work was: it was HIH, with a magazine serialization in IASFM that was required to list that the story "will be published in Rebels in Hell" -- a citation required if the story in IASFM was a first serial. As a matter of fact provided by Wolfowitz himself, the absence of a permission citation on the copyright page of RIH PROVES it to be the primary source of the GITO story. I strongly suggest that the attributions in Wikipedia for GITO be Dokzap's solution of both July 1986 publications being listed in alphabetical order with no use of the word "reprint" or "reprinted" or, failing consensus on that, that ALL related works, including CJ Cherry's Legions of Hell and the GITO page, be merged into the HIH series page as suggested by Urban Terrorist. And I ask once again for protection from this overzealous editor, Wolfowitz, so that those with an interest in expanding the pages aren't chased away by continual fear that he will unilaterally delete any contributions he doesn't like without giving editors the opportunity to improve their contributions. Guarddog2 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This diatribe hurled in my direction is so breathtakingly inept that, even more than earlier ones, makes it exceptionally difficult to believe that this is Janet Morris, or anyone else with significant professional experience in the publishing business. I'll be brief, and just give two examples. "Janet" challenges the anthology permissions page I linked to (the "DAW collection"), saying that as a "second serial" it's somehow appropriate for it to attribute only the first serial. This makes no sense in terms of applicable law and standards, of course, but that's not the most important flub. The anthology, a book edited by the late Brian Thomsen and published by DAW Books, isn't a "second serial" publication because second serial publication refers to publication in magazines, newspapers, or similar periodicals. You don't have to take my word for that. Take the word of the Authors Guild, the leading US organization for professional writers. It says that right here[25] in section 2, "Subsidiary Rights". "Janet" also says that "first serial publication" in a magazine is "required" to list the upcoming book publication for works like these. There's no authority cited for that, because it's just not true. Here's a scan (from the Silverberg-authorized site) of the first two pages of the Silverberg story which appeared in Angels in Hell [26]. You'll noticed that although it carries a copyright notice on behalf of Bob Silverberg (aka Agberg Ltd), it doesn't credit, or even mention, you or Angels in Hell. Though there isn't a scan online for it that I've turned up, the same is true for the third Silverberg novella, "Gilgamesh in Uruk." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SUGGESTED RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE

I would like to suggest that the verbiage used on the Gilgamesh in the Outback Talk page by User:Dokzap here[27] be adopted as the language on the Heroes in Hell pages and stop this unnecessary waste of everyone's time. The quote from User:Dokzap is accurate and appropriate. Quote: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1987 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell (July 1987)*, published by Baen Books."

Would everyone who is willing to accept User:Dokzap's wording for the Heroes in Hell page, please note that below this post? If so, possibly we might be able to conclude this discussion. Thank you. *(Publication date added in the interest of total accuracy) Hulcys930 (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to accept the User:Dokzap's wording for the Heroes in Hell page and for the Gilgamesh in the Outback page. Guarddog2 (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Wikipedia is not a vote, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Second, you have a clear COI and shouldn't be participating in discussions on what sort of credit you're entitled to benefit from. Third, it's been pointed out to me that you were indefinitely blocked last year for abuse of multiple accounts and related offenses, and shouldn't be participating at all; by creating a account after multiple unblock requests were refused, you've grossly abused access to this project. According to at least one of your associates, you've been canvassing off-wiki. And the flood of SPA's who've surfaced, arguing in concert and principally or only editing articles related to you and your works, indicates your abuse of multiple accounts has resumed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have such solid proof of malfeasance provide it with documentation. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - I don't know what you are talking about. I can barely manage to get around on WP. I was given this address by another editor who said it would be perfectly fine if I participated. I set up Guarddog specifically for the purpose of providing fact for HIH discussions: I said that on the page. You know that. You went there. You saw the disclosure I put there. Having seen the disclosure, I was told it would be fine if I participated. First you say I'm not who I say I am, and now you say I'm some sort of WP mastermind? Please make up your mind. As I said, I support the Dozkap proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guarddog2 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Wolfy, if you read the post you so kindly cited, you'll note that Mike (who is, by the way, not Janet; he clearly identified himself as the author of that post) was not canvassing for support; he was looking to gather *information.* Luke Jaywalker (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Dozkap's wording as well, for the record. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept User:Dokzap's wording as well. We've wasted too much time on this, let's get back to being productive. I need to re-write the catalytic converter article again, some idiot who doesn't understand chemistry has messed it up. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - It seems to me that the core issue here is when a given story was first published. All this talk about copyright and publication rights is a load of hooey as I see it. We don't adjudicate legal or contractual issues here. That's the realm of lawyers and contracts - we describe what the reliable sources say in public, not what lawyers and their clients argue about in conference rooms and court rooms. The fundamental questions here here is: where could a science fiction fan first purchase and read this story? It seems to me that the evidence indicates that the answer is in Isaac Asimov's magazine. If so, the article should say so. And if the story then appeared shortly thereafter in a book, then the article should say so. If the story was, in effect, commissioned for that book, and fits in with the scenario and theme established for that book by the creator of that series of books, then the article should say so. When the article says such things, those statements should be backed up by references to reliable sources. This is especially important when, as in this case, (for some bizarre reason) the matter is contentious. All this commentary about how "clueless" Wikipedia editors are about publishing and that "the WP community embarrasses itself publicly with these issues" is really over the top. This is not a journal about publishing rights, and this article isn't the place to discuss such topics. I am a moderately experienced editor, and I'm not embarrassed by this kerfuffle, except vicariously for those who have expelled so much hot air here. Wikipedia is roughly the fifth or sixth most visited website in the world, and is number one in terms of original written content. Billions of people rely on Wikipedia, not because it is perfect (it isn't) but because it is based on what reliable sources say about notable topics, not what axe-grinders with obvious conflicts of interest are driven to say about those topics. So, to those new editors who are so hot and bothered here, I would advise you to get involved in the editing of 20 contentious articles on a wide variety of topics. When you return to this debate, perhaps you can see how inconsequential the issues here really are in the grand scheme of things. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Cullen328 for your input. Hopefully, it will be followed... and by long-time editors with obvious "issues."

Mr. Wolfowitz: You seem to feel free to bandy about accusations of wrongdoing and impersonation with regard to Janet Morris (first, you accused Luke Jaywalker of being Janet Morris, second you accused me of being Janet Morris, but when Janet Morris signs on and identifies herself, you firmly insist she is NOT Janet Morris {oddly convoluted reasoning}). Then you make the following statements with no citations or backup of any kind as if by you asserting the accusation, it is automatically to be taken as gospel: "it's been pointed out to me that you [Janet Morris] were indefinitely blocked last year for abuse of multiple accounts and related offenses, and shouldn't be participating at all; by creating a [sic] account after multiple unblock requests were refused, you've grossly abused access to this project." So, as you insist others do, add the appropriate citations of the discussion/procedure in which SOMEONE was blocked for inappropriate behavior on WP, along with whatever evidence you have used to determine that person is, in fact, Janet Morris, or please withdraw the accusations. Hulcys930 (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has presented the evidence, which I find persuasive, on the Administrator's noticeboard Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to read my remarks as any criticism of Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's role here. His "issue" here is Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The talk page for this article is packed full of false accusations that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has a conflict of interest here. He doesn't. In fact, the editor claiming to be Janet Morris and the editors claiming to be contributors to the series are the ones who have a demonstrable conflict of interest here. Who knows if that editor really is Janet Morris, but if that's true, the conflict of interest is bald. Who knows if those other editors really are the authors, but if so, their conflict of interests are exposed by those disclosures. We have a procedure here, called WP:OTRS which allows editors to verify their real world identity in confidence. Any editor wanting to assert such a real world identity needs to go through that process, or be prepared to have their identity questioned and discounted here.

If the editor claiming to be Janet Morris denies connection with the indefinitely blocked editor mentioned by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, then we have highly experienced checkusers here who can determine whether or not those claims are true or false. Until then, experienced editors are likely to accept, at least provisionally, the assertions of an experienced editor like Hullabaloo Wolfowitz. All further arguments should be based on a deep and nuanced understanding of Wikipedia's over-arching policies and guidelines, not on the self-interested assertions of single purpose accounts and editors with a genuine conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes in Hell, Gilgamesh in the Outback resolution

Rick Perry

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.

Rick Perry (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 content of section 5.1 Fiscal issues, although cited, is written with an obvious bias against Rick Perry. The lead paragraph of that section cites only negative aspects of Perry's record. While these may or may not be accurate, I would suggest a more balanced construction of the section, especially the opening paragraph, to ensure a neutral point of view.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

64.128.242.120 (talk · contribs)
64.128.242.120 (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

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

How do you think we can help?

provide an informational blurb indicating that the section does not maintain a neutral point of view and further restrict the ability to edit this page directly.

64.128.242.120 (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Perry discussion

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

Rick Perry resolution

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.

Intercultural Open University Foundation

Intercultural Open University Foundation (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 other party has deleted a report of using an unaccredited degree by someone misrepresenting himself as a psychologist, based upon such postgraduate degree. The reference is based upon reliable sources.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Possible conflict of interests for Thomanq (since he/she writes very favorably of this unaccredited university.)

Resolving the dispute

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

I have discussed the problem on the discussion page for the article.

How do you think we can help?

End the edit warring by passing independent judgment.

Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intercultural Open University Foundation 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 neutral in this matter. I've read the talk page discussion and the linked webpage and committee hearing report. I do not believe the inclusion of the information as to Edward Chan to be appropriate in the Intercultural Open University Foundation article. From a close examination of the report I find nothing that suggests that the Conduct Committee of the British Psychological Society based its decision on a finding or belief that the Foundation was generally nonaccredited. To the contrary, the Society's June 6, 2001, letter to Chan expressly says that it was warning him that he was not qualified to practice because his qualifications were not accredited by the Society, i.e. the British Psychological Society, because there was no element of supervised practice in those degrees. It said nothing about his qualifications lacking general third-party accreditation. That can only be implied from the fact that the opinion refers to the Foundation as not being included in the International Handbook of Universities or the World List of Universities, but that must necessarily be an implication or analysis since the opinion nowhere draws any conclusion from that lack of inclusion. Such an implication or analysis would violate the no original research policy of Wikipedia in general, but that is especially true in a primary source such as this report. Moreover, there is nothing in the report which says or suggests that Chan was misled by the Foundation about the nature of the degrees it offered. There is also nothing in the report which ties the Foundation's findings about Chan to any wrongdoing or unethical action of the Foundation or to any action of the Foundation which would suggest that the Foundation engages in the usual practices of diploma mills. In that light, at the very best the Chan case could only be used in the Foundation article as evidence of the fact that the Foundation is not accredited by the British Psychological Society, which is unnecessarily trivial, and of the fact that it is not listed in the International Handbook of Universities or the World List of Universities, which can better be sourced directly from those UNESCO publications. Regards, 21:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The IOU is not accredited anywhere. There is no discussion about that. The issue is to what extent the IOU by being based in the EU, implies that its diplomas have any value beyond that of the paper. As such it is illustrative that someone claiming/using a title bestowed by IOU is reprimanded. Arnoutf (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a European perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't the fact that it is clearly not accredited anywhere end the discussion about whether or not its degrees have any weight? How does "being based in the EU" suggest that their unaccredited degrees have more weight than they would if they were issued by, say, an unaccredited institution in the United States? Please understand that I'm not challenging you, but just asking for information about something that I might well be ignorant about. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is rather the opposite. Unaccredited organisations are rather rare in the EU. Under Bologna, accreditation in one member automatically extends to others. This together leads to the automatic inference for many that any degree from an EU institution is indeed accredited. The few non-accredited institutions are therefore likely to get respect for the degree that goes way beyond what it would (and should) have. Arnoutf (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Transporterman has misinterpreted the quotes. It says "accredited or recognized by the Society". Imho, the Society does not confer accreditation, but only recognition. Accreditation is a matter of being granted according to the laws of the country wherein the university lies, in this case: for the Netherlands accreditation may only be granted by NVAO (The Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organization). After being accredited by NVAO, the Dutch Department of Education may recognize the accredited curricula, provided that they are considered effective and efficient by the Department. So, for a Dutch university accreditation may only be obtained from NVAO and national recognition may only be granted by the Dutch Department of Education. In respect to the IOUF being accredited in the US, there is no mention of it in the CHEA accreditation database, nor in the database of the US Department of Education. So, it lacks Dutch and US accreditation, and it claims to have offices in the Netherlands and the US. I think that the Society recognizes by default legally accredited education from the countries of the Bologna process, perhaps does it worldwide, since it mentions the International Handbook of Universities. So this boils down to: if Mr. Chan had a nationally accredited postgraduate degree in psychology, he could claim that he fulfills the requirements for being a psychologist in the United Kingdom. The postgraduate degrees obtained from IOUF did not help him with that, since they are nowhere legally accredited, they are not recognized by the Dutch Department of Education and the Society did not recognize the IOUF as fit for conferring such degrees. If it had a Dutch accreditation, it would have automatically been recognized by the Society. This is why I said that the arguments used by Thomanq are misleading, since the Society does not grant accreditation, but operates by examining the lawful national accreditation status as granted inside certain countries, like the Netherlands and the US by their nationally recognized accrediting bodies. The quote could be rephrased as "it is neither recognized by the Society nor accredited" (as in national accreditation). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Arnoutf: But the article already clearly establishes that it is not accredited. Why is further proof needed, especially since there is nothing in the BPS report which ties the Board's findings about Chan to any wrongdoing or unethical action of the IOU or to any action of the IOU which would suggest that the Foundation engages in the usual practices of diploma mills and Chan made no claim that he was somehow misled by the IOU's failure to be accredited? I fail to see what this adds to the article that is not there already. Instead, its inclusion would appear to unfairly cast disrespect on the IOU by implying that it was somehow responsible for Chan's situation, which simply is not supported by the sources in that case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong for two independent reasons. First, the source, the BPS report, says what it says when it says "accredited or recognized by the Society". To interpret "by the Society" to mean or imply something other than simply "by the Society" or that "by the Society" really means they're just accepting the accreditation decisions of other accreditation institutions is a prohibited analysis of a primary source, see WP:PRIMARY. Second, and perhaps more significantly, an examination of the Society's current website and its prior websites archived at the Internet Archive clearly shows that the Society has been engaging in accreditation of psychology postgraduate training programs according to its own standards for accreditation since long before this case was heard in 2005. (According to this publication, they've been doing so since the early 1970s, though that fact is not particularly significant for the current discussion.) Again, nothing in the Chan report indicates that the Society's decision was made upon the basis of IOU's general lack of accreditation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC) PS: One other minor clarification in reference to my supposed misinterpretation of the "quotes." I did not merely rely upon the quotes given in this and the article talk page discussion; I downloaded and thoroughly read the entire BPS report. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chan may have expected that the institute was accredited, as diploma mills are relatively rare in Europe. In any case, I don't have a strong opinion about the Chan issue, although I share Tgeorgescu's worry that Thomanq is not neutral as he removes a person who got into trouble claiming any value of the diploma, while he adds notable "alumni" therewith putting a lot of emphasis on the value of the diploma. (I am actually not fully convinced this should have gone to dispute resolution already as the interaction remains fairly civilized so far). Arnoutf (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To TransporterMan, thank you for your balanced opinion. I am concerned at the temper of discussion relating to this and other issues in this entry and troubled by the passion with which Arnoutf and Tgeorgescu pursue their arguments. We appear to have a determination to discredit IOUF on our hands, which is either a non-neutral and biased approach to this entry or perhaps even a conflict of interest. I’m not sure what’s going on in this situation -- it seems to me there should be no need for any heat here.

Although the issue of speedy deletion arose in 2009 a decision was made to retain the entry, a move which confirmed notability. It seems, then, that we are therefore arguing about the nature of the notability.

If we look at the history of the Discussion on the IOUF entry, it is evident that Arnoutf and Tgeorgescu have consistently inserted negative comments about the Foundation, and just as consistently deleted positive references. For example, the listing of a notable graduate, Dr. Gulab Kothari, who is editor of the Rajasthan Patrika Publishing Group in India, was recently deleted almost soon as it was posted. Dr. Kothari’s organization provides news and information to 2.4 million Hindi-speaking people in India, the world’s second largest country by population. How Dr. Kothari could not be deemed notable is indeed mysterious, as have been the deletions of all other notable faculty and graduates, many of whom also have impressive credentials. One IOUF graduate is carrying on Mother Theresa’s work with the Dalits of India. Not notable? These are notable people within the definition of Wikipedia’s criteria for notability and, with respect, I contend that these deletions represent biased behavior which prevents readers from obtaining factual information on the Foundation’s work on the global landscape.

Regarding the issue of accreditation, although the IOUF has administrative offices in the Netherlands and the United States of America, it does not seek to confer a Dutch or American degree. In fact, it is a small global learning organization serving the needs of a very unique clientele: people wishing to obtain post-graduate learning and accreditation that will help them more effectively focus their lives on improving the living conditions of the world’s impoverished people. It attracts brilliant and selfless people like Bremley Lyngdoh and Gulab Kothari and, yes it attracted Edward Chan. This has happened at other academic institutions as well, and while it is distressing and unfortunate, it is not, contrary to what has been said here, due to any fault of the IOUF.

IOUF does not seek the NAVO accreditation or a specifically Dutch (dr) degree and so it is puzzling that Arnoutf and Tgeorgescu have inserted into the entry, at numerous junctures, the fact that the Foundation has not obtained the right to offer these strictly Dutch designations. Should the entry also note that IOUF has not been accredited by the Ministries of Education of France, Spain, Germany, India, America, Australia and every other country in the world as well? To what purpose? Forgive me, but this strikes me as narrow-minded and petty and, with true respect for all concerned in this discussion, it limits our consideration to issues of geography.

IOUF’s outlook is global, not country-specific, and it has the legal right of a registered foundation to offer a PhD degree. I understand as well that efforts are now and always have been ongoing to maintain quality and integrity in delivering a world class learning experience for learners. It may not look like a standard-issue university and indeed it is not. It is something outside of the basic definition of what a university is and it offers opportunities to advance knowledge and understanding across cultural barriers and beyond the identity of almost every university functioning in the world today. It is not surprising this effort should be misunderstood but it is somewhat surprising that it should be attacked with so much vigor and animosity.

I appreciate TransporterMan’s opinion on the matter of Edward Chan and I would like the debate opened up to include this thorny issue of non-Dutch accreditation as well as the inclusion of notable graduates and faculty. I, for one, welcome full and generous debate on the issue with inviduals who seek an honest recording of the IOUF's position in the world and I look forward to further discussion. It seems to me that the point should not be to diminish anyone's reputation here but rather to light the way to greater understanding, since that would appear to be the purpose of a project as vast and inclusive as what Wikipedia strives to be.

Thank you.Thomanq (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intercultural Open University Foundation resolution

Animal Farm in popular culture

Animal Farm in popular culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

There is a disagreement regarding appropriate content for the article, especially regarding whether reliable secondary sources are required for items listed in the article to establish their eligibility for inclusion.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Resolving the dispute

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

I have been heavily involved in a discussion on the article's Talk page. Additionally I posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture soliciting other editors' opinions, with no apparent result.

How do you think we can help?

I believe other editors' feedback would be very helpful in resolving this dispute, particularly in regards to the appropriateness of including items on a standalone list article that are not reliably sourced. There may be other issues with the article as well, especially with regards to WP:LSC.

Doniago (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Farm in popular culture discussion

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

User Doniago is complaining that a specific song which is used as a primary source for its own description in the article concerned does not have the material contained in it which is included in that article. As proof, he has given the fact that he "read the Wikipedia article" on the song, and didn't see the material there. I explained that the source is the song itself. (Everyone knows that wikipedia articles are sources for nothing?) I explained that his complaint might be entirely true, and suggested that he check the primary source--song lyrics themselves--and get back to the talk page if he didn't find the song's description supported by the song. Filing this complaint was his response to my request that he verify the primary source. Please simply advise the user to check the source and report on his findings on the article's talk page. I have already told him there I will listen to what he has to say when he checks the source itself. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disregarding the fact that you are focusing on one of the several concerns that I brought up, what you are asking me to do would be original research. Even if I were to listen to the song, unless it specifically and unambiguously referenced Animal House it would be inappropriate for me to take a presumed reference to the novel and use that as a basis for inclusion. Additionally, per WP:BURDEN it is not my job to prove that a list item is inappropriate for inclusion, it is incumbent on editors who wish for material to be included to provide reliable sourcing. And finally, on the article's Talk page I asked you repeatedly to provide information regarding the article's selection criteria, a requirement per WP:LSC, and you either could not or would not do so. You similarly failed to satisfactorily provide any policy links supporting your allegation that a primary source is sufficient to establish eligibility for inclusion on a list. Doniago (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Animal House and Animal Farm are rather different. I've looked over the list, and there do seem to be some more than dubious inclusions. Dylan's Mr. Jones? I'm sure it has been suggested that this is an AF reference - it may well be - but that's a theory not a fact, and it's not even mentioned in the article on the song. It really should be attributed. Every use of the phrase "animal farm" in song lyrics is not necessarily a reference to the novel. Paul B (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a typo on my part. Apologies for any confusion! Doniago (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has it occurred to anyone that Gnarphism in popular culture-type articles invariably end up as repositories for trivia, and are not especially encyclopedic in the first place? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes it has, which is why I attempted to remove any entries that did not include reliable sourcing, especially given that the article has been tagged since January 2009. And now we're here. Doniago (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there is some legitimacy to both positions here. After all, any source can only be interpreted by what it actually says. Even an academic source can only be known to be referring to Orwell's novel if the context makes that clear. A song lyric or other reference may be unambiguously referring to Orwell's novel. In that case if the content of the text is reliably sourced and there is no reasonable dispute that the novel is being referenced, I don't see why it should not be included if it is sufficiently notable. Paul B (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doniago seems to have a rather mechanical understanding of what a source is, and to be working under the false impression that only secondary sources count as proper sources, and cannot apparently distinguish between having a what appears to be a source in an article and an editor's responsibility in verifying the content of a given source if he doubts it. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources primary sources are absolutely reliable for their own mere self-description. The entries with which Doniago takes exception are ones in which the works themselves are identified and described by what we must assume are good faith observers. Doniago's original objection was to the contents of a Dylan song. (I refuse to address multiple complaints by him at one time when every indication is he fails to understand the relevant policies and procedures.) That song is explicitly identified in the text. The song is the source. He is free to check its contents himself, just as, if he doubted that a secondary reference said what it was reported to have said, he could and should also check that secondary reference. This is not OR. It is exactly what editors do, they check sources to verify that they reflect the claim being made. That is what verify means. The presence of a supposed secondary source as a ref in an article is not magic. It doesn't mean that we as editors don't also have to check it to see whether it says what it is supposed to say. There are a dozen different tags indicating that an editor has checked the source, primary or secondary, and doubts that it supports the claim for which it is adduced. See Template:Failed verification. What exactly do those tags mean other than someone has checked the source and disputes it?

If you check the article history, you will see that in addition to deleting works whose notability was not demonstrated by the presence of an article on the subject, I myself tagged all the claims that referred to primary works as their own sources without specifying a verifiable name or episode as in need of specification. I then deleted them (they are on the talk page) when they had not been specified. I have invited Doniago to address his concerns one-by-one after he himself has checked the attributed sources. I am happy to consider his findings--his complaints may have merit--if they are reflected in the given sources. Instead, his response was first, rather to check the primary sources themselves, to check the WP articles on them as if the WP article were itself a source (!)--an epic fail in understanding what a source is--and then immediately to raise the complaint on this board. he simply needs to check the primary sources and then comment on the talk page. I will AGF as to his findings. I see no further action necessary here on my part. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that the only people claiming the list items reference Animal Farm are the editors adding the list items, as no secondary sources are being provided, would seem to me to unequivocally establish that said list items have not been satisfactorily verified. I fail to see how me reviewing any of the primary sources to confirm that they are referencing Animal Farm would satisfy anything, as I am not a reliable source. Additionally, you have still failed to provide any information regarding my concerns vis a vis WP:LSC and lack of clear selection criteria. Doniago (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You repeat yourself. Once a "reliable" source has been given, you can't challenge the claim as lacking a reliable source--you can only challenge the source as not verified upon inspection. You are asking for magic, or worse, slavery: that others verify things for you because you refuse to bother to do so. You have to check the sources and confirm or deny that they contain what other editors have in WP:AGF asserted. If you yourself are not willing to check whether the sources say what it is asserted they say, you must WP:AGF and deal with it. If you do check out the sources, which have been added in good faith by many different people (not one of whom in this article is me) and which, as an editor, you MUST do if you challenge them, you may tag them with any of the appropriate tags that I have helpfully linked you to above. You are, for the last time, invited to check the sources and report your findings on the article's talk page, and I will listen to you and treat you with good faith. But I am done here to the point of wishing to utter obscenities. I am unwatching this report. If any admins want to get in touch with me they have my talk page address. μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Farm in popular culture resolution

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