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
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	28 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 2 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	In Progress	Randomstaplers (t)	24 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 hours
Double-slit experiment	Closed	Johnjbarton (t)	7 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	New	Wolfdog (t)	6 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 7 hours	EncreViolette (t)	3 days, 9 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	4 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 8 hours
Genocides in history (before World War I)	New	Jonathan f1 (t)	3 hours	None	n/a	Jonathan f1 (t)	27 minutes

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 23:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251

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

Current disputes

Talk:Pope Joan

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by 189.8.107.196 on 17:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Pope Joan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The fact that one Catholic pope in the Dark Ages would have been a woman in disguise (commonly referred to as Pope Joan) has always been a controversial one - but this article's non-neutral POV makes it seem like no such controversy exists, and gives the Catholic Church's current official position as a true, undispustable fact.

It's a fact that it was widely believed for centuries, including by catholics, that the female Pope had existed - a statue depicting her, labeled Pope Joan, has been displayed among other Pope statues in the Italy's Siena Cathedral until 1700 (when the then Pope ordered its removal); she is depicted in works of art, theatre and literature from all around Europe, and even though the Vatican has finally stated that she was only a fictitious legend, she continues to this day to attract the interest of millions around the world, including authors like Peter Stanford and Donna W. Cross who deffend she might have existed.

As controversial a topic as it is, the article on it should of course reflect that - but, as can be seen throughout all the article's history, it's been noted for years, by many different users, that its full content reflects purely the Catholic Church's POV and was anything but neutral. However, an active team of engaged editors has through the article's history always been very quick to counter-edit any such edits, threatening the dissonant voices with bans and until now preventing even a broader discussion regarding the neutrality of the article from taking place.

A neutral article needs at least mentioning who deffends her,what they argue, even if one then counterbalances each of them with supposed explanations and concludes that there's not sufficient proof that she ever existed (what is NOT at all the same thing as saying that there's sufficient proof that she did NOT exist). People have tried doing so/making the article neutral for years, but each of their editions has always been reverted without real discussion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Ongoing debate in the appropriate Talk page. The discussion, however, is going in circles and nowhere, since the users who have for years edited out all mentions that do not follow 100% the Catholic Church's POV will simply discredit every single source that contradicts them as being not even worthy of having their existences acknowledged.

How do you think we can help?

It'd be helpful if simply more people were to read the topic, read the Talk page and then comment on whether they find the current text neutral. The topic itself offends some people's personal convictions, and it happens that these are almost the only people who care about the topic enough as to write on it and discuss it and they end up tiring away the less engaged casual passers-by. Simply having more neutral outsiders read, comment and rewrite the text in a neutral POV should solve the issue.

Summary of dispute by Farsight001

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

Summary of dispute by Cuchullain

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

189.8.107.196's summary shows that much of this dispute is behavioral, not content-based. The accusations that there's a conspiracy of editors enforcing the "the Catholic Church's POV" and quashing all discussions are totally baseless and out of line. Whatever neutrality concerns exist in the article just get clouded over by the anon's edit warring, comments about contributors, and battleground behavior.
The anon elides the fact that their complaints largely focus on the lead section, and that the rest of the article is in a poor state. Rather than fix the body, they've initiated an edit war over the intro. None of the article's problems will be resolved this way, or any way beside rewriting the body with the best available sources.
This has caused considerable confusion. Below, 177.76.41.164 writes that editors are "deliberately omitting" certain facts, such as details about Siena Cathedral's bust of Joan. There's been some dispute over how this material (which I added) is handled in the intro, but despite 177.x's claims, the details are already in the article body. Again, what the article needs is an overhaul in the body.
I tried to rewrite the intro using standard academic works on Pope Joan. These sources speak to a consensus among scholars that Pope Joan is a myth. There are a few writers who still claim she was real, but they're basically a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. As I said on talk, Diana Cross is a fiction writer, and Peter Stanford isn't a historian, he's a journalist. More to the point, Stanford's book on Joan has been harshly received by historians.[1][2] It can't be used to override cited claims from respected sources.
As a final point, Scolaire says that some folks want to keep out all mention of Stanford and Cross. This isn't true. It's perfectly fine to include them in the article body (with the necessary explanation to how they're viewed by the experts). Adding them to the introduction, however, is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Again, what we need is better treatment of the article body.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by 191.222.109.81

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

Summary of dispute by Kansas_Bear

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

Summary of dispute by 177.76.41.164

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

The page could indeed be rewritten in a more neutral way. I don't know much about the topic itself, but as others have said, when you dedicate some time going through the page's edits history you end up finding out a lot of valid and pertinent and documented data that indeed was removed from the article for no given reason, and all said edits are indeed always favoring a position that the story is complete bogus. I myself quite think it is actually bogus, but rather than allowing me to reach that conclusion after giving me all the history of the issue and even the conspiracy theories, the page indeed shoves into the reader's face not gently at all what the editors/writers' point of view is, deliberately omitting even interesting facts regarding the story which, even if not proving the conspiratiotists' theories, isn't well regarded by the Vatican (like the fact that there was a precise date when a Pope declared Pope Joan not to have existed; and the fact that it was only after that and at the Pope's request that Joan's bust was removed from the papal busts collection at the Catholic Cathedral of Siena; also, there aren't mentions or images to the numerous images of a female figure in full papal style, Papal tiara included, to this day displayed even in the Vatican, which, even if having different explanations, are indeed one of the arguments used by the conspirationists.

Simply put, the OP does seem to have sort of a valid point when saying that the page's edits history does reveal engaged activism / permanent watch by a group of users who seem to be way more interested in deffending the current official position of the Church than in having a good Wikipedia article.

And finally, the fact that the opponent editors managed to get the OP banned from Wikipedia for no reason other than reverting unwelcome edits (well referenced and pertinent edits the OP had made in other sections of the article that were not directly related to the disputed topic were deleted without justification by his opponents among the edit war) kind of adds weight to his/her accusations of censorship... 177.76.41.164 (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Scolaire

One side wants to state as fact that there is an ongoing controversy over the existence of Pope Joan, citing Peter Stanford and Donna Cross. I don't see any ongoing controversy in the real world, and those two authors are not suitable sources for that claim, because they are not academic historians. However, the other side does not want those authors' views to be considered at all, which I think is going to the other extreme. It was a revelation to me, on reading the reverted, but sourced, edits, to find that there are people notable enough to be published who say they believe in the legend at least to some extent. Therefore I think it is worth a brief mention. This is consistent with WP:DUE. It would also, without making it appear that there is a lively academic debate going on, at least answer the people who say that the minority point of view is being censored, or that the article is written solely from a Catholic Church POV. I am not arguing that she existed, only that is worth mentioning that a couple of people do. Scolaire (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Wetman

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

Summary of dispute by Ian.thomson

(Previously uninvolved non-volunteer observer): "The fact that," "widely believed," and borderline accusations of Catholic censorship... A completely non-neutral summary that argues against WP:GEVAL. I'm seeing one side cite a number of academic sources, and the other citing tabloids. Please snow close this. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved at TransporterMan's request, as I've started responding at the talk page. I stand by my observation that one side is citing academia, while the other is citing tabloids, conspiracy theories, and innuendo of Catholic censorship. I can only find one user involved who identifies as Catholic, who is not listed here because that involvement is only one post that sticks to the policies and guidelines. If anything, the legendary side is mostly users who would be sympathetic to the idea of Pope Joan but realize that it's fantasy. While I agree that that a few non-historians insist that Joan existed (which would be a few sentences later in the article, dismissed as WP:FRINGE -- Oh, wait, the article already does that), that's different from downplaying (if not whitewashing) the clearly cited academic consensus and the addition of badly sourced revisionist claims to the lede. As with other fringe authors, I do not mind including Stanford if properly labelled as a non-historian and presented alongside any counter-arguments directed at his work. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that 177.16.62.71 geolocates to the same location as 189.8.107.196, who was far from uninvolved. 177.76.41.164 (who filed this request) geolocates to the same location as 179.148.187.148, and these two addresses are just down the road from the first two. I do not believe we have more than two individuals posting from all four IPs. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by 177.16.62.71 (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(Previously uninvolved non-volunteer observers): I am Catholic and I'm currently graduating in History - which makes me specially appaled by the arguments in the original Talk Page that Peter Stanford's opinion should not even be considered and that it is okay to say that ALL historian agree on something even if Stanford does not. He is a Historian, he is a religious historian, he is indeed a Catholic historian, and it is also true that he is the only person who has even been called an "expert on Pope Joan" in the world, and he is indeed currently the only person so recognised by the search results in Google.

So that means I believe Joan existed? No, not at all. I am 100% convinced that Stanford, as well as Cross, do not even believe that themselves, and only play along. Why? Because conspiracy theories sell, that's why, and they're both millionaires nowadays, only because of pretending to believe that there was once a real female pope.

But that does not, absolutely, mean that these two authors do not exist; or that their opinions can be concealed, or disregarded, or even given little to no proeminence in the Pope Joan wikipedia page. Please, Pope Joan *is* a conspiracy theory story. Even if Stanford was not a serious Catholic editor and scholar and historian, even if he was just a crazy dude who decided to say that Pope Joan was real, as long as he's successfully published a worldwide bestseller with his theory, and become one of the most famous "experts" on the topic, it is obvious that his opinions and claims should be given appropriate space and credit. Wikipedia does *not* prejudice against conspiracy theories. The World Trade Center article brings in it text and references to the conspiracy theories according to which the US itself exploded the towers. It is a repugnant theory, one that literally disgusts me and millions of other even to be read, but it is there - and, you know what? It ought to be. That's what Wikipedia is about. It gives people information, and allows people to make their own conclusions with all the opinions given, and all the conspiracy theories, and all the interesting trivia and photos and art (which have all been in my opinion incorrectly cut off the Pape Joan page by fellow editors who, like me, seem to agree that most people who "like" the story of Pope Joan, do so only because it "hurts" the image of the Church; but actively editing out the various sculptures and art depicting a female figure wearing the papal tiara, which is what has been done for years, is hurtful to the story of our Church itself. Pope Joan was believed for a long time by the Church itself, and there is nothing wrong with acknowledging it; we also thought for centuries that the Sun orbited the Earth, and, hey, we were wrong, that is okay, information was scarce before the internet - that does't mean we ought to just pretend it never happened...)

Even the Jesus page here in Wikipedia admits that it is not a 100.000000% consensus that He ever existed. So how can the Pope Joan deniers intend to be so arrogant?

Shortly put, and even if I am 100% sure that the "story" of Pope Joan is pure conspiracy theory, I will have to agree that while reading this article I actually thought for a minute that I was reading the Catholic boards I normally access, rather than Wikipedia.

Having spent the past hours of my day reading into every edition that has ever been made to the page (and all the reverts made by the same handful of pals), I would actually go as far as saying that the page needs urgent rewriting - and that it needs be done by a large group of uninvolved, preferrably from different backgrounds, group of users. And I would suggest that the users here involved, including those who have been "protecting" the page from all "external" interference for years, completely refrained from this whole process, in everyone's (and specially the page's) best interests. 177.16.62.71 (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pope Joan discussion

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

(Another previously uninvolved non-volunteer observation): I gave the article a *quick* lookover, so take this with as much salt as you like. At the surface it seems balanced and gives the general message that Pope Joan is fictional but that there was a time when it was believed otherwise. However, a second pass with more attention left me with the slight smell of failure of WP:NPOV (in the direction of a vague desire to shove the "legend" in the face of any passing Catholics). There's a fair sprinkle of what I think is weaseling e.g. "..said to have reigned...", "Most versions of her story...", "The one most commonly cited...", " It has been speculated ..." and so on. And there are multiple assertions with no RS offered whatsoever. Little snippets of colloquial speech also raise a grin: "during the pontificate of 'Pope Agnes ... [the Church] got on quite well." (emphasis mine).

I don't like that "legendary" in the first sentence. Judging by the rest of the article, it looks like the adjective being sought after is supposed to say that the stories are false, but "legendary" does not necessarily convey that. "Mythical" would be no better. Perhaps the simple "fictional" would work?

Finally, I'd also like to see some sources for the first part of the lead's penultimate sentence: "The legend was universally accepted as true until the 16th century, when a widespread debate among Catholic and Protestant writers called the story into question; various writers noted the implausibly long gap between Joan's supposed lifetime and her first appearance in texts". It's not clear that the two sources already provided are covering not just the assertion that the story is no longer accepted, but also the assertion that it once was "universally accepted". Thomask0 (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All parties have been notified as of 13:30 UST 25 January 2015 — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem there, because the filing editor has just been blocked for 72 hours. Scolaire (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No longe a problem: all users mentioned by the OP who had not yet posted in here have just received personalised messages by me, in their own personal pages, very directly and succintly telling them they have been included as parts to this discussion, with pertinent link provided. Xox177.76.41.164 (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've formally notified all parties. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer's notes 2: I'm still not taking this or opening it for discussion, but some comments are in order:

@ the previously uninvolved non-volunteer observers: Thank you for your comments, which are entirely welcome here, but if there is any possibility whatsoever that you're going to continue in this discussion here at DRN or at the article talk page, please list yourselves as parties, create an initial summary section for yourself, and move your comments there.
@ the IP editors listed as parties and the IP editor who made an entry in Cuchullain's summary section, above : If you are a user with an account and just accidentally edited without logging in, please remove the IP listing from the user list, substitute your username if it's not already listed, and only edit in this discussion while logged in. If, on the other hand, if you're an IP-only editor, please consider creating an account and doing the same. It's really confusing to the volunteers when a number of IP editors are involved in the discussion.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)[reply]

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am willing to try to get this dispute moving. First, I don't have any special authority to resolve this case, or any particular knowledge about the issues. My role is to help the editors in this case work together to get resolution. I will insist that all editors be concise and civil. Focus on content, not on contributors. I will start off by asking each of you what you think should be changed to improve the article. Be specific and concise. After I have initial responses, I will formulate more questions to try to clarify the issues further. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Also, if you are editing from an IP address, please be aware that your IP address may change and that may make it more difficult to take part in this discussion. I advise any IP editors to create an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by User:189.8.107.196

First statement by User:Farsight001

First statement by User:Cuchullain

Comment on content, not contributors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not wanting to get into behavior issues again here, I'm not sure what level of dispute really remains here now that the IPs have all stopped editing after the sockpuppet investigation.

But as far as that goes, I'll reiterate that I think it's perfectly fine, and necessary, to cover the writers who think Joan was real in the article (actually this goes a bit beyond Stanford and Cross, but not all that much more). This should be covered in a much better fashion than it presently is, but that goes for the entire article. Again, I don't think it's productive to focus too much energy on the introduction when there's so much work to be done on the article body. Especially if it's just to accommodate what's realistically a fringe viewpoint.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by User:191.222.109.81

First statement by User:Kansas_Bear

First statement by User:177.76.41.164

First statement by User:Scolaire

This bit about Peter Stanford has found a permanent place in the article – after a few reverts – and that is fair, I think. I think it would also be fair to mention the historical novelist Donna Woolfolk Cross in the same section, as she spent seven years researching her subject (something that no historian nowadays is likely to do), and she is quoted by NBC as saying, "I would say it's the weight of evidence – over 500 chronicle accounts of her existence." Those two writers, who we all agree are in the minority, and go against modern scolarly consensus, could still usefully get a half-sentence in the lead. On the talk page I suggested that the last sentence of the lead might be re-written.

Current: Pope Joan is now widely accepted to be fictional, though the legend remains influential in art, literature, drama, and film. [Rustici, 2006]
Proposed: Pope Joan is now widely accepted to be fictional. Nonetheless, the legend remains influential in art, literature, drama, and film, [Rustici, 2006] and a small number of 21st-century writers have expressed the belief that the legend is at least partially true.

WP:GEVAL would not apply here, since there is nothing like equal weight being given to the minority view. WP:DUE says, "Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view." I think this proposal makes it crystal clear, and therefore is consistent with policy. Scolaire (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Edited 12:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by User:Wetman

First statement by User:Ian.thomson

Comment on content, not contributors

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I acknowledge and otherwise respect the request to not comment on editors, but I must point out that since evidence of sockpuppetry was raised (even an SPI filed), the IP editors (including the one who filed this request) have ultimately ceased editing. It is also odd that none of the addresses were active at the same time and that once an address ceased activity it failed to come back, both of which would have eventually happened had they been operated by distinct persons. Instead "new" anons regularly showed up announcing that they were absolutely different people. I merely bring this up to question whether we need to actually go through full dispute resolution, as it was filed by the IP sockpuppeteer under false pretenses (if not bad faith), and I'm left with the impression that everyone else here is capable of honest and reasonable discussion on the talk page.

The article currently presents the subject as a legend with limited support among select amateur historians, as does our article on the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. I mention this article because it is a strong parallel: while amateur historians can be included their views should not be presented as being more respected by academia than they really are, nor should we create artificial balance between amateur historians and professional scholars. The sources cited to support a historical existence of Joan are not by professional academics. The article could stand to include more coverage of why people believe Pope Joan existed, but this should be counterbalanced with rebuttals from mainstream scholarship. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by User:Thomask0

Second statement by volunteer moderator

I am dropping the unregistered editors. Here are my questions for the registered editors. Is there any specific change that you want made to the lede of the article, in particular as to whether she existed? Are there any specific changes that you want made to the body of the article? Also, can we remove the NPOV tag from the article? Also, do we still think that dispute resolution is necessary? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by User:Farsight001

Second statement by User:Cuchullain

1. Again, I don't want to do anything major with the lead until the article body is improved drastically. I think it currently summarizes most of the key points adequately. Scolaire, I don't think more space should be given to the handful of writers who believe Joan existed, considering we're not covering more important points. We don't get into modern scholarly and feminist takes on the legend, or much about the historical Protestant-vs.-Catholic debates; all of those things are much more significant to the legend than the handful of 20th-century writers who argue Joan was a real person.
2. Yes, I want to make all manner of changes to the article body. The article's low quality is really the issue here. I'll volunteer to rewrite the section on pop culture treatments based on the sources (Thomas F.X. Noble's survey "Why Pope Joan?" is a good one for that regard) and perhaps on scholarly and feminist appraisals
3. No, I have no problem removing the tag.
4. No, I don't think DR is necessary any longer, as I said in the above (now collapsed section). Unless certain problems return, I think we can handle the issues with normal discussion.
--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by User:Kansas_Bear

Second statement by User:Scolaire

I want to make a specific change to the lead, as set out in my first statement. I do not want the lead to say that she existed; in that respect it's fine as it is.
I want an edit to the body of the article, again as set out in my first statement, to present the views of Donna Woolfolk Cross. Cuchullain says that it is fine to cover not only her but one or two others, and Ian.thomson also says that these people can be covered as long as it is balanced, so I don't think there's any disagreement there.
I have no problem with removing the tag. The issue is being addressed.
Cuchullain says that he "doesn't think it's productive to focus too much energy on the introduction when there's so much work to be done on the article body", but I would turn that around and ask, would it harm the article to include in the lead an innocuous half-sentence such as I have proposed, while work goes on on the article body? If the other editors agree that it would not do any harm, then the dispute resolution can be closed; if not, I'd need to see policy-based reasons why not. Scolaire (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cuchullain, I'm talking about adding twenty words to a lead of just over 300 words. That's not an inordinate amount of space. No other edit to the lead has been proposed, so I'm not proposing to add it at the expense of something else. Naturally, when the article has been improved, the lead will need to be re-written; that does not mean that a small piece of verifiable content that I and others find useful should not be added in the meantime. I am opposed to stopping DR as long as this impasse continues. Scolaire (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by User:Wetman

Second statement by User:Ian.thomson

Second statement by User:Thomask0

Third statement by volunteer moderator

It has been three days since I last requested comments, and I have comments from two out of seven editors who commented. I am about to declare the dispute resolution to have failed, but will provide one more chance for either of the two replying editors, or any of the five editors who sat out the last round, to reply with 24 hours. One editor thinks that dispute resolution can be closed; one thinks that it can be continued. I can't continue it without some collaboration. Cuchullain thinks that the article body needs to be improved drastically, which is a difficult objective for what is supposed to be a quick light-weight dispute procedure. Can a summary of sections of the article needing work be identified? Scolaire wants to make a change in the lede. Does Cuchullain agree?

Regardless of whether we can continue dispute resolution or whether it fails, the next step would appear to be one or more Requests for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by User:Farsight001

Third statement by User:Cuchullain

I've commented enough here on what should be done with the article body, and I'll work on that over at the article. As for the proposed change to the lead, my opinion stands that singling out the view that Joan was a real person in the lead gives WP:UNDUE weight to what is basically a fringe viewpoint held largely by a small handful of 20th-century pop writers. I base this on my reading of the sources: there are numerous other viewpoints that are more significant than this, but aren't included in the lead. For instance, in Thomas F.X. noble's survey "Why Pope Joan," he devotes about 4 pages (10 paragraphs) to 20th century viewpoints on Joan, which he divides into three major, overlapping trends: academic approaches, feminist approaches, and pop culture/artistic approaches. We don't say anything at all about the first two in the lead, let alone get into individual points.
Noble devotes about 2 pages to academic approaches by historians, literary theorists and postmodern critics, who have "effectively refuted any such possibility" that Joan was historical, but consider her story valuable for what it says about the eras in which it's been popular. Then he has a long paragraph on feminist interpretations and art about Joan. Finally, he devotes two paragraphs to Joan in fiction, theater, and film (as said in our intro). He mentions Stanford and Cross in one of these latter paragraphs. Their viewpoint is pretty idiosyncratic and not particularly significant in the scheme of things. In my opinion, elevating it into the lead while leaving out more significant and important viewpoints would be a classic case of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Cross et al are already covered under "art, literature, drama, and film" in the lead; IMHO it's better to leave the specifics for the article body.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by User:Kansas_Bear

Third statement by User:Scolaire

As far as I can see there is unanimity among the three remaining editors as to the body of the article: Cuchullain says it should be drastically re-worked, and that the re-worked version would fairly present the views of all who say she existed; I am in whole-hearted agreement with that (my previous statement focused only on the matter at hand, that did not mean I thought the rest was fine); and Ian.thomson says he's not bothered.
As to the lead, I have proposed a small addition that does not say she existed, does not give undue weight, does not clutter up the lead, and does not displace or otherwise affect any other content. All I am asking is a policy-based reason why that should not be done now (and re-visited during or after the re-write if desired). If nobody can produce one here, there is no reason to think anybody will be able to produce one in a talk page discussion or in an RfC. Why waste time? Either it is reasonable or it can be shown here and now why it is not. Scolaire (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If the NPOV tag can be removed, surely page protection can be removed as well? There has been no activity by unregistered users on the talk page or anywhere else. Scolaire (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: When I talk about "my proposal" I do not mean "my exact wording". Any edit that briefly alluded to the existence of a minority viewpoint would be fine. I can practically guarantee that if Cuchullain were to propose an alternative wording I would be perfectly happy with it. Scolaire (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by User:Wetman

Third statement by User:Ian.thomson

To be honest, my involvement was ultimately to counter problematic influences that are no longer present. Not that I mind disagreement, new editors, or IP involvement, but there were certain behaviors I felt needed to be balanced off so that people who actually should be working on the article get a chance to do so. Not concerned about how the article turns up in the fine hands of those remaining, and I hope that they can come to some sort of agreement (though I'm more inclined to think that it could be done on the talk page). One side says the article's fine, the other side says it needs and overhaul. If I wanted to be involved, I'd probably suggest that Cuchullain (just happens to be him, but it could be anyone) suggest on the talk page the exact, minimal changes (listed neatly so we can say that one sucks and the other's awesome) that he thinks need to be made; and that everyone else try and figure out whatever's the least amount of work for them to be cool with each change (and whatever alternatives as close to a middle ground they're good with if they can't support a change).

Obviously, we not only cannot say that Joan existed, but must say that she did not -- however, we can say that some (non-academic) persons do think she existed, explain why, and provide explanations from mainstream sources why they're wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by User:Thomask0

Fourth statement by volunteer moderator

I am willing to keep this discussion open for another day or two. I will comment that I find the statements that the lede should not say that she existed to be talking tediously into the void, because no one still in dispute resolution is saying that. The only questions about the lede are details, and perhaps exactly what to say in Wikipedia's voice about her existence. As to her existence, the possibilities are to say: (1) that she did not exist; (2) that no serious modern scholar believes that she existed; (3) that no serious modern scholar believes that she existed, but that a few modern authors have proposed that she existed; (4) that serious modern scholarship is very skeptical of claims for her existence, but that a few modern authors have proposed that she existed. None of those are statements that she existed. I personally (and maybe, as moderator, I should not take a view) that that statement 1 is too strong in WP's voice, and that statement 2 is better. The only other issue about the lede is whether to add anything else about non-mainstream claims. What do the remaining participants think (without beating the dead horse)? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the remaining authors are willing to work on the article body. If we have the lede either resolved or down to two or three choices, then we can either close dispute resolution, or publish an RFC, or both. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statement by User:Farsight001

Fourth statement by User:Cuchullain

I'd support your option 2. Option 1 is too strong, 4 is too weak, and both 3 and 4 add a line that, I've argued, adds undue weight to a minority viewpoint. I don't think anything else from minority viewpoints needs to be added, especially since there are well-established viewpoints that aren't covered. Most of it's already covered by the line "the legend remains influential in art, literature, drama, and film."--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statement by User:Kansas_Bear

Fourth statement by User:Scolaire

Firstly, I'm assuming, as (2) does not say "leave the lead as it is", that some edit to the lead is proposed. Secondly, the only real difference between it and (3) and (4) is that it does not have a comma followed by a "but". I think that (2) would be satisfied by saying, for instance, "Apart from a few non-academic, popular writers, no modern authority believes that she existed." The phrasing "most modern scholars", like the current "is now widely accepted", begs the question of "who are the exceptions?" This answers the question before it arises. I accept that a "but" might have the effect of giving them more weight than they should have, but I think "apart from" is sufficiently dismissive. Scolaire (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statement by User:Wetman

Fourth statement by User:Ian.thomson

Fourth statement by User:Thomask0

talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy

– Discussion in progress.

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

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

Summary of dispute by PeterEastern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by TrackInfo

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

After writing my disgust at the direction of the article, I started off trying to fix the article, to make it more neutral at least in wikipedia's voice, removing "as well as to urban legends and other folklore inspired by these events" and peacock phrase like "popular" that are intended to hype credibility. I couldn't even get past the lede when [3] [4] these were reverted in less than 10 minutes. So essentially this foretells that Anmccaff is taking ownership of this content.

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by Anmccaff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stalled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inquiry 1

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

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

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

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

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

Inquiry 2

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

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

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

Have I captured the distinction correctly and is that useful?

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure if it is in the current version, but it was certainly in the older; I removed in over your vehement objections, if you remember. If you don't, look here: [[[5]] and [[6]].

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inquiry 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inquiry 3a

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

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

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

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

Inquiry 3b

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

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

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

Agreement 2

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

Inquiry 3c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Openlibrary? No, not at all, the Open Library source is incomplete, and is stored as images. Snell's words began in part three and continued in part 4a; your cite only gives part of part 4 proper. The Hathitrust [7] source is not only more complete, but is searchable. The Coachbuilt stuff is acceptable until a better source comes along, I think, but it lacks any sequelae in the original source. There are a good many more online sources of Snell material, but I'm not sure how germane they are. For instance, the transcript of "Taken for a ride" (very appropriate name that...) includes some Snellery.Anmccaff (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement 1

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

Inquiry 4: original research

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you Bejnar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the descriptor "Conspiracy theorists?" "Pro-conspiracy theorists rely on Snell and look like idiots." Span, pt.1) "Like Snell and other conspiracy theorists, Kay blames GM and its subsidiary, National City Lines (NCL), for the replacement of popular streetcars with unpopular motor buses." Bianco [8] Slater doesn't, though. Pity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall we have something that seems much angrier and less neutral and balanced in it presentation of the facts than I think is helpful. For sure, lets have an article that lays the facts out, and if the fact suggests, as Bianco expresses so well, that GM is more of scapegoat for what in hindsight were policy failings at the time than a villain then we should say so. However, if people have been passing on misinformation, which many certainly have done in this case from time to time, then we should highlight that, but not then label them all with the term 'conspiracy theorists', which is a pretty offensive term according to the urban dictionary entry for the subject [10]. PeterEastern (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inquiry 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inquiry 6

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

[W]e should ... not then label them all with the term 'conspiracy theorists', which is a pretty offensive term according to the urban dictionary entry for the subject [11]. -- PeterEastern (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting choice of cite. I think both the OED and the AHD use slightly less colorful definitions defining "conspiracy theory" as "the theory that an event occurs or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties, specifically a belief that some covert but influential agency is responsible for an unexplained event"" (OED) or "A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act."[[12]] and both give "conspiracy theorist" as a derivation needing no further explanation. Wikipedia's Conspiracy Theory might also be a good starting point. The "Urban Dictionary," barring discussion of adolescent slang or recherché sexual practices, is not, as we will no doubt discuss at some later step in the dispute process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preliminary holding 1

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

Inquiry 6

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

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

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

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

Inquiry 6a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warning

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

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

Talk:Daisaku Ikeda

– Discussion in progress.

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Hoary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by Starrynuit

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

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by Elemential1

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

Talk:Daisaku Ikeda discussion

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

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

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

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

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

@Catflap08:'s desired outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Hoary:'s desired outcomes

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

@Starrynuit:'s desired outcomes

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

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

Greetings,

Thank you kindly for asking.

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

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

a) Murata pages 96-97 are on the subject at hand (not page 69) (^[1])

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

c) Montgomery states that what happened after Toda encountered Ogasawara is not clear and he describes Murata’s statement about Toda hitting the priest as a “claim”. Montgomery states, “What happened next [after Toda encountered Ogasawara] is not clear. According to Ikeda, Toda reasoned calmly with Ogasawara, demanding an apology, while the old man 'drooled at the mouth' and 'howled like a rabid dog.' But Murata claims that Toda told him in an interview that he struck the priest 'twice' ([Murata, p.] 96).” ([Montgomery (^[2]^: 187)

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

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

Note: (I hope this comment is not out of line). I don't know why anyone else didn't translate it, but I posted a Japanese source on the Talk page, here, that states Toda hit the priest.
行ってみると、当時の戸田城聖会長を先頭に青年部の屈強な若者がずらりと並んでいた。
呼び出しの理由は簡単にいうと、戦前慈聞師が唱えていた教義解釈が間違っていたのだから謝れというわけだ。師が拒否すると戸田会長が殴った...
It also says that the priest was said to have suffered internal bleeding, and that Toda was taken into custody and held for two days while the incident was investigated.
急を聞きつけて地元消防団がかけつけたため慈聞師は宿坊に帰され、騒ぎは収まったが、このリンチで師は内出血のため四週間も休まなくてはならなかったという。
この事件で戸田会長は警察に二日間拘留され、取調べを受けている。
--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Murata, Kiyoaki (1969). Japan’s new Buddhism: an objective account of Soka Gakkai ([1st ed.]. ed.). New York: Weatherhill. ISBN 978-0834800403.
^ Montgomery, Daniel B. (1991). Fire in the Lotus: The Dynamic Buddhism of Nichiren. London: Mandala. ISBN 978-1852740917.

@Elemential1:'s desired outcomes

Ok so to summarise the comments above.

Murata, Montgomery, Hitting incident

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

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

@Catflap08:

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

@Hoary:

@Starrynuit:

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

P. Toynbee comments

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

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

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

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

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

Human Revolution

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

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

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

American Sniper (film)

– New discussion.

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:American Sniper_(film)

Users involved

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

I take offense at the allegation below regarding that I am somehow "lying". My genuine impression is that DHeyward's behaviour seems to be part of a pattern: [13] [14][15][16] [17] [18][19][20] In addition, he has compared the critics of the movie with the Ku Klux Klan, which I interpreted as very partisan.

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

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

Also, just so I am not accused of "lying" again, here are a few Talk editing differences from MONGO that I found partisan: [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by MONGO

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by DHeyward

The depiction of my edits as "censordhip" is a blatant lie. I removed the large number of puffery words that introduced rather bland comments. I removed wholly unrelated segments that have nothing to do with the movie (i.e. the announcement of "Chris Kyle Day" in Texas is a movie controversy? Really??). I removed dubious claims such as the one about threats to Arabs and Muslims coinciding with the movie - also coinciding with the movies and threats were the Paris attacks, ISIL executions of Americans and a number of other things. It's dubious to assign threats to a movie release. I condensed commentary unrelated to film. I also removed quotefarms in places where it could be condensed with a paraphrase all in accordance with MOS, including positive ones from the film director, Eastwood). This diff[37] is what the initiator calls censorship. Read each version (not in diff for, but prose) and see which one is better. The only other addition I would make is move it into the critical response area. It seems the OP wants a massively long criticism section, regardless of content or due weight. He has already claimed his only purpose here at WP is to make sure that happened. --DHeyward (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by Erik

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by Nbauman

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

I don't know if DHeyward's edit [38] is censorship, but (1) he doesn't explain the reasons for the cuts and (2) they do violate Wikipedia's neutrality. This is a "Criticism" section being edited by somebody who disagrees with the criticism, has defended the film against that criticism, and is making the criticism weaker. It's as if you were being defended in court by a lawyer who believed you were guilty and was trying to get you convicted. For example, he changes "Matt Taibbi, of Rolling Stone Magazine" to "One critic". Matt Taibbi and Rolling Stone are notable, and by deleting their names, the significance of the criticism is weaker. He similarly deletes other names. Instead of named critics that the reader can identify, these are anonymous critics. A major source of the credibility of American Sniper is that it is based on a character who was an actual sniper and a war hero. The Criticism section cited other military men who were just as credible as Kyle, disagreed with him, and accused him of lying. For example, Kyle said that he regarded the Iraqi civilians as "savages," but another sniper disagreed and accused Kyle of ignorance and bigotry. These are legitimate criticisms, which DHeyward deleted. DHeyward and others insisted that the Criticism section was too long. We offered him a standard Wikipedia response to that complaint, by making a separate sub-article. DHeyward and others complained about the sub-article, and they finally won a consensus that it be deleted and merged with the original article. Now we're merging it in the original article, and he doesn't accept that either. I believe that we should have kept the sub-article until we reached consensus on the merge into the Controversies section in the original article. I still believe that. We should re-create the sub-article again until we reach consensus. But DHeyward's edits violate WP:NPOV, are disruptive, and make it impossible for us to write a Criticism section which will satisfy WP:NPOV, which requires a fair statement of the criticism of the movie, since it has been criticized extensively. I would like the fans of the film to let us summarize the criticisms of the film without interference. The rest of the article is yours, as it were; this section belongs to the critics. --Nbauman (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by IjonTichyIjonTichy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by Gothicfilm

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

Summary of dispute by Silver seren

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Sniper (film) discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

[murata-1] Murata, Kiyoaki (1969). Japan’s new Buddhism: an objective account of Soka Gakkai ([1st ed.]. ed.). New York: Weatherhill. ISBN 978-0834800403.

[2] Montgomery, Daniel B. (1991). Fire in the Lotus: The Dynamic Buddhism of Nichiren. London: Mandala. ISBN 978-1852740917.

[1]

[2]

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