Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 109

talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute 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 U|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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Summary of dispute by Anmccaff
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There are fairly deep divides here not merely on matters of opinion, but of matters of fact as well; it would be useful if any volunteers had decent access to a library in a major US or possibly Canadian city, or an academic library focused on ground transportation. I think the article is loaded with weak references -several self-published- selected to fit a pre-existing narrative, and edits made to "balance" whenever the factual underpinning of the selected story was weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs) 22:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Coordinator's note: Hi. 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 on their talk page. Thanks. -- Biblio worm  02:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do. By way of context, although I have edited WP for many years, this is the first time I have actually been involved in this process. PeterEastern (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * U|Biblioworm, to what extent do you want discussion here, now, before an actual DRN volunteer takes this on?
 * And, perhaps more importantly, is there any more manageable way to notify interested parties? There are a great many more people than us three involved here.Anmccaff (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now added the requested details above in a new section 'Summary of dispute by PeterEastern'. PeterEastern (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


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

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


 * Thanks for taking a look. Do you have any specific comments or questions about what was posted, and can you recommend where to take it from here?Anmccaff (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to get your moderator back on the case to either moderate/continue the discussion or to summarize and close the case. I have not read the case. Has there been any progress or resolution? Why has the discussion stalled? -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think, based on the comment by one editor, that the editors have stalled on the case because they are waiting for the moderator to return or for a replacement moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we can't exactly drag the moderator back in in here, and he may have excellent reasons to be elsewhere. (Or he might have just looked over the whole mess and run off screaming to Tierra del Fuego.  On second thought, I suspect that might count as an "excellent reason," too.)  As for why it has stalled, I would say it is partly because it doesn't belong in here in the first place.  The main points of dispute go well beyond sources.Anmccaff (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I raised the issue on talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard here a few days back, and did an update this evening as requested. PeterEastern (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


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

Inquiry 1
Please list the five facts in the article (or recently in the article, Oct. 2014 to date) that are most contentious. --Bejnar (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

Inquiry 2
Please list up to five of the most unreliable sources in recent use (Oct. 2014 to date) in the article, together with one sentence for each as to why it is unreliable. If any source has been discussed at the Reliable sources noticeboard please so note and provide a link. --Bejnar (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


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


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


 * Have I captured the distinction correctly and is that useful?


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


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

---


 * Lovearth.net Site of Mark R Elsis: There isn't a single conspiracy theory he doesn't support.  Holocaust denial to Pearl Harbor and 911 conspiracy theorist, his websites cover them all.  Cites Guibault and Snell.Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We only rely on loveearth as an accurate source of what Snell said in 1995, 'Snell, Bradford (1995): The StreetCar Conspiracy: How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit'. We have already agreed this and other works by Snell should only be used as evidence of what Snell, who is notably for the subject said, not as evidence of what happned. I have just noticed at least one place where we take what is written as fact and would support a rewording to say 'Snell says...' or an alternative source or remove the content. Given that Snell writes from a conspiratorial perspective, is it not to be reasonable to reference such a site as evidence?  PeterEastern (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What is there about Elsis or Snell that suggest this is an accurate rendition of something he said earlier? Remember, Snell goes on, to this day, about the fines in the NCL case, even though he was required  to insure that the sentencing judge's reasons were included in the '73 hearings. That strongly suggests mendacity or a very poor memory. (Moreover, haven't you noticed that Snell's "approved" versions of his words are all published with footnotes stripped?  Odd, that.)Anmccaff (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Anything by Louis Guilbault: Self published; one on the "cites" given here is, in essence, a copy of a letter to the editor. Has published a vanity book on the subject.Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that we cite him only once (cite 17 currently) for a minor point of fact that we can surely get from other sources. If this bothers you then I would support your replacing it with an alternative. PeterEastern (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Um...no. Take the damned thing out.  It's a series of lies, and it's self-published, what makes you so certain it expresses accurately any "point of fact?"Anmccaff (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Anything by Brad Snell: Snell has a deservedly low reputation on questions of fact, and repeatedly made assertions which are either outright lies, or a sign of a very poor memory. (Snell repeatedly comments on the small size of fines levied against the NCL defendants, yet the Senate subcommittee papers make the reason for those token fines clear, and Snell was himself made directly responsible for seeing that was in the record, which must have stung.)Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my 'nerdy distinction' above, we have already agreed that what Snell says is notable, but is not reliable; it therefore depends on how he is used. Some time back I did a pass through the article when I attempted to remove all uses of Snell as a reliable source of facts. Have I missed anything? If so then do please fix it. PeterEastern (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Modern Transit" and Akos Szoboszlay. (at least on this subject.): Very, very close to self-published work.  Blinkered  partisanship, with obvious errors of fact.Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that we were using it as a source. It is only listed in 'external links' for 'Conflict of Transportation Competitors'. As such I don't this it is relevant to this process. PeterEastern (talk)
 * I'm not sure if it is in the current version, but it was certainly in the older; I removed in over your vehement objections, if you remember. If you don't, look here: [[] and [].


 * Black, Edwin (2006): "10". Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives. St. Martins Press. A well-known writer of sensationalist potboilers; often takes Snell et al at face value.Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I can't see anywhere where we use this as a source. It is only listed in 'further reading'. PeterEastern (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside, of course, from [| H*tler's Carmaker] Now there's a nice, balanced reliable source.Anmccaff (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Fellmeth, Robert C. (1973): Politics of Land: Ralph Nader's Study Group Report on Land Use in California. Grossman Publishers. pp. 410–14. Assumes facts rather than investigating them. (The other side on this argument here likes this work so much it was put in the "further reading" twice.)Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I can't see anywhere where we use this as a source. It is only listed in 'further reading'. PeterEastern (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ...twice.Anmccaff (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 3
Please list up to three of the most important reliable sources for the article. If you can narrow it to one that would be best. --Bejnar (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No.no.Ten thousand times, no. There isn't a single, reliable source that will cover a wide enough sweep here.
 * A first pass has to start with Hilton and Due, whose work Snell mis-cited.Anmccaff (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


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


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


 * Breaking sources down, I think we should all agree that we have some excellent primary sources, notably transcripts of the 1951 court case and the 1974 Senate hearings. As noted above Snell is a fine source for what Snell said and claimed, but not of fact. I would suggest that Bianco, Martha (1998), Slater, Cliff (1997) are probably our best tertiary (or are they secondary?) sources. I would want to review the Span discussion on talk before discounting him as a good source.
 * -- PeterEastern (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 3a
Editor Anmccaff stated: There isn't a single, reliable source that will cover a wide enough sweep here. Given, for the purposes of this inquiry, that no single reliable source covers all the territory, what are the most important reliable sources for the article? Editor PeterEastern has already answered this question above. --Bejnar (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Both Slater and Bianco are good sources, but they disagree totally with the point of view User:PeterEastern and User:Trackinfo write from. They are, however, only as good as a short paper can be in discussing a very big topic.  As a quick guide to the actual history that is easily accessible on the internet, Slater, "Guy Span", Bianco, Stan Schwartz, and, oddly, Tom Wetzel together make a good start.  (You have to make minor allowances, since that list contains one old-line commie, and someone whose experiences with conspiracy true believer's calls for new trolleys has pretty well soured him on public transit.)  Van Wilkins piece is also useful.  To really get at the meat of it, though, Bob Post's work and Brian Cudahy's are  preferable and provide a good many primary source refutations of some of mistakes of fact which were in the article.  Demoro is also good, but was a reporter, not a scholar, and his work sometimes reflects that.  (He refers throughout his book on the Key system to "Frank  Teasdale," which is how he heard the name, not "Teasdel" as it was actually spelled.)  Post, Demoro, Cudahy, and Hilton are not widely available online without some digging. The various house and senate hearings on antitrust in '55(?) and the '70s are both available online, as are the hearings that led to the current system of federal support of transit.   Hilton, although he concentrates on the earlier interurban systems, gives a great deal of insight into streetcars as well, and is worth reading for that if you find a copy avaiable.Anmccaff (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For the next pass, Bottles, Adler, and Gregory Thompson's The Passenger Train in the Motor Age, which covers a parallel topic, the fight between road and rail in California, would be helpful, and are all easily avaible online.Anmccaff (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, this might be the place to mention what I see as real problem the article has had for many years: it seems to be taken as a given that good sources will be available, easily, on line. On this, and on some other topics, Wiki creates its own pool of sources, where tertiary sources based on Wikipedia itself reinforce the notion that there's only a limited amount of information available.Anmccaff (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 3b
Are there any objections to Bianco, Martha (1998) or Slater, Cliff (1997) as reliable sources? If so please state the basis in one sentence.

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

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

Agreement 2
In almost any context within this article a cite to Bianco or Slater that supports the point at hand is acceptable. --Bejnar (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 3c
Are there any objections to the works of Snell as reliable sources for the fact that Snell made certain statements? Keep in mind WP:RSOPINION and WP:INTEXT. If so please state the basis in one sentence. --Bejnar (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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


 * What "works of Snell" have been presented? Except for the official Senate subcommittee stuff, everything has passed through another set of hands, or through Snell's hands again.Anmccaff (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your comment. In some versions of the article Snell was cited for his opinion.  Do you object to citing Snell for that purpose? --Bejnar (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * A few points: First, aside from the Senate hearings, which are now, since I got back on the article, fully available, there are no completely sourced works of Brad Snell used in the  article.  Next, Trackinfo and PeterEastern were using, among other things, a third-hand (at least) version of something Snell probably wrote in the 1990s, sourcing it from a notoriously conspiraphilic, unreliable website.  There is nothing in the article that counts as something Snell admits to, and some publisher stands behind - the Senate subcommittee expressly disavowed it.  All of the "works of Snell" used in the article are about the equivalent of a newspaper clipping.
 * As for Snell, personally, as a source, what he said obviously has to be taken into account while discussing the aspects of this matter that are essentially folklore, but that must be done in a way that gives him his proper weight as a knowledgeable expert....which is to say, next to none.
 * -- Anmccaff (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Trying to bring this inquiry to a satisfactory conclusion. Are you saying that we have now sourced a reliable first hand version of 'Snell, Bradford C. (1974)' within US Senate (1974)? For the avoidance of doubt, are you also happy with us using Snell, Bradford (Autumn 1995) as a source for what he said in 1995? Finally, are there any other primary sources we refer to for Snell's views or should refer to? PeterEastern (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Openlibrary? No, not at all, the Open Library source is incomplete, and is stored as images. Snell's words began in part three and continued in part 4a; your cite only gives part of part 4 proper.  The Hathitrust  source is not only more complete, but is searchable.  The Coachbuilt stuff is acceptable until a better source comes along, I think, but it lacks any sequelae in the original source.  There are a good many more online sources of Snell material, but I'm not sure how germane they are.  For instance, the transcript of "Taken for a ride" (very appropriate name that...) includes some Snellery.Anmccaff (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreement 1
There seems to be agreement that Snell may be cited for his opinions, but not for the truth of the matter asserted. Wikipedia does not follow the best evidence rule, but prefers secondary sources to primary ones, WP:Reliable sources. However, primary sources are allowed. --Bejnar (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 4: original research
No original research provides The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed''. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged ... and The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research;''.

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

--

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

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

To be clear, it doesn't refute the allegation that GM was heavy handed - to quote: "for GM and other bus manufacturers and suppliers to be successful in developing a market for diesel buses, they had to carry out an aggressive campaign to do so. Such a campaign required working together to foreclose competitive technologies – i.e., electric vehicles." But does suggest that GM keeps getting blamed for reasons more to do a desire for a neat simplistic story with good guys and bad guys than reality: "As this paper has suggested, the emergence and reemergence of the GM conspiracy myth has coincided with periods of urban transportation policy crisis, as were evidenced during the urban strife of the 1960s and the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s. The retrenchment of the federal government toward urban transportation policy during the 1980s only served to fuel the agenda of citizen activists, particularly among environmental groups (page 20)."" PeterEastern (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the misapprehension that Ms Bianco agrees with the technology foreclosure thesis.Anmccaff (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

-- PeterEastern (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The interested reader will note that "PeterEastern" recommended as a a reliable source Ms. Bianco before actually bothering to read her; the talk pages drip with similar examples of unfamiliarity with well known sources.Anmccaff (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

In direct response to the question, there is nothing that screams out at me as OR, other than possibly the unsupported generalisations referring to 'conspiracy theorists' that I mentioned 'Summary of dispute by PeterEastern'. PeterEastern (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Once you have read the suggested reading, you will see that "unsupported" is inaccurate.Anmccaff (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

, 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. One problem seems to be that there is more objection to behaviour than to content. Please do not comment on the behaviour of other editors. This is not the forum for that. --Bejnar (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Bejnar.


 * In the 'Early Years' section I don't think it is justified to say "Conspiracy theorists emphasize GM's connections to the New York transit market". The source associated with this sentence makes no reference to conspiracies or conspiracy theorists that I can see. And then later in the same section the term is repeated in "While conspiracy theorists focus on the involvement of Hertz". No source offered. Finally there is the phrase "Tellingly, conspiracy minded authors do not discuss GM's work on the other side of the Hudson". The word 'tellingly' bothers me, as does the unsourced generalisation of 'conspiracy minded authors'. PeterEastern (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Before we discuss this further, what reliable source do you have that ties this to any form of GM conspiracy at all? There's ample references -some now freely avaiable and listed on the article's talk page, that make a very strong case that bustitution was driven by politics, economics, social forces, and the legalities of franchising.  Why not just take the section out, if you don't have a credible reliable source for it? No sourcing questions then.  Right now, it draws a tacit conclusion not supported by evidence; isn't that what Wiki calls "original research?".Anmccaff (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As requested, I was simply responding to the question in relation to the current article, highlighting issues I saw with the current text and the sources used to support it. For the record, I note that you added the 'conspiracy minded authors' text with this edit. If you are not able to support the claim we should take it out. PeterEastern (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, there are no reliable sources provided that link NYC's bustitution to GM, aside from the fact that GM was a major owner of Yellow; there simply aren't any credible cites to support the idea that, say, Hylan was a GM stooge. The (political) movement against street traction in New York predates GM.Anmccaff (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What suggests this section should be here, except for studying folklore?Anmccaff (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sign... Again you are widening the conversation and avoiding the issue I raised. I suggested that the phrase 'Conspiracy theorists emphasize GM's connections to the New York transit market' needed to be supported by suitable references or removed. My view is that to retain it one or more reliable sources would need to provided that in aggregate demonstrated all aspects of the claim, including A) the people you refer to are correctly referred to as 'conspiracy theorists'. B) that these people 'emphasise GMs role in NY'. To include the later the source would need to demonstrate that these people made more of the NY system than other systems, not simply listing NY alongside others. The source would in my view also need to demonstrate that the emphasis was inappropriate, and not simply included because it was somewhere that is better known than other places and therefore a better example. Finally the phrase would needed to the tested for WP:SYN if multiple sources were used. In particular that they demonstrate convincingly and that the people who emphasis NY are indeed conspiracy theorists. Note that in this response I am simply reflected back the WP rules required to support any content in WP. I am not taking a view on this subject. Can we focus down on my issue and are you able to find suitable sources? If not then I suggest we have to conclude that it is WP:OR. PeterEastern (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For the descriptor "Conspiracy theorists?" "Pro-conspiracy theorists rely on Snell and look like idiots." Span, pt.1) "Like Snell and other conspiracy theorists, Kay blames GM and its subsidiary, National City Lines (NCL), for the replacement of popular streetcars with unpopular motor buses." Bianco Slater doesn't, though.  Pity.
 * For that it is common among conspirophiles? I suspect a laundry list of cites are available there, no?Anmccaff (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For the idea that pro-conspiracy (is that a better term, maybe?) advocates use Snell, I'd think a handful of examples might make the case; maybe start with Icke. How many examples would you want?Anmccaff (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the next section headed 'Edwin J. Quinby' we have the statement that "While Quinby's instrumentality is a keystone of many conspiracy theories, the federal government had begun investigating some aspects of NCL's financial arrangements as early as 1941". This is to my mind un-necessarily pointed and there is no sourced offered for the first part of this. Why not simply mention that NCL's financial arrangements had been investigated in 1941 in the appropriate place in the timeline, and then mention Quinby activities and the response to his activities at the appropriate point? PeterEastern (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bejnar, I'd ask that you do a simple Google search -or whatever search engine you prefer, and see the number of conspiracy-minded citations you get for "Quinby" and "streetcar," and then do a quick vocabulary test to see how many of them relate or trace back to the Wiki article during the time PeterEastern and Trackinfo assumed ownership of the article.Anmccaff (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, my observation was simply that the article did not contain a reference to support the claim. If you can find one then add it to the article. If not then should the claim not be modified? I am resisting responding to your continued personal attacks, but I will note that I have frequently encouraged you to edit the article rather than simple highlight the shortcomings as you see them on talk, and since Nov 17 withdrew entirely specifically to avoid any accusations of ownership. PeterEastern (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also forced to respond; I made the accusation of ownership toward Anmccaff because it is his single person redirection of this content that is at issue.  His childish "but you did it first" accusation is without merit.  My contribution to this article is microscopic compared to the massive amount of this content (over 60Kb) built over more than a ten year period of time by dozens, perhaps a hundred different editors.  My interest is in protection of that community effort vs the one man takeover of content. Trackinfo (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that you equally(?) often suggested that my input should be reverted on sight, this is hardly a compelling argument, but this isn't the place for either discussion.Anmccaff (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect, if this is not the place for such a statement then why make it! Are you able to now respond tom the particular issue I raised and provide the requested reference to support the text. Such a source would need to justify the association of both points and avoid WP:SYN, ie the sources would need to justify the reference to the 1941 case in association with a claim about 'conspiracy theorists' and Quinby. PeterEastern (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably worth also noting the reference 3 which explains how a number in the lead is calculated which includes the explanation "Conspiracy theorists put the number as high as 100". No source is given to support the term 'conspiracy theorists'. PeterEastern (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * DNB Volunteer: This would be better stated as [Source] puts the number as high as 100. with a FN. --Bejnar (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, if one had a reliable source.Anmccaff (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am confused. As the person who apparently introduced the 100 system claim, are you now saying that you are unable to substantiate it? If not then should we not remove it? PeterEastern (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look back to the time I entered, or re-entered the article [], you will see the "100 system claim", which is at the point that you and Trackinfo appear to feel the article should be reverted to. This is your claim, which has also metastasized to the internet.Anmccaff (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh (again)... It is true that I did introduce the 100 system claim initially (I had forgotten to be honest), but I allowed you to remove it and it was gone when I withdrew. You then added it back without a reference and are now (again) dragging up history rather than providing the requested reference to support your wording. However.... I have done a little digging and the claim is in Snell (1974). Yes... I do agree that Snell is often wrong, but there is the source that I used originally and that could also be used to support a tweak to the wording to read "Snell claimed that 100 systems in 45 Cities were impacted (Snell 1974)". Would that not wrap up this issue to everyone's satisfaction? PeterEastern (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course not. It's incomplete and claims to be "from the original government report"-as we know, the government explicitly disowned it.  As I mentioned before, it's telling that Snell's stuff is usually released without footnotes.Anmccaff (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Overall we have something that seems much angrier and less neutral and balanced in it presentation of the facts than I think is helpful. For sure, lets have an article that lays the facts out, and if the fact suggests, as Bianco expresses so well, that GM is more of scapegoat for what in hindsight were policy failings at the time than a villain then we should say so. However, if people have been passing on misinformation, which many certainly have done in this case from time to time, then we should highlight that, but not then label them all with the term 'conspiracy theorists', which is a pretty offensive term according to the urban dictionary entry for the subject .  PeterEastern (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See . --Bejnar (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 5
Objections to Guy Span as a source? --Bejnar (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * None when it is clear that some of his work is off-the-cuff journalism, the most recent examples of which are published in a fairly open forum that adds no weight to them. Speaking from personal observation (I've run into him elsewhere, and have spoken with him,) he is very knowledgeable about the subject, but I seriously doubt he cracked open a book -or really needed to, much- for some of these articles for "Bay Crossings," so minor points of fact should be cross-checked if possible, and I disagree with him on a couple of them, but he's a reliable source.Anmccaff (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I have noted already, I found his writing to be authoritative, full of detail and convincing. Where he is making specific claims he is clear about this, and where he is making educated guesses or speculating he is also clear. Where I have been able to checked his claims, I have found them to the accurate. Bay Crossings, who published the article have been in business for 15 years. Always worth cross-checking as mentioned above, and I would be interested to hear about any errors in the two documents that Anmccaff is aware of. PeterEastern (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already mentioned a couple on the articles talk page, but looking at "Paving the way for buses," I can see, just offhand, an easy ten points of fact that are wrong, or oversimplifications when applied to a narrower point. I think this would be better handled on the article, unless we want to double the size of this discussion.  (Assuming, that is, that either of is here after this runs its course.)
 * For a few examples, Span compares Insull's collapse to Enron's, (wrong on several levels); implies that Flint/GM/Kettering trained traffic engineers had a large effect nationwide, and glosses over the fact that, far from being an independent institution, it was founded by Kettering himself; simplifies the symbiotic relationship between power generation and traction; misrepresents Quinby's naval status; oversimplifies the impact of Davis-Bacon and inflation on relative prices, conflates YMAC with GMAC; conflates GM's real attack on marginal trolley systems with an "attack on transit"...well, the list could go on.
 * That said, it's an excellent small piece, most of what I've mentioned above is because of the limits that being a small, accessible piece impose.Anmccaff (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PS-the Span piece also seems to give the cite for Slater (Transportation Quarterly 51, No.3, 1997) when discussing a related piece by George Hilton (which seems to be in TQ 52 no.3 1998, a year later.)Anmccaff (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Are we then in agreement that the hard facts referred to in this article can be used where we can't find a better one, but that any musings and inference should probably not be used? PeterEastern (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The opposite, nearly: a good overview, but particular facts should be cross-checked.Anmccaff (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In which case I think you are saying that it can't be used as a reliable source, because one has to be able to rely on a reliable source. Is that right? PeterEastern (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a useful overview. Most such, in my experience, are not good about particulars, and even more so when some one tries to extrapolate from them.  Creating valid generalizations and applying them blindly to particular cases is what makes several of Cato's papers so interesting; it's one thing to state a general rule or trend; it's another to insist that every specific example follows it.Anmccaff (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 6
Does the use of the term "conspiracy theorists" in this article constitute a violation of WP:NPOV? --Bejnar (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * [W]e should ... not then label them all with the term 'conspiracy theorists', which is a pretty offensive term according to the urban dictionary entry for the subject . -- PeterEastern (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What an interesting choice of cite. I think both the OED and the AHD use slightly less colorful definitions defining "conspiracy theory" as "the theory that an event occurs or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties, specifically a belief that some covert but influential agency is responsible for an unexplained event"" (OED) or "A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act."[] and both give "conspiracy theorist" as a derivation needing no further explanation. Wikipedia's Conspiracy Theory might also be a good starting point.  The "Urban Dictionary," barring discussion of adolescent slang or recherché sexual practices, is not, as we will no doubt discuss at some later step in the dispute process.


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


 * I think the term not only violates NPOV, it is clearly inserted to discredit certain sources and alternative ways of thinking about the subject. Wikipedia's voice should not be picking sides.  Present the evidence, clearly, coherently and with neutrality, the readers should be able to define what makes sense and what does not.  Neutrality is what I strive for in this article. Trackinfo (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theorists is not the only offensive, demeaning phrase used in the article. As I accused in the beginning of this controversy, the problem has been peppered throughout the entire article almost like it is pounding one POV home. Trackinfo (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the urban dictionary is 'colourful', but would you not agree that it does indicate that the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' comes with enough baggage to make it's use inadvisable in this case? Personally I would only use it for ideas where there is overwhelming and convincing evidence available that is believed by the vast majority of the population, but which is ignored in favour of a far less likely version by a small minority. Would you also not agree that the phrase is confusing given that GM et al. were also convicted of one conspiracy, and indicted but found not guilty of another? As such, can we agree to drop the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' and use something more neutral? PeterEastern (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bejnar, would you mind taking a look through PeterEastern's preferred references, Bianco, Slater, and Span and see if they don't, in your opinion, support the idea that the authors view certain aspects of this matter as mendacity or mythology?Anmccaff (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As to this inquiry, that may not be necessary; overall I think that it would be a useful exercise. I am on my way to a large university town and will arrive next week. However, any specific pages that you could recommend would be useful.  --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that these articles are short enough to either read or skim in their entirety. PeterEastern (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The question in this inquiry is simply to determine if there is agreement that the the term 'conspiracy theorists' is automatically NPOV. I would suggest that it isn't, but that as a strong and possibly offensive term, it should be only used where it can be solidly justified and sourced in every instance. I have already pressed you to provide references in the previous section to support individual instances, and suggest that this might be more productive that to ask Bejnar to read three long documents and come to a view. PeterEastern (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


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

Preliminary holding 1
"Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" can be used in a pejorative way. Any contested use should be supported by a reliable source, and pejoritive uses should be avoided per Wikipedia's guideline at WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch: ''There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view.'' --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see a way around their use, but I agree that a substitute would be better, especially since it applies most as a simple descriptive at the top end, academics who created something that can be taken as a conspiracy theory, and as a pejorative at the bottom end, for the kind of crank who always believes that a sinister "them" is behind everything. I find, however, the idea that a particular cite attached to each use is not justified, and PeterEastern clearly does.Anmccaff (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry 6
Is there enough reliable source material for a "urban legends and other folklore" section? --Bejnar (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is, in fact, how the article began, and Bianco, Adler, Post, Long, and Cudahy all provide sources, just off the top of my head. Anmccaff (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


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


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

Inquiry 6a
What is the relationship between the information currently in the "Myths" section and "urban legends and other folklore"? Wikipedia guidelines suggest proper context be provided. See, for example the essay Writing better articles. Keeping in mind who, what, why, where, when and how can help an editor provide context. --Bejnar (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


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


 * I create the 'Myths and mysteries' section a few years ago as a parking place for claims that were made that could not be substantiated from other sources. These included some of Snell's claims that were later convincingly refuted, and also claims that were made that could not be substantiate from other sources. As more resources come online some mysteries may get resolved one way or another of course. Personally I think the urban legend/folklore/conspiracy theory content could fit well into this section. PeterEastern (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There could be a place for urban myths and folklore content in one place, rather than scattered throughout almost every paragraph, caption etc. Trackinfo (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We could have a section for historical facts relating to what GM et al. did, and the conspiracy that they were convicted of and charged off but found not-guilty. This should be kept dry and free from interpretation. We can then have a separate section for the embellished stories, the exaggerations and down-right folk tails which can include much of what Snell said, Roger Rabbit and the rest under a heading that makes it clear that this is fantasy. PeterEastern (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


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


 * (Sure, but there's still a real, legitimate question as to where to draw the line.) Variations of this story showed up fairly frequently on alt.folklore.urban, on and in the Straight Dope, and in other UL fora; probably still do.Anmccaff (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that this is an encyclopedic treatment, where would you draw the line? What should be included (be specific) and what should be excluded in order to present a whole picture without giving the fantasy undue weight. Right now the Myth section's lack of context may tend to reduce its value. --Bejnar (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and, as I mentioned, it's the original focus of the article. It will be very, very difficult to discuss this section without getting into personalities, especially since the article ties into many interrelated subjects: a minor, arcane, localized violation of the Sherman Act, the consequences of that, and the motivations behind it; the general state of the traction industry; the rise of General motors, and the causes and consequences of its business model; technological history; the rise of "car culture"; federalism and keynsian economics; populist politics; popular folklore...the list could go on, and there are a good many authors who look narrowly -too narrowly for the purposes of this article- at different aspects whose works can be tendentiously cherry-picked.  Remember the story of the blind men and the elephant?Anmccaff (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the scope of the article would consist of 3 mains parts. Firstly a description of the actions of GM et al., the accusations at the time by Quinby and others, the indictment, trial and outcome and then the senate hearings. It would not go into an much detail about streetcar as the current article but would however emphasis the limits of their activities where common myths have built up (for example to say that the NY streetcars were already in financial difficulty, of that they had no involvement in the LA Yellow Cars). There should then be a section, using the content of 'Myths and mysteries' as a starting point, to cover in more details the wilder conspiracy theory narrative, the way this narrative reappears at times of stress (See Bianco), and corrects the many erroneous urban-myths surrounding the subject. This would then be followed by the 'Other Factors' section which very importantly outline all the other reasons for the decline of streetcars that have been identified by experts in transportation over the years. Note that I am proposing switching the Mythology and Other Factors section to draw the readers attention to the myths. PeterEastern (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "No involvement with the Yellow Cars?" (Aside from actually owning them, or do you mean "Red Cars?" Even then, "no involvement" is a stretch; LATL took over a couple of former PE lines.)Anmccaff (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think he meant "Red Cars". And the exact facts should be cited to reliable sources, so the second should not be a problem in the actual revised text. --Bejnar (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2015
 * I did mean Red cars, thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Does PeterEastern's suggestion for three sections, as described and in that order meet with general acceptance? --Bejnar (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's backward in a sense, if you (rightly, as I see it) support the idea that Bianco, Slater, and "Span" provide a good overview to the slice of the story being told here. There are some pretty cloak-and-dagger tellings of this, and they require de-bunking, since they are mostly bunk. The use of "conspiracy theorist" or some other phrase or word to that effect isn't coming out of nowhere.  Dismissing the mythology should come first.  That's how the article started out, and there were reasons for that.Anmccaff (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there enough agreement to be able to work together to revise the article? --Bejnar (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Not yet.  Without going into specifics again, the behavioral issues, the inability to evaluate sources, and the tendentious editing have to be addressed.  After that, maybe.  More importantly, if other editors stop being driven away, whether we, in particular, are able to work well with each other becomes less of an issue.Anmccaff (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it be workable to discuss, as neutrally and briefly as possible, the specific behavior issues, not to hash them out here, but so you can better suggest where to take them to?Anmccaff (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not confident about that to be honest. We don't seem to have agreement on avoiding the term 'conspiracy theorists', and we don't have agreement on organising the content into three sections if I am reading the above response correctly. Going back further I don't think that we have a clear agreement as to whether Guy Span is reliable or not (my suggestion was that if the facts in the source couldn't be relied on then it wasn't reliable) or whether links in 'further reading' and 'external links' were 'sources' that had to be reliable or not (my suggestion was that these were not sources as such because they weren't used to support the body of the article). All in all, the lack of progress is what I have been used to on talk prior to my disengagement. Am I looking at this too negatively? Have we actually made better progress than that? PeterEastern (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should we agree to avoid a term one of your own preferred sources uses?Anmccaff (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't read more into this that I am saying. What I am saying is that the term 'conspiracy theorist' should not be used without very strong evidence, and strong enough evidence to wave the term conspiracy theorist around in the article is thin on the ground. The only people Bianco names as 'conspiracy theorists' are Snell, Glenn Yago, and possibly St Clair. Slater names Tom Hayden and journalists Jonathan Kwitny and Nicholas Von Hoffman. Personally I would like to see evidence that these people continued to push the conspiracy theory, in an almost obsessive way, before we used the term conspiracy theorist in relation to their activities. Snell is the only one for whom I am aware of enough evidence to use the term. Have the journalists written about this over and over again? What about Glenn Yago, I am not familiar with his writing? Other than those people, are there any other named candidates? This has nothing to do with the wide issue of conspiracy theories and the way they keep popping up. PeterEastern (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In response to Please don't read more into this that I am saying. What I am saying is that the term 'conspiracy theorist' should not be used without very strong evidence, and strong enough evidence to wave the term conspiracy theorist around in the article is thin on the ground. The only people Bianco names as 'conspiracy theorists' are Snell, Glenn Yago, and possibly St Clair. No, twice.  The idea that evidence here is "thin on the ground" permeates the discussion here and on the article talk page, but I just don't see that at all, and I think I've given practical demonstration of that several times, to the point that you are mentioning here that I've presented sources and not incorporated them in the article.  What's thin on the ground, sometimes, is readily available, free, easily citable material.   Next, Ms Bianco was a pretty prolific writer, once, and reviewed books and films.  If memory serves, she also used the term about Jane Holtz Kay, and the producers of "Taken for a ride."  That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more out there.Anmccaff (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (Returning to the matter of sources...what happened to libraries in England? It appears from the outside that huge number of institutions transferred their stuff to, say, the British Library (AKA "What is that UGLY pile of bricks near St Pancras?") which then digitized it, and buried it behind a paywall -and a rather expensive paywall at that.  My very limited experience with local and branch libraries there seems to confirm that; I hope I'm wrong.  Edinburgh was quite different.)Anmccaff (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I do note that Bianco (1998) also mentions that the following people 'perpetuate the Great American Conspiracy Myth': Robert and Edward Kennedy,  San Francisco’s Mayor Joseph Alioto,  Ralph Nader,  Jonathan Kwitny (who Slater also mentions), George Smerk. PeterEastern (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that Snell was a Nader associate, and quite likely, in effect, an employee, why would this be surprising? Alioto and Bradley's cities were both parties to the lawsuit alluded to in the Senate hearings; again, it isn't surprising that they showed up to turn the screws a bit.Anmccaff (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In response to Slater names Tom Hayden and journalists Jonathan Kwitny and Nicholas Von Hoffman. in the article cited. From personal experience, I might guess that Mr. Slater would be willing to add a name or three hundred, while struggling to contain colorful descriptions of their ancestry, progeny, and general personal habits.  The mendacious economic arguments for heavy rail in Honolulu might do that to a fellow.Anmccaff (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is speculation. WP can't rely on speculation. Either provide references for additional people who Slater mentions or it isn't usable information. PeterEastern (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In response to Personally I would like to see evidence that these people continued to push the conspiracy theory, in an almost obsessive way, before we used the term conspiracy theorist in relation to their activities. Snell is the only one for whom I am aware of enough evidence to use the term. Have the journalists written about this over and over again? What about Glenn Yago, I am not familiar with his writing? Other than those people, are there any other named candidates? This has nothing to do with the wide issue of conspiracy theories and the way they keep popping up. I think you are narrowing the term too much. What do you think is a workable term for someone who believes and spreads -even if he does not originate it- a conspiracy theory?Anmccaff (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * well, that might be something that can be worked with in the article, but we'd have to come up with an accurate descriptor, and I think that re-naming things to escape opprobrium is a hopeless task, unless people stop holding in contempt the object or person named. The words for mental impairment provide a classic example of this; many clinical term became playground insults, and had to be replaced by new clinical terms, which became insults in their turn.  Folklorist often use the term "vectors," with the epidemiological sense, for people who spread stories; dunno if being compared to an anopheles is much improvement.Anmccaff (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I skipped this: Mr. Yago is an intelligent if not forthright gentleman...at least that's the conclusion I draw from the fact he has completely distanced himself from his book and his doctoral dissertation, doesn't even mention either directly on his otherwise exhaustive CV. The CV does mention parts of it published secondarily, and a little about transit, but that stops around 1981.Anmccaff (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, so is this an example of someone who has written about 'the myth' but who possibly should not be called a 'conspiracy theorist', because they haven't kept doing it in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary?. PeterEastern (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not necessarily. I agree, on balance, that "conspiracy theorist" is ambiguous, and that that can lead to deliberate or accidental equivocation.  You see it used for scholars, for PBS-watchers, for sensationalist writers, and for the colander-headed, and that may not be a good thing.  You can't just make an executive decision, though, about the word's meaning, as you have done here. Anmccaff (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As for other "conspiracy theorists," I think I could cite dozens, hundreds, thousands, depending, of course, exactly how you define the term, and how low a standard of notability you use. As I, and several of the sources discussed here, have mentioned, this became a part of academic as well as popular folklore...a little bit like popular works, and a few scholarly ones, on the Maginot Line.Anmccaff (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability and reliability for WP are pretty well defined. The bar for describing someone as a 'conspiracy theorist' is higher than describing them as a 'perpetuator of the conspiracy myth', the term that Bianco uses. Is this the term we have been looking for to replace the more contentious 'conspiracy theorist'. PeterEastern (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Too long, and obviously artificial. "Conspiracy believers" might work, but the conspiraloon faction would have a knee-jerk reaction to that.Anmccaff (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you feel that your best sources are anti-conspiracy, why would you organize the article with the bunk ahead of the debunkage?Anmccaff (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Very happy to keep the balance within the 3 sections and ensure that the order does not prejudice the balance. Not convinced with your use of the term 'bunk' btw. The companies were indicted on two conspiracies and convicted on one of the charges as we know. The confusion we need to avoid is muddling the fact and the fiction that has built up around it. The 'bunk' you refer to is the facts of what actually happened. PeterEastern (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. That's equivocation. "Conspiracy" as  "a term of art in the law" is a different animule(sic) from "evil plot hiding in the dark corners."  GM was quite open about the fact that they believed low-to-medium density routes were better served with buses, and Fitzgerald was quite open about a close relationship with GM - he saw it as a selling point.  The companies involved were convicted on a very, very, very narrow point of law, which could only be decided by trial. The article, on the other hand, uses it to refer to a conspiracy against mass transit.  All GM et al -and note that the trial, quite rightly, named Fitzgerald as the instigator- did was the Gillette marketing strategy writ large, with a few T's uncrossed, and a couple of i's undotted.Anmccaff (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The companies were indicted for conspiracies and convicted for a conspiracy. There is also a conspiracy myth, elaborated from the actions of the company. You seem to be dismissing the actual conspiracy. Personally I don't by your view that their conviction was based on 'a very, very, very narrow point of law'. PeterEastern (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a key point. The entire context of the POV statements I keep objecting to is aimed at being dismissive toward an actual legal decision made against the named companies (I've had a long standing objection to the naming of the article which singles out General Motors, only one member of the group of conspiring companies).  The article primarily by name is about that decision.  Everything POV related is aimed at trying to make the decision and the implied ramifications of the decision go away.  It looks good on the PR ledger for those still existing multi-billion dollar corporations, each whom have benefitted from the decisions made in that era; the conversions of transportation methods across the United States.  The evolution toward our current status might still have occurred naturally, that POV is certainly welcomed to be covered in the article.  But the fact is, we can never know what that evolution would have been if the conspiracy had not existed.  Those companies put their thumb on the scale.  They got caught doing it.  They were convicted.  The further ramifications of them putting people on their payroll is positions to make the decisions to not just expand the systems to cover more sparse suburban and rural areas (a sensible decision), but to replace and remove existing rails and close easements, forced the wholesale change in transportation systems.  In the 1950's, the American public was very effectively brainwashed into believing suburban life, a car in every garage, great concrete roadways were nirvana.  When the reality of the problems with that philosophy was realized, they were expressed not just by not just by Snell, but Alioto, Bradley and Kennedy, 1970's politicians who had to deal with the residual situation (foretold by Quimby).  So writers from later dates like Bianco also have a perspective.  They have perhaps more information, or present different and more focused information.  And they could very well have left out information that didn't agree with their POV.  There is now a revisionist history that magically puts the billion dollar corporations in a better, less guilty light.  Fine.  Those sources should be considered as one, or multiple alternative points of view.  It does not work as an eraser.  They should not dominate almost every paragraph of the article.
 * -- Trackinfo (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bejnar, if you look at the article, you will see an extremely strong cite -the words of the trial judge explaining his decision. The judge explicitly stated that the case was -not- about blatant violation of an obvious point of law, that it was a case that could have gone either way, and that he himself might have decided it differently were it a bench trial.  That's history; Trackinfo would obviously like to rewrite it. Anmccaff (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This would be the same judge that gave the slap on the wrist $1 fine after the jury verdict. That was an effective way of nullifying the decision. Trackinfo (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahh, now the judge was in on it, too? It's all just a big plot, life.Anmccaff (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, if you look at the article, you can see a strong cite pointing out that the actions of the alleged conspirators -alleged being the proper word for a plot to cripple transit, as opposed to an attempt to corner bus business - affected a very, very, small part of the US transit system -about 10 percent, using the largest possible number of systems affected, and the smallest reasonable number of total systems. That's history, although someone who didn't like its implications left out the "alleged."  That's tendentious editing. Anmccaff (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have tried to avoid ad hominem. However Anmccaff, in your verbosity, I catch you on minor points which give question to your credibility.  True there might be only 10 percent of the number of systems effected, but they were the most significant systems, the ones serving the largest metropolitan areas of today;  New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland in the Bay Area, the ones to provide the most social impact.  A small fudge of the facts to pound your point home. Trackinfo (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. First, New York, or at least Manhattan, was anti-trolley from the turn of the century forward, and the "better" streets, like 5th Avenue, kept trolleys off them completely on the high end, while the populist demagogues like Hearst and Hylan attacked them from below.  New York, or at least Manhattan, was predestined for buses from before WWI, maybe from before GM's creation -and for subways, mind; surface traction's biggest competitor was also electric, and also on steel wheels.  Bottles (and Adler, and Richmond (Oh my!)) explicitly covers that LA's growth was in infill, not along the old electric routes.  By the early 20's, when McAdoo's bus plan followed on after the jitney movement, most of the area that became modern metro Los Angeles was only served by bus (the PE and LARy set up and jointly controlled one of the country's largest bus operations, something you would not know from this article.), and LATL -expanded- on LARy's plans for post-war electric traction.  If the Huntington operation hadn't have sold out, they would have shut down all but 3 electric lines.  San Francisco only became one of the larger metro in the 70's as Silicon Valley filled in, and NCL's record there was minor, and mixed.  NCL's only involvement with Chicago was its headquarters office, and a couple of minor suburbs, which were and are still served by steam roads.  Philadelphia, like LA, saw NCL affiliates keeping street traction on about as long as unconnected cities did.Anmccaff (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, and perhaps more importantly in this context, the major metro area capture thesis is what Wiki views as original research, two separate ideas not united in an outside source.Anmccaff (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, if you look at the article, and the talk page, you can see extremely strong cites suggesting...no, stating explicitly, that electric traction was in deep political and economic trouble long before GM's involvement with them. Again, that's history, and Trackinfo would like it rewritten. Comment by Anmccaff
 * "Suggesting...no, stating explicitly" of a trend. A good argument, but that timeline didn't play out because of the interference of the conspirators, did it?  So we don't know.  America's love affair and construction boom of freeways began after World War II, lets say the late 1940's, which corresponds with the death of traction electric in the affected areas.  Really it was the 1950's interstate construction boom that facilitated the wholesale conversion away from public transportation concepts, but lousy bus service certainly pushed the trend.  It wasn't about selling busses, every dissuaded passenger who bought a car, with tires to wear and a gas tank to fill made the conspirators more money than if they had provided good service.  Even by the late 1950's, researchers were able to document the pollution effects, citizens were able to document the traffic trends.  So its really a narrow window of time before some people would start to seek alternatives that already had been removed by the conspiracy.  Without the conspiracy, could those systems have survived long enough to be revived?  Its just as valid a hypothetical as your suggestion of an eminent death. Trackinfo (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you should have no problem finding decent cites that claim that, yet you rely on self-published tendentious pablum. Why is that?Anmccaff (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Lets start here in a nutshell: ""over the 40 years we have been talking about this that General Motors has carried on a deliberate concerted action with the oil companies and the tire companies ... for the purpose of destroying a vital form of competition; namely, electric rapid transit.""

- Joseph Alioto 1973 Senate hearing, exact quote contained in Bianco]]|undefined


 * -- Trackinfo (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How does that even remotely approach a good cite for the contention? A mayor of a city with millions riding on demonizing GM, who himself would soon again work both sides of the fence in anti-trust law, bloviating about a subject on which he had no particular expertise, with a line to his testimony so similar to the other Mayor involved, and to the staffer -himself involved in the lawsuit- that it suggests coaching, testifying in a format that gave him effectively privileged speech?
 * Political speech is notoriously unreliable; when you throw money into the mix, even more so. That's a terrible cite for proving any fact beyond that someone said it.  As for the "facts" related, this isn't the place, I believe, to take that up, especially with the moderator elsewhere, apparently.Anmccaff (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You asked for proof that another point of view exists. That proves this is not WP:OR and is not coming from a single source media unless you consider the congressional record an unreliable source. Now you, as is done throughout the article, want to discredit what he says. That is something you can argue in a POV section, but not in the wikipedia voice. This was the prevailing opinion that was expressed not just by politicians who were in a position to know what was going on, but by subsequent documentary journalists and bloggers alike. They were in the existing article on public view for more than a decade until you got involved and did a one man rewrite of the article into your opposing point of view. You are welcome to your opinion, spend a section to coherently present your case for that POV. But don't litter the existing, well sourced article to constantly say everybody else is wrong and I am right. We are dealing with opinions and guesses as to what might have occurred without the existence of the conspiracy. There is no one correct answer because we cannot change the history, we only know what happened and can run hypothetical models of what would have happened without it. Trackinfo (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You asked for proof that another point of view exists; No. That is simply untrue.  I asked for a "decent cite," and, later "a "good cite."  You think a party to a law suit is a credible cite?Anmccaff (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That proves this is not WP:OR; Who said that was? What I pointed out was "original research," in the wikipedian sense, was the notion that GM's involvement in what are now the larger metropolitan areas meant anything. At the time, they weren't all the largest metropolises, and GM's influence in one of them, New York, was obviously not the cause of an anti-traction movement older than GM itself. So...where's your cite?Anmccaff (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * and is not coming from a single source media unless you consider the congressional record an unreliable source You fail to understand the difference between "reliable" and "credible."
 * Now you, as is done throughout the article, want to discredit what he says. That is something you can argue in a POV section, but not in the wikipedia voice. This was the prevailing opinion that was expressed not just by politicians who were in a position to know what was going on; Nonsense.  What special expertise do you think Alioto (or Bradley) had here?Anmccaff (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * but by subsequent documentary journalists and bloggers alike.; Bloggers? Heh.  And surely you can't claim something like "Taken for a Ride" is a credible documentary?Anmccaff (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They were in the existing article on public view for more than a decade until you got involved and did a one man rewrite of the article into your opposing point of view. You are welcome to your opinion, spend a section to coherently present your case for that POV. But don't litter the existing, well sourced article to constantly say everybody else is wrong and I am right. There was nothing "well sourced" about the article before, and it still isn't "well sourced" yet.  It included self-published works which could be refuted trivially on so many points of fact as to be completely non-credible- Snell, Guilbault, Szoboszlay, etc.Anmccaff (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We are dealing with opinions and guesses as to what might have occurred without the existence of the conspiracy. There is no one correct answer because we cannot change the history, we only know what happened and can run hypothetical models of what would have happened without it. Again, no. We can know, from trivially easy research, that the story of electric transit in Los Angeles was very different from how Bradley painted it.  Some have, in turn, tried to explain that as a coverup, but the same story played out the same, more or less, in St. Louis, Baltimore, and Philadelphia.  NCL ran trolley and trackless trolleys quite cheerfully, where they could make money on it.  In LA, they retained electric traction well beyond LARy's earlier plans. (The Huntington operation had already gotten permission to abandon all but three lines; only the war stopped them.)Anmccaff (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You can see here explicitly the equivocation I mentioned earlier. One real, small conspiracy is taken as proof that a larger one existed.  Not just a larger one, but one so over-arching that it absolves everyone else of their responsibility -they were "brainwashed."
 * Finally, notice the high level of emotional glurge, coupled with a complete lack of cites. Doesn't "conspiracy theorist," baggage and all, come to mind?
 * -- Anmccaff (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've stated my objection to using "Span" too broadly on the article talk board. What do you think you have added that would change that?Anmccaff (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have expected us to agree in this discussion that Span was not 'reliable' in the WP sense of the word, ie that the things he wrote could not be relied on alone within the article, especially as we have other sources. I totally agree with you that it is a good summary, but good summaries don't necessarily make good reliable sources. PeterEastern  (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Very few sources, period, meet that standard of reliability. Even Homer nods.  I think that "Span" is good enough for the uses you've made of him, and that the objections made to that use by Trackinfo were based both on his misapprehension as to who added him to the article, and his dislike of their premise, among other reasons not relevant here.  I'm (obviously) not familiar with Wiki's jargon; is there any gradation between "reliable sources" and "unreliable sources?" (Nor Wiki's word processing conventions, even more obviously...I've tried to ascribe each quote above properly, and it hasn't entirely worked.  Feel free to claim anything I've left un-sourced there.)Anmccaff (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is a good starting point for what makes a source reliable for WP:PeterEastern (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is well past that starting point; it's a narrow, nerdly distinction, to paraphrase someone or other. It's also worth noting that Wiki's definition of reliable sources could better be named "Sources likely to be reliable," that is, they focus of outward easily discernible signs like the format, the creator, and the publisher; more about provenance that content.Anmccaff (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have probably spent 5 hours contributing to this particular dispute process, but can't really point to any progress to be honest. Either I am being bone-headed, or there is something else not right. Whatever is going on, I now have zero confidence that we are about to work well to resolve the issues that brought us to this forum without some other approach. Ideas welcome. We do probably need 's input at this point as well. PeterEastern (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Trackinfo has responded to my request for input above, and Anmccaff as responded to this response. Anmccaff has separately requested that he wants to raise 'behavioral issues, the inability to evaluate sources, and the tendentious editing'.  Personally, at 14,000 words, I think we have already given this long enough. I for one have said all I wish to say, and am now awaiting Bejnar's guidance as to where we take this.  PeterEastern (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Warning
Please refrain from comments on the behaviour of other editors and avoid ad hominem arguments. Remarking that a claim in the article is unsupported is about content, who placed that unsupported content in the article is not relevant in this discussion. Wikipedia's verification policy indicates that an unsupported claim which is disputed should be removed. --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood, and thank you for the reminder. PeterEastern (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


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

Holding 1
Do not use "conspiracy theory" or variants in the article unless parties agree to each specific use. --Bejnar (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that this is an essential element of the subjects covered here, how would you suggest that this be worked around?Anmccaff (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Holding 2
Do not discuss far-out theories and other conspiracies until after the basic story has been told. --Bejnar (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bejnar, as you will see from the article's first page, the conspiracy theories, far-out as you may find them, were the original subject.Anmccaff (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong agree with Bejnar and PeterEastern here. Calling someone conspiracy theorist is meant to discredit a person. Keep such terms out of wikipedia as long not directly citing a source!Spearmind (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As you can see above, the term, or a variant of it, is used by sources user:PeterEastern claims to prefer, and by other credible sources; what would you suggest instead for those who formulate or promulgate conspiracy theories?Anmccaff (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , for the record I object strongly to your continued comments about my views and edits which are irrelevant to this discussion. Please refrain from making any more of these. PeterEastern (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't see this as "for the record," unlike a good deal else mentioned here by all three of us; it's not intended to outline issues to be dealt with elsewhere later. Your co-belligerant here, Trackinfo, appears to change his opinion of sources based on what they say  and who uses them, and has repeatedly stated his wish to revert the article back to a time when some very bad sources were used.  You appear to have decided that "Span," because he was useful to you, was a "noted writer."  (The world would be a better place if he were, but that's another story.) Trackinfo's "disgust" at this, among other things, is what brought you in here, no?Anmccaff (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no source used the term "conspiracy theorist". Or can you provide such source? What I suggest for "those" who formulate conspiracy theories? I always prefer to challenge the conspiracy theory itself but not throwing around with negative-touched terms/titles against real persons. How will you defend if someone calls you nut or even idiot by what arguments? I saw such discussion at many article talk pages where ideologies hit each other.Spearmind (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with that to a point, in principle, especially because the term is used as a descriptive for some people, and a pejorative for others. That said, you haven't answered the question: what would you use for a replacement?  Given the wide adoption of this theory by the colander-hatted, whatever word picked will come under a cloud itself, mind you.  Once someone like Ickes picks it up, an idea has a hole to climb out of.
 * No replacement for "conspiracy theorist" is required, if one presents accurate statements of individual's opinions and conclusions. Of course for context one could say something along the lines of: Span, who has studied this area for some years, opines "...". Kay and Snell conclude that GM and NCL actively promoted buses. And assuming the reliable sources reach (not just support) this conclusion, "although the actual evidence of direct acts consists of ..." --Bejnar (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As for sources, you appear to have overlooked a couple buried in the logorrhea above:
 * "For the descriptor 'Conspiracy theorists?' 'Pro-conspiracy theorists rely on Snell and look like idiots.' Span, pt.1) 'Like Snell and other conspiracy theorists, Kay blames GM and its subsidiary, National City Lines (NCL), for the replacement of popular streetcars with unpopular motor buses.' Bianco [6]"


 * Those were simply examples to show the kind of thing that could avoid the use of inappropriate or non-neutral language. Span, regardless of which editor cited him, is not a reliable source. See above discussion.  He may be a useful source, but any disputed facts need to be cited elsewhere. --Bejnar (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that some of his writings are not "reliable sources" in the everyday scholarly sense, but in the peculiar vocabulary of Wikipedia, they are bullet-proof, nickel-plated Anmccaff (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (Mind you, I'm not disagreeing with you here for the ordinary, common, garden variety meaning of "reliable", and I accept your and PE's point that the artticle's own writing, as opposed to quotes, might be better off avoiding a term that can be used with several meanings when it can. It still needs, though to find separate replacement words or phrases.)Anmccaff (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Notice these -were- two of PeterEastern's favorite sources, and that Trackinfo modified his frankly libelous characterization of "Span" and those who would cite him after realizing it was Peter, not me, who sourced him.
 * -- Anmccaff (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Anmccaff, are you accusing me of libel against Span? I think that is a highly out of line personal attack and meant to discredit me unfairly.  I questioned using Span as a source because aside from some very minimal support sources, I cannot identify him as an expert in the field.  I accused that there is no body of work to support his expertise, essentially all we have is one blog entry which by wikipedia standards is a self-source.  You then followed up with some incoherent drivel about "The Artist Who Writes as Span" that makes it sound like you know this individual personally and as I responded makes him sound "more like a flake than a scientific researcher" based upon your response.  Since I'm on the subject of personal attacks, you earlier accused me of hiding behind an alias and tried to equate that to Span.  On wikipedia, we are supposed to use a "handle."  There are regulations about "outing" somebody's identity here which I try to respect.  I am not a source quoted in the article.  Span is. Trackinfo (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. You have implied he's likely a paid agent of GM et al., acting to cover up unnamed criminality on their part.  This is hardly the first time you've impeached editors and sources this way, either.Anmccaff (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the "incoherent drivel," it is neither to someone who has some knowledge of of electric traction's vocabulary (or rigging's, for that matter; "guy span" is used as shorthand for a "guy(ed) span (pole)", it is rather a gentle dig at people unable to recognize a very, very, very, very....(repeat ad infinitum) obvious pseudonym.Anmccaff (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally, yes, I do happen to have run into him online before, to have read him in print in what was once a local paper to me, to have discussed rail history with him online, and to have spoken with him directly a couple of times. A very knowledgeable person; as long as you notice when he's writing off-the-cuff, a pretty trustworthy source.Anmccaff (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean. How I said so you should not just use a flowing text but to use a block! quote from the source in quotation marks from beginning to end without adding personal opinion to avoid misunderstandings. If I like the text or not doesn't matter. Editors should avoid giving judging titles to real persons. What do others think?Spearmind (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of other readers I have cleaned up Anmccaff's formatting. Anmccaff, again, can you refrain from commenting on other editors contributions (including mine). PeterEastern (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's germane here. Sources seem to be elevated or downgraded based on their implications, not their provenance or accuracy.Anmccaff (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * just to note that you should not be making personal comments about other contributors on this board, even within submit comments as you did in . PeterEastern (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has many article that did not start out as NPOV. How an article started in not very relevant, just as who made which edits really is not relevant.  What is relevant to the content of the article is facts, supported by reliable neutral sources and, opinions and conclusions of those who have studied an area, again as supported by reliable neutral sources. As to how to start the article the lead of the version current last week without the last line would be a good start.  A discussion of the mid-XX Century conversion from mass transit to individual transport and from electric fixed route to internal combustion engine urban mass transit could be addressed in general terms with the generalized causes presented.  The GM case could be presented.  Then other theories could be presented with pros and cons. I am currently snowbound, with intermittent access to a 3.5KB/sec dial-out line.  I do hope to be able to get to a library with reasonable access this coming week. --Bejnar (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not that it didn't start out as NPOV, it started out as a separate related subject, and, to use a tendentious word, was hijacked.Anmccaff (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

New (dubious)source introduced by new editor

 * Note: The following discussion relates to the article General Motors streetcar conspiracy from a long standing, unsettled discussion that has dropped off of the active page and onto archive 109 Trackinfo (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Kunstler's cites stovepipe back to assertions of Bradford Snell which were refuted in the 1970's.

This is the reason why a term for "conspiracy theorists" as a group is needed; it's a school of thought, with shared ideas and characteristics.Anmccaff (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The content cited doesnt even have a footnote. Its his own work. He is not someone elses puppet and publishes own theories. Its unbelievable again and again Anmccaff comes up with terms like "conspiracy theorist"; there clearly overweighs a personal opinion and disturbs the atmosphere of working on the article trying to discredit voices he doesnt like. With user Bejnars help it was worked out that terms like "conspiracy theory" are not to use when there is no agreement or specific cite from a source. bejnar: "Do not use "conspiracy theory" or variants in the article unless parties agree to each specific use. "See also the articles talks page where he does not use neutral terms for subjects he started. Now - again why he is using my nick in subject. Thats not necessary and not appropriate. Anmccaff did not prove his claim Kunstler would not be a reliable source with content or going into detail what of his findings are to criticise or are not notable. Kunstler is a notable person, you will find him on different media, not because he has his own WP article, and "wow" he wrote a book. I must admit replying on the users unfunded claims steals time I would like to work on different articles.Spearmind (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "The content cited doesnt even have a footnote. Its his own work. He is not someone elses puppet and publishes own theories. Its unbelievable again and again Anmccaff comes up with terms like "conspiracy theorist";"


 * Bejnar, a library will quickly show you that Spearmind's assertion is simply not true, unless he is making a narrow distinction between an endnote and a footnote. If a library isn't handy, a Google search on "Kunstler scrap the tracks Nowhere," an amalgamation of part of the author's name, part of the book's title, and a phrase from the page generally brings up a partial view of the work, with the cite -it's number 5, BTW- in very plain view.  Searching back through it brings you (inevitably) to Snell, an author whose works are not only widely condemned by many experts, but which we had agreed here was not sound on points of fact.  Repackaging it through Kunstler by way of Flink lends it no more authority...a good deal less, in fact, since you can't see how intervening authors used it.  If Spearmind is concerned about his name in the  header, by all means remove it...in fact, I'll change it myself; but I think it is important that you see that this is a moving target now, with frenetic editing happening outside what was being discussed here.  Trackinfo, PeterEastern and I had all backed away from anything but the most minor, innocuous editing.Anmccaff (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Finally, Spearmind's own claim above, were it true, would justify removing it from the article, were it Kunstler's "own work." Anmccaff (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont know what problem Anmccaff has with Kunstlers book footnotes, He never explains what part he is actually challenging. So draw your own picture of the time consuming questioning of Kunstlers reliability. No one else has problem with Kunstler. He comes up with credibility claims but doesnt deliver a source. So how to argue on that? I cited Kunstler properly and he is a notable person with a notable book. The subject change of the section was not a complete success. Why Anmccaff cannot keep even the subject here neutral. Now try to imagine how this works in articles when trying to discredit source not following his opinion. What exactly makes Kunstler "dubious". Let me provide some quotes:


 * “No one is writing more clearly and ardently about living in America’s soul-numbing human habitats and suffering its dreadful consequences.”— Keith Schneider, Detroit Free Press.


 * “Kunstler makes a persuasive argument for massive change in how we live and lays out the problems that must be overcome.”— Bruce Oren, Houston Chronicle.


 * “Kunstler has given thousands of ordinary Americans a vocabulary for articulating what they love and loathe about their surroundings.”— The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.


 * Spearmind (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Umm, no one is denying that Kunstler is a "popular" writer, but scholars use that at best as a warning, and at worst as a dismissive. It is not, to quote someone-or-other a "peacock word," rather the opposite.Anmccaff (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Bejnar, Trackinfo, PeterEastern, here's the cite referenced here, it is, as discussed, from Flink's The Automobile Age, p364

In short, Kunstler is citing as proof something that refutes his position. This, Spearmind, is why footnotes are important.Anmccaff (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Does anyone else have any questions why we should treat Kunstler as unreliable?Anmccaff (talk)
 * Would you please share with us what you are talking about. What is the connection of your citation to Kunstlers content I used in the article. And what is Kunstler citing where from Flink and why would make this Kunstler become "dubious" or not reliable. What refutes which position? And why Anmccaff now is posting his stuff between my lines? Spearmind (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: More Flink:


 * Again, does this look like it supports Kunstler's thesis? Yet that is what he cited.Anmccaff (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Uff This is not a big help and no answer to my questions. You open new bottles here and there without drinking it.Spearmind (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Property Company_of_Friends#Multiple_Issues_5_February_2015
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Cjdee
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Property Company_of_Friends#Multiple_Issues_5_February_2015 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Coordinator's note: Hi Schadow. First, please notify the other party of this case by placing on their talk page. Second, we cannot force anyone to do anything, as you ask us to do in the "How do you think we can help?" section. This is a completely voluntary DR venue, unlike ArbCom. Therefore, we also do not have the authority to block users if they don't answer the questions. Thanks, -- Biblio worm  16:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User has recently been notified via user's talk page. Regarding how the dispute resolution can help, how do you think the DR can help in this matter if those are not possible? Schadow1 (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Serbs
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss at the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Zoupan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Talk:Yo
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

Nothing has worked thus far.

How do you think we can help?

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

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

Talk:Yo discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I am going to be going out somewhere and will be a bit busy today, so I may not be able to make swift replies. Nevertheless, I wished to open this because I did not want things to escalate any further. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In response to JesseRafe: The thing was, the yeoman cite was put there for something that you removed back when we had the original argument before. It should have been removed a long time ago, and I agree that it shouldn't be on the page.

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * It's false to insinuate that I have not engaged in conversation or in Talk Pages on this topic. It's just that they went nowhere and I lost interest. There is no compromise possible where one person insists that their own private esoteric understanding of folk etymology belongs on a Wikipedia article. To user Tharthan, their understanding of "compromise" is that they have it their way, and if they don't get it, they call their disputant names. "Callow fool" comes to mind.
 * And, yes, I did remove sources you had without concern to how long you have spent searching for them because they. were. not. relevant. What more needs to be said? You can't write a sentence about "yo" on the article about "yo" and then put a citation to "no" and just leave it there and expect a reader to figure out why it's there. You crowded your false etymology with so many "references" that you didn't even notice you put the etymology of no, the very same webpage on there twice. It's a common technique from people who are trying to put things on Wikipedia that don't belong to just cite anything and since most people won't investigate, they'll just see the little blue superscript number and think it's legit. So, to rehash: just because it's a reference doesn't mean it belongs.
 * Likewise the tangents. Who cares? The derivation of other Indo-European words is NOT relevant, no matter how true. Similarly as you had the Middle English this comes from the Old English that, it's not necessary to go into Proto-Germanic and every modern Germanic language, the matter is simple. Similarly the vowel changes digression. It's off-topic and distracting, to say nothing of how it was just Tharthan's own editorializing. JesseRafe (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologise that I called you that when all of this started about a year ago, that was my fault. I apologised for that back then too, you know.
 * However, what you say I am coming off to you as is precisely how you yourself have come off to me as. So I don't know what's going on here to cause all of this.
 * Furthermore, my etymology is not false. Many people support it, and I've cited sources that supported things that I was saying as well, but you just removed them all.
 * The vowel changes are not irrelevant if I'm trying to explain to you and answer something that you asked in an edit summary. I was trying to explain how things developed that led to "yo", but you seemed so dead-set on rejecting yo's etymology that you ignored it all. Or at least, that is how you came off to me. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And this is why we're at an impasse. One, I disagree with your assertion (which is not the issue in my reversions, as my opinion on facts is irrelevant, hence the fact that the Italian etymology is in there because it has a credible published source which asserts it). Two, even if true, as I've stated ad nauseum, your references to not support your assertion. You make claim X and then find source Y that says claim Z is true. Irrelevant. And any exegesis from those sources about Z to apply to X is Original Research; you can't synthesize materials. So you can't say the etymology of "no" shows some blah-blah-blah and cite that as a source and rest on those laurels, you'd need to find a source that explicitly says "the word yo has something to do with the word no", otherwise no dice. Similarly simply finding a book which contains the three letters "yeo" is laughably inadequate to prove that "yeo" or/and "yo" mean "yes". The context is everything. That "yeo, ahoy, me lads" or whatever is clearly an interjection, more of a simple vocalization than any meaning-bearing unit of speech. What does, "Oi!" or "Uhh" mean? The fact that you couldn't find a source where someone said, "Yeo, it is true" or some obvious affirmation shows the unlikelihood of your assertion being true. FURTHER, even if that were found the onus would still be on you to prove that any facts about "yeo" apply to "yo". It's so tenuous that it deserves to be dismissed out of hand, hence my breaking of 3RR en flagrante to keep this unfounded fantasy off wikipedia. Especially since some articles, like Yo, are ripe targets for vandalism. JesseRafe (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it should at least be listed as a possible etymology if it can't be listed with certainty as the etymology. That would be sufficient. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If there were sources that validated the claim in the slightest. From where you're standing, you have this idea in your head and your grasping at anything to substantiate it, but nothing exists. There is no published postulate that supports this pet theory of yours. In fact, there are several credible others that I'd be more than happy to see in a "controversies" or similar multiple origin theories article, like High Five, iirc. For instance, Dillard claims it was from AAVE pronunciation of "here" as "hi-yuh" which would also conveniently account for its use in the military roll call. But due weight and significance should be given to the weight and significance of their sources. Published etmyologies in dictionaries and investigations by peer-reviewed journals (so that random paper by that random person at Baylor was it, Maxe Wason or some name like that, would be righteously left off), but not standalone bare references, "hey, someone in 1890 wrote a pirate song saying, 'yeo-ho'", that is not a valid reference. Nor is long diversions on Grimm's law or the Great Vowel Shift or any other non-pertinent theory of linguistics not directly related to the subject matter, whether in the guise of proving a point or just there because you like it, regardless of its truth value, proper on the page. So, a compromise? An "other possible origins" as a subsection, but they would still be held to the same rigor? I think your beef was misplaced, not that I was removing them because I disagreed, but as I've said all along, your sources were inadequate. JesseRafe (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * An "other possible origins" section would be fine, yes. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen V._Cameron
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The topic of my biography and his work has been featured on ABC Night News, NPR, multiple times in NYT (including front pages), Chicago Tribune. He has written peer-reviewed papers cited over 3000 times, many individual papers cited nearly a thousand times. He has an h-index on Google Scholar of 13, above the ten usually used a cut-off for his field. He was a tenure-track associate professor for ten years at Columbia, and remains on the faculty as an adjunct associate professor while working at NYC hedge funds, including in management positions.

The topic that received most notability for, his studies on the GED test, are of general interest (not just academic interest) and have contributed to the lasting historical record of the debate on the GED.

Yet someone is claiming he is not notable because he "is notable only" because he was associated with a very famous professor in the field (the Nobel Laureate James Heckman), is now "only" an adjunct professor (apparently the previous ten years as associate prof don't count), totally discards the high h-index or the very citations on individual papers, and disregards the argument that GED is of general interest outside academic. No discussion of the lengthy major media articles are mentioned.

Yet other editor claims 'not notable.'

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

brought additional major media sources (ABC Nightly News) to light in the talk section, brought up all the different criteria and why other Wikipedians have felt some of these alone suffice, debated on talk page, removed the notability template after giving lengthy arguments for notability citing other wikipedians' criteria (it was re-added)

How do you think we can help?

referee the matter. How many major media sources, nightly news interviews, and articles on the subject and his research are needed? Just how high an h-index does he need before he's notable? etc. Why does being an adjunct professor count against him when he had a lengthy stay as associate professor in the same department?

What are the correct criteria? General notability of a topic of general interest (GED test history), academic, financial analyst?

Summary of dispute by Limit-theorem
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Stephen V._Cameron discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Clerical Note: I've notified the second party.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Grillmaster423#March_2015
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Hello. Hopefully this message is find its reader well.

In attempt to improve a page nominated for deletion, several users have made numerous contributions over the last few days since Violence against men was nominated. One user, Haminoon, who is calling for deletion, has removed thousands of characters during the preceding two days. Just reverting all contributions made to the article. Some of it unsourced. Even though that is justifiable, if every unsourced sentence was REMOVED from Wikipedia, the articles would be bare and confusing. Common sense is always injected throughout sourced material to create an understandable piece of text.

Other reverts are sourced and the user just removes it on a whim. User hides these reversions in larger reversions, hoping they will go unnoticed. After rectifying the coverup, Haminoon initially claims the material is unsourced. After being proven wrong, user then claims the information false. After being proven wrong again, user then claims the material is "misinformation".

User has made 0 contributions to the article. Seems like user is violating some rules.

In your high esteem on Wikipedia, would you kindly please help?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk. Extensively.

How do you think we can help?

What kind of question is that? That's why I came here is to ask you how can you help? Is the user violating rules? Am I wrong? Why are Scientologists blocked from editing their own page? ;)

Summary of dispute by Haminoon
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

User talk:Grillmaster423#March_2015 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Vaccine controversies
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

This dispute is boiling down to if a source Miller, N. Z., & Goldman, G. S. (2011). Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Human and Experimental Toxicology, 30(9), 1420–8. doi:http://dx.doi.org.mutex. is a primary or secondary source/qualifies to be used in the article. The primary source is the data collected by Mr. Miller from the mortality and immunization statistics from each country. The secondary source is the peer reviewed, academic journal article, published by Sage Publications.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

WP:RSN

How do you think we can help?

State if the article is a primary or secondary source, and if it is acceptable.

Summary of dispute by SandyGeorgia
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrump
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

24 (TV series)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Article should use "US" and not "U.S." because other countries that use acronyms in the article are present. See guidelines below. yet other users keep reverting to suit their own preference.

The guidelines state:
 * WP:NOTUSA states U.S. is the most common usage in N.America, however it also states "Use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article and congruent with the variety of English used by that article." This can be read as use U.S. if article is American-based, though the original author has the choice at time of submission. But it also states "consistent within any given article".
 * Hence MOS:ABBR also comes into effect, "However, use a consistent style within the same article; use "US" in articles with other national abbreviations, e.g. "UK" or "UAE"." meaning any article with another acronym country should then use US without periods.

That's quite clear; articles with other acronym countries should then use "US" and has nothing to do with it being a US-based article subject matter. If said users don't like that guideline, then they should attempt to get it changed. But disagreeing with what the guidelines say, does NOT give users the right to simply ignore them as they are now.

Other links:
 * User_talk:Drmargi
 * non-edited version of |User talk:Drmargi – note: user deliberately edited out my comment on the current talk page version!
 * non-edited version of |User talk:Drovethrughosts

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Repeated explanation of these guidelines to both Drmargi and Drovethrughosts, result in continual reversions in favour of their own personal preference. On top of that keeps making ad hominem attacks against me, including an irrelevant sock puppet accusation due to an IP-only users' comment appearing – a comment which is completely irrelevant, but seems to think it's still acceptable to remove other users comments, against WP discussion policy. (see links)

EDIT: nearly 24h after putting notices on both the two users' pages, the two other editors involved have unsurprisingly entirely failed to comment (tells one a lot on their understanding of the guidelines as they appear, without inferring and/or ignoring half of them to suit their own preferences instead).

How do you think we can help?

These users need the guidelines explaining to them AS THEY ARE, and if they keep failing to respond to what the GL's clearly explain, said users need to be told to stop reverting perfectly acceptable edits by other users which are following the GL's appropriately. Jimthing (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Drmargi
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Drovethrughosts
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

24 (TV series) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Status report: Participants have been notified and there has been significant discussion on the talk page. After the participants have given summaries a DRN volunteer (other than me) may open this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 24 hour closing notice -- The two parties besides the filing party have been notified on their talk page and have edited WP through today. There has been interaction between the parties on the article talk page and a user talk page in regard to this DRN. So they are well aware and appear to be declining participation here at DRN, as is their right. If no summaries are added within 24 hrs I'm going to close this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 23:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So the other parties here have ignored all guidelines concerned, repeatedly bullying another user who's following all of them on the talk pages with their own POV on what they want (only following half the guidelines concerned, as explained above). Thus I get pushed into a needless Edit Warring 48h ban. They then don't bother to come to this DRN, thus the case is closed in their favour anyway. How is this a fair way of dealing with issues, as the bullies get their way regardless? Jimthing (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally have reverted Jimthing twice, and as a neutral party aware of this dispute I'm exercising my right to comment. This editor caused an edit war on multiple pages by attempting to force his changes without discussing it with others first. He would not allow the page to be restored to a state prior to it being in dispute. No one has bullied him, people have attempted to reason with him on the 24 talk page. This editor also reacted badly to suspicions of sock puppetry but there is grounds there, an IP editor who geo locates to London like this editor appeared and commented within minutes of Jimthing on the 24 talk page and immediately went on the attack against Drmargi quoting the Wikipedia guidelines in the same manner and then went onto her page and was rude. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to suspect something. Also it's worth noting that all NBC/FOX/CW/CBS/ABC show pages use the term U.S. But he refuses to accept that. That's all I will say on this subject, feel free to look at the 24 page history to see my two revisions to confirm I was involved, and I do apologise if IP editors aren't allowed to give an opinion here, I just feel this is needed. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, stick to the topic, and not that IP-only commenter's comment (WHO WAS NOT ME, SO STOP TRYING TO INSINUATE IT WAS ME! Given it was pretty immature, and used US-style language all over the place –e.g. "jerk" et al, a Brit is highly unlikely to ever use– makes me think you made-up it's geo-location to London, especially as I was in Manchester for all of these edits, so your "argument" fails!). I notice you haven't bothered to comment on the guidelines AT ALL here, all while hiding behind an IP address yourself, makes me think you are in collusion with the other parties here: pot calling kettle, comes to mind. Jimthing (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP (81.132.175.69) geolocates to Chester, not London. Plenty of British people use the word 'jerk'. Paul B (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So this IP-only user is first London-based, then Chester-based, while I was in Manchester – well, how very empirical. And still not the point of this DRN. Jimthing (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but this discussion is inappropriate for the DRN forum. Since the two named parties in the dispute have not shown up I'm closing this case. Please see WP:DR and WP:DRR to explore other options for dispute resolution.-- — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Boris Nemtsov
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Attempts to push bias and propaganda

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

reasonable requests to keep article neutral

How do you think we can help?

provide unbiased and reasonable perspective and keep article neutral

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 96.25.250.141
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Hergilei
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Chelovechek
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

User talk:GauchoDude#Carol_Greider.27s_Wikipedia_page
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

an editor who goes by the pseudonym GoughoDude has been editing a web page about me without appropriately verifying the truth. I have requested that he change the entries, or contact me to find a way to resolve these issues but he his behind his pseudonym and will not engage in a regular conversation as a way to respolve the dispute I consider it libelous to have positing about me that do not reflect the truth. If there is a way to have a calm conversation about what is appropriate to post about peoples very personal lives on public media, I would like to move forward and do that

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have used the talk function to request that the entry be correct.

How do you think we can help?

please do not let this ONE person control the entire page of another living person. You have policy against "conflict of interest" but there is no policy that protects me as one individual from the whims of one person who keeps trying to edit my web page. It is not clear to me that this is a "open" policy when this unknown person, who will not reveal himself, keeps making changes to Very personal issues regarding a public figure. If a mediator could PLEASE be brought into this it would help.

Summary of dispute by gouchodude
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

User talk:GauchoDude#Carol_Greider.27s_Wikipedia_page discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Loma Linda_University_Medical_Center
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview
 * (resigned from dispute)
 * (resigned from dispute)

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

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Making the necessary edits and discussing on the Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by 331dot
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I do not agree with the contention that the Fraud section was "under dispute since 2008" as the only evidence of any dispute that I have seen was one talk page post in 2008 which was unreplied to and did not result in removal of the passage.

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

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

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

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

Talk:Loma Linda_University_Medical_Center discussion
Administrative note to DRN volunteers - I've pinged the other participant. Someone please take this case when he/she arrives. Thanks, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This case is now open for discussion. Attn: User:76.174.65.156 and User:331dot.... Comparisons to other articles is not a valid argument for change. Instead it would be better to frame the discussion in terms of WP guidelines such as WP:UNDUE which says: ''Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob''</b> • Talk  • 20:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your post. I personally think this was brought here prematurely but what is important is that this issue is dealt with. I think as long as their are valid sources for the information (which actually might be an issue, but is different from this one) it is valid to discuss a large fine(2.2 million is not a minor fine) relating to a large government program being carried out at the facility being fined.  It shouldn't just be excluded(though I also don't think it needs much more text than what is there). 331dot (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The Medicare Fraud section has three citations: Let's assume that TAF.org is a reliable source. What would be a concise, neutral summary of the information contained in these sources?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Lawyers and Setttlements.com -- A federal lawsuit was filed, following a whistleblower's lead against the Loma Linda Behavioral Medicine Center, accusing it of fraudulently over billing federal health insurance programs. The allegations made against Loma Linda BMC in a lawsuit filed pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act led to a settlement in which Loma Linda agreed to pay more than $2 million to settle claims. The lawsuit was filed in 1998 by a former employee of Healthcare Financial Advisors (HFA), a consulting firm that assists hospitals in preparing cost reports that are submitted to insurers. The lawsuit alleged that HFA helped its hospital clients seek reimbursement for unallowable costs. The lawsuit specifically alleged that HFA helped clients prepare two cost reports - an inflated one that was submitted to Medicare and a second one, designed for internal use only, that more accurately reflected the amount of reimbursement the hospital should have received. Loma Linda BMC was accused of over billing from 1992 through 1996, when it submitted cost reports to Medicare and Medi-Cal that sought reimbursement unrelated to patient care at the hospital.
 * 2) TAF.org Loma Linda University/$2.2 million/Medicare
 * 3) TAF.org  A group of faculty practice corporations affiliated with Loma Linda University has paid the United States $2.2 million to resolve allegations they submitted false claims to Medicare. The settlement was paid after 20 corporations reached an agreement to conclude a federal fraud investigation.
 * My initial suggestion would be to rename the header "Legal matters", remove the first line about fraud, and leave the other two paragraphs about settling the lawsuits. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's see what the IP says about that proposed compromise.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)