Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 3

Conor Matthew Mccreedy


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

I am being accused of copyright theft on the article stated above and I have given all the proof needed and have done whatever means necessary to try proof that I have obtained all the rights needed to post the article and would like to get this issue resolved if possible. Also it has been said that the article has be written like an advertisement and I have asked in what way it may sound like an advertisement so that I can correct the article accordingly but have but the user making the comments does not seem willing to help me improve and correct these issues instead he wants to push for a speedy deletion of the article.

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



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

I have emailed permissions at Wikimedia stating that I have the right to distribute the content under the creative commons license and I have gone through a lot of trouble getting in touch with the persons where the content of my article was supposedly copied from and they have agreed to remove the content from their site and have done so.


 * How do you think we can help?

Please help me resolve this issue and if needed guide me in the right way to improve my article.

Rusty69t (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

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

In regards the copyright issue, it can take some time for the OTRS volunteers to get to your email and deal with it appropriately, especially since much of the world is engaged in summer holidays. There's really nothing to be done with the copyrighted text before then. --Danger (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, in regards to the copyright question, the original page was deleted as a clear copy of a .pdf file (now deleted, apparently) uploaded to Commons by a different user. The current problem section was copied word-for-word from the artist's Facebook page. As for the allegations that I'm "pushing for a speedy deletion of the article", except for the initial nomination, this is not the case. I do, however, think the article is incredibly promotional, has a great number of unreferenced claims, has severe problems with a lack of reliable sources for those with references, and the creator has a clear conflict of interest if he somehow has the "right to distribute the content". MikeWazowski (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rusty69t, and thanks for posting here. I'm sorry to hear about all the trouble you've had writing your first article. Wikipedia has a lot of rules and it takes time and experience to understand them fully, so I can completely sympathise with your situation. However, I'm afraid MikeWazowski is quite right in his points above - at the moment the article doesn't quite follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The most important part is the copyright. As I'm sure you have realised from all the notices on your talk page, we simply can't use copyrighted text on Wikipedia without permission, as it could create legal problems for the site (and the user that uploaded it). I see you have asked for permission through Wikipedia's OTRS system, and if everything goes well then you will indeed be able to use that text in the article. Usually, however, it isn't worth getting copyright permission for text like this, as material taken from other websites isn't usually written in an encyclopaedic tone. Have a look at this guide to see the kind of tone that is usually expected in a Wikipedia article.

I had a look on Mccreedy's website and some of the article seems to be copied from here and here. Mike, is this the same material as in the pdf you mentioned? If it is, then Rusty69t, I'm afraid we can't use most of it anyway because it doesn't have an appropriate tone.

I think that the tone of the article is also the reason that Mike said that the article is promotional. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.) I'll give you an example of language in the article that could be considered as promotional. Let's take this sentence from the "Art" section: "Best known for his accurate lines and fluid colors, Mccreedy has begun to incorporate elements of self-written language, collage, and charcoals to his paintings." Saying that he is "best known for his accurate lines and fluid colors" is a subjective statement, and seems to be praising Mccreedy's work with no real evidence. (Hence the claim it is promotional.) We need to turn it into an objective statement for it to be suitable for Wikipedia. One way of doing this would be to use a quote, for example: 'Joe Bloggs from the New York Times said "Mccready's work is simply awesome, especially his accurate lines and fluid colors".' (Note that you would need a source for any quote.) Another way would be to simply leave the sentence out. You can take a look at Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and see some examples to get a better feel for how to write objectively.

Finally, I should point out that every claim in the article that could be contested by another editor should have a reference, and that other editors can remove any claim that is not backed up by such a reference. Have a look at Wikipedia's policy of verifiability for the details. When you add this to the copyright issues and promotional issues I outlined, then I think it is clear that the text can't stay in the article as it is. Anything that could be contested should be referenced, and anything that is promotional should be rewritten. I'm afraid that per Wikipedia's rules, anything else must be removed from the article. If you have any questions about this, then I'll be happy to answer them below. All the best. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead yesterday and stepped out of Dispute-Resolution mode to give the article a thorough promotion scrubbing. I believe the only remaining issues have to do with copyright and references (perhaps therein, notability as well).  Only good sources will let us know if the article is truly neutral or not, but for now, at least it's not blatantly promotional. Ocaasit 10:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Stradivarius - the original pdf file was nearly a word for word match for the article text, which is why the original version was deleted - it weren't identical to the links you provided, but it was obviously an official McCreedy promotional piece - I wish it hadn't been deleted so that it could be compared. I'm a bit troubled by Rusty69t's claim that he is "the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Conor Mathew Mccreedy articles" - to do so, he'd need to be McCreedy or part of the McCreedy organization, yet here he claims to "have no relationship with the subject of the article I am merely a fan of his work". Something's not adding up. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that these statements don't add up - I think I missed the part about Rusty69t claiming to have ownership of the copyright themselves. I can't see how it is possible to own the copyright to Mccreedy's official site, and to not be closely connected with him. Rusty69t, can you shed some more light on this situation? —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Placeholder post - I've left a message on Rusty69t's talk page, inviting them to reply here. Hopefully we can resolve this to the satisfaction of everyone involved. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've placed an OTRS pending template on the article talk page - hopefully this should give us some insight on the status of the OTRS request to use the text in question. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Conor Matthew Mccreedy resolution
The Copyright violation has disapeared and the original complaintant has decided not to restore it. That's a wrap Hasteur (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Dartmouth College


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

Am in dispute with editor NBruschi regarding the validity of the Controversy section for the Dartmouth College article.

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

NBruschi claims that the section is not worthy of being included and is biased. I, Augustus1986, feel that the section is worthy of being included, but am open to it being improved in tone. However, I felt that NBruschi's editing of the section in terms of language and tone is biased in and of itself, as it treats the subject too favourably towards Dartmouth College.

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

I have attempted to discuss this issue with NBruschi on the Dartmouth College talk page, and both of us have agreed that bringing it up for mediation is an suitable course of action.


 * How do you think we can help?

Decide whether the section is indeed worthy of being included in the article. And comment on the choice of language and wording of the section.

Augustus1986 (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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

I ask that the discussion not be closed too quickly. I recently started my first job and am quite busy, but nonetheless wish to have the choice to have my input on this issue before the issue is closed.--Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Below, includes a long comment that argues that the section in question should be removed on the grounds that it fails to meet the inclusion criteria WP:EVENT, the section is factually inaccurate, the section is not not written from a neutral POV and violates WP:NOTSCANDAL, the section has undue weight, and that there is existing consensus to delete most if not all of the section. I have collapsed the comment down to preserve readability. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

NBruschi (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Argues for wholesale deletion on the following grounds: A. The event must have "lasting effects"
 * 1. It fails to meet the inclusion criteria in WP:EVENT
 * -NBruschi points to the section itself which states "no administrative actions" or changes were made in its wake.
 * -Augustus1986 replies "The lasting effect is that it demonstrates that increasing trend towards pressuring students for donations..."
 * -NBruschi replies that this point is not made in the section at all, it is not shown in the sources, a trend cannot be determined by a singular data-point, and the controversy surrounding Delorenzo's actions relates to fundraising trends as little as a gang shooting relates to technological developments in firearms.

B. The event must have "significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group."
 * -NBruschi says: excepting very brief campus celebrity for Mrs. Delorenzo, the event had no effects outside of the Dartmouth community and, since the money was donated regardless, almost none within.
 * -August1986 says "Dartmouth College was affected since its action gained it significant negative notice."
 * -NBruschi says only 2 outside media mentions is hardly significant, characterizing the notice as "negative" is POV, and given Dartmouth's existing reputation and controversies, this does nothing to the college's perception.

 C. Media coverag e of the event must have "Depth of coverage"
 * -NBruschi and August1986 have together found only 4 media references to this incident: 1 in the Chronicle of Higher Education, 1 in the New York Times, 1 in The Dartmouth, and 1 on The Little Green Blog. NBruschi points out that the Blog started the controversy, the CHE and NYT cover the blog post in passing while making broader points about Cornell and college development generally, and The D just covered what was said in the CHE and NYT.

D. Media must have "duration of coverage... beyond a relatively short news cycle".
 * -NBruschi says the NYT and CHE articles were published in the same week, The D article a month later.", and nothing more since November 2010.
 * -Augustus1986 replies "I agree that the trend is not extremely strong"

'''E. Media must have "wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance" and do not "simply mirror or tend to follow other sources,
 * -NBruschi notes the articles "quote each other, include the same quotes from the same people, are organized in the same way, were written days apart, and even talk about the same, unrelated Cornell example."
 * -Augustus1986 replies that "the newspaper sources are multiple... They did not just simply accepted whatever Laura De Lorenzo or Dartmouth College told them"

NBruschi points to the following uncited lines from the contested section that are directly refuted by existing sources: NBruschi points to the following wiggle words and deliberate mischaracterization.
 * 2. The section is factually inaccurate
 * "Dartmouth College released particulars of senior students who refused to donate as a pressure tactic", by ''"Fund officials maintain, however, that they never publicly distributed a list of students who did or did not donate to the Senior Class Gift"
 * "Dartmouth College, which had student volunteers pressure and hassle students who refused to donate" by "Cunningham added that Dartmouth College Fund officials never encouraged him to “badger” his classmates for donations."
 * "... defended its actions as being necessary in order to obtain the donations" by “the intent of the administration and student volunteers was never to draw attention to anyone or to publicize the names of those who had not contributed to the Senior Class Gift”
 * The actions of volunteers, students, secretaries, and independent media (regardless of their connection to the College) are routinely attributed to "Dartmouth College" leading the reader to misinterpret these actions as officially undertaken on behalf of the College and the Board of Trustees.
 * -August1986 replies "The agents involved were a combination of direct and indirect agents. As such, they are officially appointed representatives of the college and act on its behalf. Regarding the student paper, it is indeed true that it is not a agent of the college. However, the agents whom released the personal particulars of Laura De Lorenzo to the student paper were indeed direct and indirect agents of the college"
 * -NBruschi points to the reply above in arguing that this ambiguity was included deliberately to advance an agenda against Dartmouth as an organization. Such equation is as silly as stating that economics lectures delivered by Larry Summers while President of Harvard were the official beliefs of its Board, or that office theft by administrators constitute official college endorsement of kleptomania.


 * the line "no administrative actions will be taken against the administrator responsible for the incident" is not supported by any of the articles.
 * -Augustus1986 says "the official quoted in the article stated that the college is contented with its actions and therefore the status quo will remain, thereby very strongly indicating that the administrator would not be disciplined."
 * -NBruschi says that is a leap-of-faith assumption by August1986 and is unencyclopedic

NBruschi believes that the following uncited words and phrases indicate bias:
 * 3. The section is not not written from a neutral POV and violates WP:NOTSCANDAL
 * "charges of strong-arming"
 * "had student volunteers pressure and hassle students"
 * "as a pressure tactic"
 * "released as a shaming exercise"
 * "defended its actions as being necessary"
 * -August1986 has reverted efforts to remove this language, saying "You reworded the article more favorably and removed unfavorable items."

In adition, NBruschi points to the following edit comments from August1986 indicating bias in his edits:
 * "Undid vandalism by Dartmouth College supporter"
 * "Undid edit. Possible astroturfing by Dartmouth college"
 * "Restored Controversy section deleted by Dartmouth supporters"


 * 4. The section has undue weight
 * NBruschi writes that far greater controversies happen all the time at dartmouth, have far greater media presence and lasting impact and yet are not included on the main page. Including this one controversy, especially given that it happened a year ago, did not effect the school in any observable way, and garnered very little press, would give it undue weight compared to other controversies and in paininting the college in a negative light
 * -Augustus1986 replies "   The examples stated of such supposed greater controversies do not bear out. Employee layoffs do not involve wrong-doing on the part of the college and impeachment of Student Body officials are by students and do not involve agents of the college. The Laura De Lorenzo incident on the other hand, involve direct and indirect agents of the college and as such should be deemed as being of greater significance. Moreover, even if there are controversies of greater significance, this incident is of sufficient significance in itself to be deemed worthly of note"
 * -NBruschi replies "Just because your interpretation of the events constitute "wrong-doing on the part of the college" in your opinion, it does not make this event noteworthy or help it not fail the criteria above. I hope that you recognize given the existing wikipedia policy, even the grandest of guilt in the most sinister acts does not make something notable unless the above conditions are met."

NBruschi notes | here that 7 other contributors have sought to delete or rewrite the section, citing the many fault listed above. Each time, these changes are reverted by the same person. Now that I am the 8th contributor vying to remove this disasterous section, I believe that a consensus for removal exists. Those in favor deletion in whole in part now include:
 * 5. There is existing consensus to delete most if not all of the section
 * User:NBruschi
 * 108.21.104.122
 * User:ElKevbo
 * 74.72.2.97
 * User:DMCer
 * 65.96.209.71
 * 75.7.8.228
 * 76.192.184.228

— Preceding comment added by NBruschi (talk • contribs) 21:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, NBruschi is using somewhat biased language. While it is true that the bias is fairly mild and he may even honestly feel that way, I nonetheless disagree with his version of events. I think that the fairest thing to do is to ignore his version altogether, and just take a look at the Dartmouth College talk page. I do not wish to copy the entire talk page section on this issue in case this is against the rules, so I just provide a link here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dartmouth_College#.22Controversy_Section.22_Re:_Laura_De_Lorenzo.

To sum up, please ignore what he says and also what I say, and just take a look at the talk page. I think that that is extremely fair to both of us. Please don't just listen to his version of what I said.--Augustus1986 (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The underlying issue here seems to be one of WP:WEIGHT. In Wikipedia, we give events or viewpoints coverage in proportion to their prominence in respected independent sources. So the question we need to ask ourselves here is: given all the sources ever published about Dartmouth College - historical, academic, and modern - what proportion of them are concerned with the scandal that is the subject of this dispute? That is how much space we must devote to it in the article. If the number is, say, 10%, then we can have an individual section on it; if the number is, say, 2%, then we may be able to include a sentence about it; if it is less than that, we probably shouldn't include it. I haven't checked the sources, but I can't imagine this number would be high enough to justify its own section. As you both know the sources better than me, I'd be interested to hear your take on what the number might be. All the best.  — Mr. Stradivarius   on tour♫  19:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the percentage would probably be in the low single digits at best. However, I would note that the issue is not only of relevance in and of itself, but that it also represents a broader trend of how colleges may be putting the all-mighty alumni donations drive ahead of their students' interests, among others. And that as such, we may wish to take a broader view of the issue.
 * Nonetheless, I agree and accept that according to this principle that you have stated, even with such a broader outlook, the section may need to be reduced in size such that it is proportional. Any thoughts? --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Mr. Stradivarius above. A Google search of "Dartmouth College" (in quotes) yields more than 5 million hits, only 4 of which are the (mutually identified) primary sources related to this story.  That's 0.00008%-- far too few to warrant inclusion.  Now, if there was a page that only covered Dartmouth scandals, of which I am sure there are many, this incident may warrant a line.  But as for its inclusion on the main article, I believe this is one of many tripped wires for removal.
 * And to August1986's point, I did not intend to provide the full discussion above, just a more organized version of my side of it in a way that would more easily allow him to add his counterpoints. I only provided his side at all to show the counter-counterpoints I already made.  Sorry for that misunderstanding. NBruschi (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Fair enough. Couldn't have hurt you to be more even-handed though. My report on the issue to the dispute board was very even-handed, in my view. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As tempting as it may be, I'm afraid we can't use Google searches to arrive at our number - the sources must be reliable and independent of the subject. Blog entries and the college's own website cannot be used in the calculation, for example. Google News, Books, and Scholar can be more useful, but also note that there is a certain amount of discretion given to editors to determine the quality of a source. Sources of very high quality can be given more weight than coverage that is of less quality. See our policy on identifying reliable sources for more information on what to look for in a source.  — Mr. Stradivarius   on tour♫  21:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Per Mr. Stradivarius's guidance, "Dartmouth College" (including quotes) yields 856 results on Google News, 571,000 on Google Books, and 121,000 results on Google Scholar. "Laura Delorenzo" or "Laura A. DeLorenzo" (the names used in the cited blog/news sources; including quotes) combined yield 0 results on Google News, 0 on Google Books, and 3 on Google Scholar (none of which are related to the incident). 0%, 0% and .002%  What do you say August1986, is this a fair way to judge WP:Weight? NBruschi (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I had never said that your views are without merit. In fact, at the talk page, I explicitly noted that your views had merit. I merely stated my view that you are a bad person. My reply on this issue is above. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem I am seeing is the sourcing in the section, as well as undue weight. Bear in mind that the article at present is a featured article, and this section does not conform to the requirements of a featured article. The section in total has a lot of uncited claims, and many of the citations used have issues. Three are sourced to the website of the college itself, three are cited to blogs, and only two are cited to newspapers, one to the NYT and one to the Chronicle. There's definitely an issue of undue weight here. It needs to have much more significant coverage in order to be included in the article, and that's in reliable sources. Dartmouth was founded in 1769, and this is one incident that occurred in one year of its 241 year history. Definitely undue weight here. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  23:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not completely my fault. That version was written by NBruschi. I am not sure how much he changed my version. I am willing to work to address these issues once we resolved this dispute. I would also welcome any help. As for the weightage issue, please see above. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be an open-and-close case for which WP:EVENT and WP:SOAP/WP:ADVOCACY are specifically targeted. I suspect this "controversy" won't be remembered by anyone at Dartmouth at this same time next year, much less the "enduring historical significance" warranting widespread national and international converge with which Wikipedia should concern itself. It merits a sentence--at most--in the History section. Madcoverboy (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that it merits a little more than that, though perhaps significantly less than its current weightage. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking towards a resolution: I have argued for exclusion on the basis of WP:EVENT, its inaccuracy, POV/WP:SCANDAL, undue weight, and existing consensus for removal. Augustus1986 agrees with Mr. Stradivarius's notion that the section should be proportional in length to the percent of sources it concerns. I have shown this figure to be a thousand times smaller (at absolute best) than his 2% threshold for inclusion at all. Steven Zhang agrees with the undue weight issue and further faults lack of reliable sources and significance. Madcoverboy concurs with its violation of WP:EVENT, and WP:SOAP/WP:ADVOCACY. I believe a consensus has now emerged for complete deletion of the section. Per the many (still unaddressed) violations included in the green box, any of which would independently be grounds for removal, I move for deletion. NBruschi (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not agree per se. Stradivarius stated it as a rule, and I simply accepted it. I presume he is not lying to me. The content issues can be fixed. As for the other issues, I move that it be kept. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And another thing. After reading what you wrote again, I find it not entirely accurate also. Neither Steven nor Madcoverboy said that they think it should be deleted. Instead, they said that it should be given significantly less weight. That is a lot different from what you are saying. And I agree and accept that notion of it being given less weight. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I should probably point out that 2% was just a figure that I made up on the spot, and is not included in any Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The actual decision of whether to include it or not is made by consensus between editors. I have now had a chance to look at the sources more closely, and like Madcoverboy said, it seems that this event will likely have no lasting historical impact. Although WP:EVENT is intended to guide editors on whether events are eligible for a stand-alone article, and doesn't necessarily restrict coverage of events in other articles, I think it is useful to use it as a rule of thumb here, especially given the wide scope of the article in question. I also agree that WP:SCANDAL should be taken into consideration. I think all of this points squarely towards not including the information in the article at all. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the event rules does not forbid it, I move that it be kept, but perhaps rewritten with the scandal rule and proportional issues in mind. --Augustus1986 (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Dartmouth College resolution
It would appear that all reasonable arguments which can be made by the involved parties have now been made. Despite the assertion by Augustus1986 to the contrary, all three participating neutrals, Madcoverboy, Mr. Stradivarius, and Steven Zhang, clearly feel that deletion of the section is the proper thing to do. The consensus of the community would, therefore, seem to be that the section should be deleted and it has, indeed, been deleted by Steven Zhang from the article. In the event Augustus1986 should wish to contest that deletion, he should consider leaving the deletion in place and taking the matter to mediation. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Muammar Gaddafi


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

A discussion on Gaddafi's title has been under discussion for weeks now. It is very clear that he is a political strongman, but over time, editors have placed other terms on him, which are faulty on several grounds.

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



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

yes, it has been discussed, but the discussion has not been fruitful.


 * How do you think we can help?

I want unbiased third opinions. People who can read the reverts, read the rationales, and take this all in without bias.

Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 08:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Editor Screwball23 is trying to make a POV change to Gaddafi's article. While Gaddafi could legimately be called a 'strongman', a more appropriate term for the present time is in fact 'head of state'. This forms the focal point of the argument we are having with Screwball23.

Not only has Gaffadi been head of state for 40 years, our article has reflected this since its earliest incarnation in 2002. '''in January 1970 Gadhafi assumed power in what would be called the Libyan Arab Republic. Between 1969 and 1977 he ruled the country as president of the Revolutionary Council, from 1977 to 1979 as president of People's General Congress. In 1979 he left all official titles but remained as the sole ruler of Libya.'''

The major media still refer generally to the government as the "Gaddafi regime" and the man himself as "Libyan leader Gaddafi". I believe this premature push by Screwball23 is merely POV-driven and not based on a respect for long-standing consensus both in Wikipedia and internationally, nor is this change something that Gaddafi himself has expressed in words or actions.

In some situations, we can even have a 'head of state' in exile. So before we declare Gaddafi over-and-done, we ought to wait for a clear change, not just some implied change that really amounts to original research. -- Avanu (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Check out the talk page on Talk:Muammar Gaddafi for more, as there is a lot of ongoing discussion on this too. Seriously, the term "head of state" is extremely subjective. Editors have been relying on Western sources that no longer even recognize him as the Libyan leader. In any case, Avanu's reference to the article's history, which only stated that he was a sole ruler of a Gaddafi regime, are entirely different than the point he is advancing which is that he is the "head of state". On all counts, the idea of him being "head of state" is inaccurate, incorrect, and simply against the facts. The fact is, Gaddafi does not call himself the head of state of Libya. He is a Colonel, a political strongman, and if you check out strongman (politics), you will see he is mentioned alongside the definition. He is not the formal head of state, and in fact, it is false to claim he is the head of state because that title is already given to [] Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai. Gaddafi was a revolutionary, changing Libyan society from 1969 to 1977 into his jamahiriya, and since 1977, he simply calls himself the "guide" or "brother" in Libya's socialist society.


 * The term "head of state" is too subjective. Firstly, he is not called the head of state within the Libyan government, and the term is thrown loosely by Western media sources which again and again are not holding firm to any of these labels. Avanu's contention that he could be the "head of state" even if he was in exile is absurd. The fact is, the title of head of state is subjective, and it is a POV term based on mixed international news sources, many of which don't even support that term anymore. I can produce sources saying again and again that he is not the head of state ; there is no source that will deny he is a political strongman.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 02:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We should not call a head of state a 'strongman'. We call a head of state a head of state. Then we attribute any POV terminology to sources; i.e. Several sources have called Gaddafi a "tyrant", a "strongman", and a "murderer"[ref][ref][ref].  We should not state as plain fact terminology that is informal, inherently biased, and unencyclopedic, but we should include it in the article per with proper attribution. Ocaasit 15:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ocaai. It is POV and unbecoming of an encyclopedia to outright describe any individual using a loaded word like "strongman", cited or not.  Any characterization of Gaddafi's character must be attributed in line to its source -- "He had been described by Foreignland President Schmuckatelli as a "strongman"...(citation)" -- and, I'd argue, confined to a section that specifically deals with his public image and the corresponding teaser line in the intro. Let's keep Wikipedia to the facts and leave the opinions up to the reader. NBruschi (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The facts are for strongman, and the sources state again and again that he is a political strongman. There are over 1 million sources that call him a political strongman. There are sources that prove Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai is the head of state by constitution. It is false to claim that there are 2 heads of state, just as it would be false to claim that there are 2 presidents or 2 prime ministers of a country, so as an encyclopedia dedicated to accuracy, the term head of state simply cannot be subjectively placed on someone. There are sources also proving that Gaddafi does not, nor has he claimed, a formal position in the government, which makes the entire "head of state" label a subjective label which even he does not endorse. There are also sources that dispute the legitimacy of his regime, which make his position as the face of Libya's government less and less convincing internationally.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 02:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if many people call him a strongman, we still define him by his formal title, which is 'head of state' or 'head of state in exile' or 'former head of state'; and if those words are technically correct, then "leader" surely is the neutral term rather than strongman (or in this case 'former leader' or 'exiled leader' or 'former ruler'...). We don't define people with biased or informal words, however commonly used.  We might say:  "Gaddafi is the exiled ruler of Libya.  He is frequently referred to as a strongman."  The difference is the first part is definitional and the second is attributed.  That distinction must be maintained to avoid Wikipedia taking a point of view. Ocaasit 03:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * During the Western Schism, there were 3 popes.
 * Due to the stalemate of the Chinese Civil War, the ROC and PRC both were claiming to be the legitimate government of China.
 * In the case of Andorra, two Co-Princes act as the principality's heads of state; one is also simultaneously the President of France, residing in France, and the other is the Bishop of Urgell, residing in Spain. Each Co-Prince is represented in Andorra by a delegate, though these persons hold no formal title.
 * In North Korea, Kim Il-sung was named "eternal president" following his death and the presidency was abolished. As a result, the duties of the head of state are constitutionally delegated to the Supreme People's Assembly whose chairman is "Head of State for foreign affairs" and performs some of the roles of a Head of State, such as accrediting foreign ambassadors. However, the symbolic role of a Head of State is generally performed by Kim Jong-il, who as the leader of the party and military, is the most powerful person in North Korea.
 * In some states the office of head of state is not expressed in a specific title reflecting that role, but constitutionally awarded to a post of another formal nature. Thus in March 1979 Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, who kept absolute power (still known as "Guide of the Revolution"), after ten years as combined Head of State and Head of government of the Libyan Jamahiriya ("state of the masses"), styled Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, formally transferred both qualities to the General secretaries of the General People's Congress (comparable to a Speaker) respectively to a Prime Minister, in political reality both his creatures.
 * And we all know that many people own mugs that say "#1 Dad".
 * His formal title? Come on, man, read the references, because Gaddafi is not, nor does he claim to be, the head of state. Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai is the formal head of state, and I need to correct you because you are spreading false information and going in directions that simply do not apply here. You are contradicting yourself, saying "the office of head of state is not expressed in a specific title reflecting that role, but constitutionally awarded to a post of another formal nature." That makes no sense. He is a colonel, and by Libyan constitution, Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai is the head of state. There is no proof for your contention that a colonel is a title for a head of state in his country. He is not the head of state by the constitution as you are suggesting. Your logic would only make sense if he was called the Chancellor or Prime Minister or King within the government, which would make him head of state by a title granted head of state status within the constitution.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 20:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is, real life can be messy with claims and counterclaims and so on. Government and politics is not a simple math problem. -- Avanu (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Occasi has it right. causa sui (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, It's good that I saw this dispute by coincident, even though my name is mentioned above (Adamrce). Screwball23, please notify involved editors next time, or at least mention the DRN in the article's talkpage.
 * I previously advised the editor to add "strongman" in the "In power" section, instead of replacing the "head of state" in the LEAD. Head of state is mentioned in the LEAD, used by outsiders, and leader is mentioned, used by insiders. Ocaasi's proposal seems fair-enough, IMO.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk
 * Sorry I didn't know that you were not notified. I had the impression that it was like the 3RR posting that would automatically pop up. The lead cannot have false information. It is not true to state that he is the "head of state" because there simply is no rational reason to use a term that Gaddafi does not endorse, which is not true according to Libyan constitution, which is already a position given to another person - uncontested by Gaddafi btw, and which simply is inaccurate. Given the overwhelming evidence against "head of state", it is clear that the lead sentence should not have a subjective term like that.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 20:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as we're here, what should we do regarding his title being "until the present day"? Shall we add "(disputed)",, or just keep it as-it-is until the status changes. My concern is based on his warrant and loss-of-recognition by most large states, while others got recognition and took control of many cities in the country. It's not a big deal, but I'm just asking.      ~ AdvertAdam   talk  07:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Origin of death stories‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of death stories


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

An article "Buran Origin of Death" was deleted and userfied. This article was modified by 1 line, and then reintroduced under a new name, which the delete-admin promptly re-userfied. Another editor created a similar article with a slightly better title, and instead of working with that editor, the editor chose to retain this content fork. Every editor, including the deletion nominator (the previous delete-admin) has advocated keeping the content and just putting it under the new title. Now we get to the point of this. Editor DreamFocus is a very vocal proponent of keeping material in Wikipedia, and has added a rescue tag to the article. The rescue tag instructions ask the user who tags to provide a rationale for their tagging (lest it simply be a drive-by). In this situation, it appears we have an editor who simply wanted to avoid the consequences of an AfD that didn't go their way, made a token effort to improve it, and moved it right back. Userifying is one of the policy-related alternatives to deletion, as is Merging. All the editors in this situation have been bending over backwards to help in this and the problem I see is that we have an overzealous rescue tagger.

This tag was initially removed by editor Snottywong who suggested that DreamFocus did not follow the Rescue Tag guidelines. After reviewing the discussion, I also feel that DreamFocus is really just trying to push a super-Keep vote onto the discussion, rather than addressing the rationale provided by the AfD tagger.

I bring this up at the DRN board because I have a feeling that it will probably escalate, given past conflicts with DreamFocus.

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



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


 * How do you think we can help?

I think DRN can help by weighing in on this at the Rescue Tag Template Talk page. Unfortunately, I hope this doesn't become a personal thing with DreamFocus, but we'll have to wait and see. I think people are perfectly capable of defending a position in an AfD and an improper application of the Rescue Tag is merely a distraction.

Avanu (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Origin of death stories‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of death stories discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * Tagging an article for rescue implies certain things; namely, that the article is being considered for deletion, and an editor believes that a certain amount of improvement to the article (typically consisting of adding sources to establish its notability) could convince voters at AfD that the article merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. Dream Focus tagged this article for rescue, despite the fact that it needs no rescuing.  The main concern of the AfD nominator is that the article is a content fork, not that the article is about a non-notable subject, and not that the article is poorly sourced.  Logically, there is no amount of work that can be done to the article to change the fact that it is a content fork.  Therefore, tagging this article for rescue is inappropriate.
 * Another well-known side effect of tagging an article for rescue is that it gets the attention of a lot of inclusionists, who often come to the AfD and vote to keep it. If I were not required to assume good faith, I would say that this is Dream Focus' primary motivation in tagging this particular article for rescue.
 * Finally, the instructions for the rescue tag's use include (in bold) the following: "As part of this tag's use, please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen." Dream Focus serially fails to follow this instruction, presumably because there is no plausible way to rationally explain how this particular article could be better sourced such that it would cease to be a content fork.
 * It is for these reasons that I attempted to remove the rescue tag from the article. &mdash;SW&mdash;</b> yak 02:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article was nominated for deletion.  Discussion was ongoing.  A rescue tag was applied, as is acceptable with articles that are at AfD.  I see no good reason for another editor to delete such a tag, as Snotty did here.  Even if Snotty believed, as he indicated, that the article would not be deleted.  While that may have been his belief, it was certainly not a foregone conclusion.  In such circumstances, it is at the very least incivil and disruptive IMHO to remove such a tag.  And it serves no positive end.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To be completely honest the AfD nominator said "Delete (the content fork), and merge any information into the existing article". The nom has no intention of any of the content being cut, just reduction of redundant articles. This makes it a foregone conclusion (and the snowball of Keep/Merge votes does too). -- Avanu (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The nom is free to withdraw his nomination to delete the article. That is what AfD is for.  If he wishes to nominate the article instead for merger, he is free to do so as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If this were a debate over whether Origin of death stories was a notable topic, and we needed help finding sources to prove that, the rescue tag would be proper. In this case, though, it is about an editor who has improperly moved a recently deleted article back into the mainspace, causing a redundancy with a much better article that was created in the meantime. Above, Epeefleche basically admitted what a lot of people have worried about; the tag is simply being a way to rally keep !votes. Its proper use is absolutely not simply "any article with an AfD can have a tag." Yes, it's basically become that, but is for articles where rescuing the content is actually needed. It's incredibly troubling how often an article is tagged at an AfD, discussion occurs, but as soon as it is given a rescue tag keep !votes flood in without any improvement to the actual article. Note that I have no issue with the goals of the ARS; it's simply that certain members view it as a rallying point for "inclusionists" rather than a tag to help alert interested editors fix a deficient article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I said nothing of the sort. That's false.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You said that a rescue tag being applied is always acceptable at an AfD. That's not true.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "Epeefleche basically admitted what a lot of people have worried about; the tag is simply being a way to rally keep !votes."  I said nothing of the sort.  That's false.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A rescue tag is just a maintenance tag, it has no special properties beyond that. Maintenance tags are often applied inappropriately, and they are often removed by other editors.  Removing a rescue tag from an un-rescuable article is equivalent to removing a Unreferenced template from an article with 10 references.  There is no basis to claim that removing a rescue tag from an article is automatically a disruptive action.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> chatter 04:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tag removing is disrupt. This article is up for deletion.  The fact that some editors might want to merge content instead of other options, is not relevant.  Many times someone has thought an article un-rescuable, and yet it was rescued.  Snottywong's hatred of the ARS is well known.  Note, I did explain my reasoning in the comment statement of my edits when I added the tag.   D r e a m Focus  09:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I tag the article for Rescue with the explanation "This is something every anthropologist has studied, surely. Should be hordes of information out there. Anyone got a textbook?" I have also posted at the anthropologist Wikiproject asking them if they still use the four classifications created by the man called the father of anthropologist.   Please don't get hung up on the fact that two different articles currently have similar names.  Focus on the content.
 * 2) Snottywong removes my Rescue tag with the summary "not an appropriate candidate for rescue".
 * 3) I revert him with "Don't be disruptive. I gave adequet reason when I placed it here".
 * 4) He removes it again saying "article is likely to be merged, not deleted. nom's concern is not about sourcing, it's about content forking. no amount of add'l sourcing would change the fact that this is a content fork, therefore no rescue is needed/possible."
 * So, he has decided that it must be a content fork, and the fact that others might not agree with him is irrelevant. I revert him yet again explaining "stop being disruptive. This article needs more work done, and a new name, that's it. Use the AFD to discuss things"
 * 5. Avanu removes the tag saying "Article doesn", then does another edit saying "No rescue needed,tagger just trying to avoid merge although it is merely a rename.Tagger did not provide rationale as requested by Rescue instructions for 'how to rescue' and really all !votes in AfD are for keeping content in Wikipedia".
 * I did provide a reason in my edit summary. And this editor is not assuming good faith.
 * 6. Epeefleche then reverts one but not both of Avanu's edits saying "Nom is free to withdraw his nomination for deletion, but until that happens while the AfD is ongoing this tag is appropriate--he nominated for deletion". And then Avanu brings this to here, instead of discussing it on the talk page as Epeefleche has done.    D r e a m Focus  10:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if anyone agrees with me that it's a content fork. That's what the discussion at AfD is for.  The editor who nominated the article expressed his concerns about the article in the nomination statement, and in that statement he clearly said that his main concern is that the article's subject duplicates that of another article.  When you call for someone to "rescue" an article, you're asking them to improve the article in such a way that the AfD nominator's concerns are satisfied.  Since the AfD nominator's concerns had nothing to do with notability or sources (and no one has disputed that the topic is notable), asking people if they have a textbook demonstrates a distinct lack of understanding about what the AfD is about.  Did you read the nominator's statement?  Do you understand the history of the article?  This is really the question that I want you to answer for me: Exactly what type of rescue-work do you hope other editors will come here and undertake in order to save this article from being merged with another article about the exact same topic?  In other words, what modifications to the article (apart from renaming it and/or merging it from another article, which is probably what the outcome of the AfD will be) would change the fact that it is a content fork?  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#0a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> confer 14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not the same topic. If you ignored the similar names, and actually read through both articles you'd see the obvious difference, which I already explained in the AFD.  We need those who studied anthropology to comment.   D r e a m Focus  16:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the discussion that needs to happen at the AfD. The nominator says it's a content fork, you can comment on whether you agree or disagree.  The point is that no amount of work or "rescue" to the article will change anyone's mind.  You have deliberately (and predictably) avoided answering the bolded question above, presumably because you are now realizing that the rescue tagging was actually inappropriate and only served to canvass for additional inclusionist attention.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> confess 17:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Question:So I understand the issue the history is
 * Article gets created with a single story of the origin of death for a specific people
 * Bulwersator comes along and PRODs it for a reasonable reason
 * PROD gets removed by the article's author because Bulwersator didn't open a discussion on the talk page (which he was under no obligation to do so)
 * Despite a significant discussion at AfD, the article is Userfied to Colonel Warden's space to attempt improvement on the article
 * Colonel Warden does some improvement on the article and moves it back to article space 5 hours after it was userfied.
 * Bulwersator proposes a merge to "Death and culture"
 * Colonel Warden removes the proposed merge tag because no corresponding merge discussion has been opened
 * 5 Hours later article is re-userfied because it still is below the standards of an article. Colonel Warden is warned to not restore the article to mainspace without first going through a AfD or a DRV to justify the article's relocation to article mainspace
 * Colonel Warden expands the article to contain death mythology for other cultures. This continues over a period of a day, but still does not show encyclopedic content.
 * Colonel Warden restores the article to Mainspace.
 * The article is tagged for AfD again.
 * DreamFocus adds the Rescue tag
 * SnottyWong removes the tag in line with the Article Rescue Squadron's guidelines for usage. (1RR)
 * DreamFocus reverts the removal with a less than civil edit summary (1RR)
 * SnottyWong reverts DreamFocus's restoration with a more thorough explanation about why the Rescue tag is inappropriate (2RR)
 * DreamFocus reverts SnottyWong with annother less than civil edit summary (2RR)
 * Avanu removes the rescue tag (1RR) and explains why in edit summary.
 * DreamFocus restores the rescue tag again interperting Epeefleche's action as an attempt to restore the tag (3RR)
 * If this is correct I'll have further things to say Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks correct to me. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> confess 17:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've given up my neutral position regarding the tag and removed it myself. I've posted what I think is a significant anyalysis of the tag's requirements for usage (and reason's to not use it) on the talk page.  I've added myself to the list of parties for this dispute. Sorry I couldn't hold myself above the fray. Hasteur (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Accusations that the ARS is potentially a tool for canvassing are normally met with the explanation that the rescue tag is just another maintenance tag, and the group is just like any other wikiproject. And that's fine. But in that case, it must be held to the standards of one. The rescue tag cannot be treated as simply something that stays without debate. If I were to try to tag an article with anything else, and other editors opposed this decision and preferred the status quo, I would actually have to argue out my rationale instead of saying "it is improper to remove this tag." The same should apply here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and multiple attempts have been made to get Dream Focus to argue out his rationale, but thus far he has refused to do so. So, in my view, the tag should stay off until he can provide a reasonable rationale for why it should stay.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#0a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> verbalize 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would feel more comfortable about the tag removal Snottywong if you did not have a history of conflict with some of the ARS members. I fail to see the harm of having the tag in place, and removing it just irked some other editors just as their actions irk you. In terms of canvassing, personally I don't give a rat's ass one way or another, since the tag canvasses deletionists pretty much as effectively as it canvasses inclusionists. Seems like a teacup o' trouble to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then you should feel great about the tag removal, since 3 other editors have independently removed the tag from this article. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#0a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> communicate 23:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I think this is part of the problem. The ARS react in an ultra-hostile and defensive way whenever their use of their tag is examined so anyone who tries will soon end up with a "history of conflict" with them. I do not think that should be grounds to bar anyone from trying to make sure the ARS and their tag are held to the same standards as any other wikiproject. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  23:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some members do, and to be honest, I can understand why, as some editors criticize them in such a way as to imply that members of ARS are not acting in good faith. I joined ARS soon after starting here, and the snarky comments come from a small number of editors on both sides, and that's been going on for well over a year now. I think it's all a waste of time, honestly, and draws attention from other more important matters. As I said, I fail to see what harm the tag does in general, or did in this case. AFD is going to be messy regardless, this kind of dispute just makes it worse. I see a number of problems in the timeline Hasteur put up, but the tag itself seems to be the least of the problems. My personal opinion is that the real problems surrounding ARS are stubbornness and borderline civility on the part of about a half dozen people, and tweaking the tag usage instructions won't solve that. But that's just my tuppence, and I'll leave it at that. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nuujinn's evaluation that this is a waste of time seems accurate. Having all the usual suspects say all the usual things yet again does not seem productive.  How is this dispute resolution noticeboard supposed to help?  Please see the policy which reminds us to "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia.". Warden (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Nuujinn is just saying if we could just work this out, we'd be able to put more focus on useful work, and less on this topic, which produces a lot of discussion. Personally, I think it is entirely reasonable to ask people to provide a decent counterpoint to the AfD nominator's rationale when someone uses the Rescue Tag, but a lot of ARS regulars don't agree with that, or say it is just too much to expect. -- Avanu (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The instructions for this board above say "This is not the place to discuss disputes that are already under discussions in other forums.". As this matter is already under discussion at AFD, the ARS talk page and multiple other talk pages, this additional discussion is redundant and so should be speedily closed. Warden (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It almost seems like your entire purpose is to marginalize any such discussions. Why is that?  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#0a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> prattle 16:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the same user who you'll often see in AfDs saying something along the lines of "speedy keep due to an invalid nomination, since the nominator indicated they would be fine with a redirect", so it's not too surprising. Why actually make arguments when it's easier to try to game the system and take advantage of bureaucracy to end discussion?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Warden, the specific dispute here is "How should we move forward with the incivility and edit warring regarding the usage of the rescue tag on this article". It's not an indictment of the article, ARS, or the rescue tag.  Prior to this thread being opened no discussion was being held at the AfD page or the article's talk page about the validity of it's usage.  Therefore there is a reasonable cause to have this discussion about the usage.  We don't do Speedy Closures here.  The issue is either resolved or goes stale.  Based on the discussion happening there does seem to be at least conversations about the usage so keeping the thread open is not a bad idea. Hasteur (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I can understand Dream Focus's tagging of the article, as the subject looks notable and I think it would be a shame to lose the content. It seems perfectly natural to have strong feelings about an article that you view as being wrongly nominated for AfD. That said, I agree with Snottywong that the tag does not seem to apply in this case. I dont think there's any reason to assume bad intentions on the part of anyone involved here. As far as I can see it is just a case of misunderstanding, and I don't think there's really any action that needs to be taken. Let's wait and see what the outcome of the AfD is, and we can bring up any wider questions that might arise about ARS tag use after that. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 20:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Avanu, with due respect, and just to be clear, what I am saying is that some editors on both sides seem to have taken the issues surrounding ARS personally, or with what I would myself regard with undue severity. What others see as issues of tag placement or problems with the role of ARS, I see as civility issues based on a weak assumptions of good faith. But that's just my opinion, and everyone's entitled to their own, and I do not begrudge anyone's opinion on these issues. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're close to the mark, Nuujinn. Unfortunately, a lot of well-intentioned and reasonable disagreement has sometimes tended to become based on personalities or history. For me, I think it is thoughtful to provide tag rationale when tagging, or reasonable to ask for it if it isn't given.  Some folks seem to disagree.  Hopefully we'll get to a point where everyone can be content. -- Avanu (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that will happen, but I agree that providing an explanation as a courtesy is the preferred action. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Pokémon (599–646)


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

There has been a discussion for quite a long time now about 3 Pokemon (Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect) not being able to be added to the article because those 3 have not been released officially. On the discussion of the article though, there have been a few reliable sources from ign.com but since Game Freak (creators of the game) have not officially aknowledged their existence users aren't sure if they sghould be added or not.

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

User Ryūlóng seems to be the one against the posting of those 3 Pokemon species.

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

Users have already posted reliable sources which show those 3 pokemon and/or show the total number of pokemon to be 649, meaning the article is missing 3 and since the game code itself includes Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect it seems those 3 must be them. I think the species should be added because even if the company itself hasnt confirmed the species existence we still know they do exist, but they havent been released. Besides Game Freak hasn't denied their existence, they simply have no comment on them until they finally release them.


 * How do you think we can help?

Please if possible help the discussion reach a conclusion since this seems to have gone for quite some time and still there is no clear resolution.

200.94.141.4 (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Pokémon (599–646) discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * Some questions: How do you know they are part of the game if they haven't been released?  Are the sources which mention them speculating on an upcoming release or commenting on already released but not officially released characters?  How long do you suspect it will be until the official release?
 * You have to balance WP:RS with WP:CRYSTAL. If CRYSTAL is not an issue, then the task is reflecting the quality of available sources in the article, with attribution to explain any uncertainties or irregularities.
 * Have you considered briefly summarizing the situation you explained in the article? This could be done with a brief note, perhaps a footnote, which says: "This character is part of the game but has not yet been officially released." That would maintain the distinction without denying their existence by omission. Ocaasit 14:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this needed to come to here, but ok. The problem seems to be that Ryulong is completely ignoring everything we give him. First he said that they could be added if we found reliable sources, and then he completely changes his mind and decides that we still need confirmation from "official" sources. After he did that, I just refused to take the discussion any further. <sub style="color:#00008B;">Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ryulong is right according to the policies of Wikipedia. Until these 3 have been confirmed by the publishers of the game, Wikipedia is not allowed to talk about them.  The example I would use is data mined information from World of Warcraft.  Until the information has been confirmed by Blizzard (the publisher) Wikipedia cannot support a article on the content (or listing of the content).  The other example I would give would be a article for a reality TV series that is having it's casting call but has no premiere date.  Because it isn't confirmed through verifiable and reliable sources we can't have an article about the rumors and speculation on what we'll see. Hasteur (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't edit in media/entertainment areas, but I'd take more of a middle path. We can talk about the characters if we have reliable sources, but they have to be clearly distinguished as not-yet-released.  That said, if the reliable sources are purely speculative sources we have to wait.  There would have to be some real world presence of the characters to list them.  Again, when is official release expected? Ocaasit 19:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that we need to acknowledge them as official pokemon. But if rumours of additional ones have been covered and discussed in reliable sources, then it is appropriate for Wikipedia to also cover those rumours. It is not appropriate for us to pass judgment on how journalists obtain their information or to refuse to cover certain things because we imagine that someone would prefer us not to. We are not an extension of Game Freak's publicity department; just because they didn't intend for people to investigate the game data doesn't entitle them to forbid Wikipedia from discussing it. If you start down that path, you might as well AfD the Climategate article and heavily censor the Wikileaks one. Reyk <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  22:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Hasteur. The fact is that I am well aware of the existences of Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect. The issue is still that there has not been any sort of official proclamation or acknowledgement by Nintendo, Game Freak, the Pokémon Company, etc., that they exist and the only reason we all know about them is because of the data mining that Hasteur has mentioned. Honestly, this has been brought to this board that I have frankly never heard of before for no reason. Some IP editor apparently has an issue with our application of WP:RS for these pages. As far as anyone should be concerned, there are only officially 646 Pokémon, and three that we unofficially know exist but cannot acknowledge on Wikipedia.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 19:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ryulong here. These Pokemon need to be verifiable through reliable sources if we are to include them. Until their existence is acknowledged officially, this is impossible. It could be that the Pokemon appear in reliable sources before being officially announced, but this coverage would be speculative by definition - all we would be able to verify is that there are rumours that these Pokemon may exist, not their existence itself. Also, we couldn't include speculative information like that anyway, due to our policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We should really wait for an official announcement before including them. Also note that it is entirely possible that they may never be officially announced, so I don't think it would be wise to jump the gun. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 13:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources that talk about rumours of these mysterious three guys, then those rumours could be covered somewhere. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  20:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * True, I agree that we could cover the rumours somewhere if we had the sources for it. I don't think we should give each speculative Pokemon its own entry in the list, though. In this case a couple of sentences in the lead outlining the situation would be enough, in my opinion. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, they aren't just "rumors". They are real data found in the game. They are real Pokemon, but have not been officially brought into view. IGN's guide does cover them somewhat(it shows their basic information, looks, typing, etc.) and I think that should be enough to at least say they exist. Anything that is not in these three pages should not be shown in the article, but they should be shown in some form. <sub style="color:#00008B;">Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then the resolution is obvious. Don't include the mysterious three in the "official" lists, but put them in a separate article about rumoured pokemon. This could be the nucleus of a pretty good article. I don't follow Pokemon at all but I bet there were rumours of other pokemon earlier that turned out to be false, and that could also be covered in that article. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the only way to find out about these Pokemon was to hack the game data. Blake, are you saying that you can find these Pokemon in the normal course of play? — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 22:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but there are sources available such as the IGN guide, and GamesRadar which list them. If reliable sources like IGN and GamesRadar list them, then that should allow us to. <sub style="color:#00008B;">Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Stradivarius: These three Pokémon are simply not available to players at this point in time. Sometime in the near future they will definitely be revealed and methods for players to obtain them will be made public by the company. For the time being, there's nothing that says they exist outside of hidden game data. And Blake, as I have pointed out before, IGN and GamesRadar are using the hacked game data for their information so the sources are tainted at this point in time.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The only question that matters for WP:V is this one: are the sources reliable and trustworthy on this subject? Can we trust that what they say about these mysterious Pokemon is true? If so, it is appropriate to use the information they give. It is not our place to pass moral judgment on how they obtained it. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  03:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would still err on the side of not including them until they're publically announced. No matter how likely it seems that they will be in the game, neither we nor IGN et al. can say that they will definitely be in the game until we have some sort of official confirmation. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 08:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not need to report on things that can only be acquired by going through programming data that was not meant to be investigated by the general public. Game Freak did not put in the data for these three characters and leave them unavailable in normal play and expect people to seek it out, like some sort of alternate reality game. If they do not acknowledge the characters, then neither should we.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose it depends on the quality of the sourcing. If there are multiple sources that specifically say that these Pokemon may appear in the game, then I think we can include them in the article, qualifying that they are rumours. If the sourcing is any less reliable than that, I would say that WP:CRYSTAL points toward leaving them out. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. From reading the article talk page discussion, it seems everyone accepts that at least two of the sources are reliable generally. Their reliability is only disputed regarding the Mysterious Three because of the way they got their information. I do not agree that that is a factor and I'm not aware of any guideline or policy that says it is and I strongly disagree that we can declare te same source to be reliable when it suits us and unreliable when it suits us. If we do accept their reliability, then we can and should cover the Mysterious Three in the context of what they are: Pokemon that are not officially released but whose existence has been inferred from game data by reliable sources. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  00:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I revealed the information which is shown in the sources(plus basic descriptors which can be easily inferred by looking at their picture in the IGN sources). Is "It is an event-only Pokémon which has not be revealed yet to the public." an okay sentence to show that they are not yet official? <sub style="color:#00008B;">Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I still do not think there was a consensus to perform that edit at all. However, I will perform a reformat to the content to treat it separately from the officially known characters. I also don't think that the reliable sources being used in question should even be used, considering that they are only trivial mentions and statements that "We don't know anything about this Pokémon yet because it hasn't been released."— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Island


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

the dispute is about whether or not to add a sentence about the world's largest island and the world's smallest continent.

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

The sentence about the world's largest island and the world's smallest continent is supported by reliable sources, including Encyclopaedia Britannica. However, the opposing party claims the sentence contains an implication about the difference between islands and continents which qualifies as original research.

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

yes


 * How do you think we can help?

more comments from other competent users are very welcome in the discussion page. The three reverts rule should be enforced too.

Denghu (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

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

I think BeyondMyKen is right. What you're doing seems to be taking facts from two different sources and drawing a conclusion from them that neither source makes. That's pretty well textbook synthesis. Reyk <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  10:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * After you made this statement, Denghu deleted this request from the board, but I have reinstated it, since I'm interested in hearing from other editors, either here or on Talk:Island, what their take on this is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Reyk and Beyond My Ken. This seems like a synthesis, and it is a long-standing policy that we can't include syntheses in Wikipedia. It shouldn't be hard to find a source to back you up if it's the truth. That's the best way to settle this dispute, in my opinion. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 12:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Alprazolam


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

There is an ongoing dispute on Alprazolam (marketed in the United States as Xanax) over FDA labeling. Specifically, the question seems to be whether the FDA labeling actually constrains use past 8 weeks (months?), or only advises caution. There is some dubious original research going on as individual editors each literally pick up the bottle in front of them and read the labels to resolve the dispute. Predictably, this only makes it worse since it seems that old labels had different warnings and everybody thinks their interpretation of the labels is the correct one. Some editors have also denied that appealing to secondary sources would resolve the dispute since, as I understand the argument, FDA labels are not subject to outside interpretation. There is also some confusion in the discussion since one of the disputants is a rotating IP who declined to register a username. I've listed some of the involved IPs used below.

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





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

I protected the page as a result of the edit war, made some efforts to understand the dispute on Talk:Alprazolam, and posted this notice.


 * How do you think we can help?

The involved editors appear to have agreed to submit to third opinions of uninvolved editors found in the discussion here. Therefore, hopefully this discussion will reach an outside consensus on what should be done.

causa sui (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Alprazolam discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * Observation The 70.137 IP addresses (70.137.128.0 - 70.137.159.255) all belong to the same provider and are in the same netblock that geolocates to San Francisco CA. As much as I hate to say it, I think that extended semi-protection would probably be the best way to defuse this situation.  Semi does allow confirmed editors to implement changes, and if unconfirmed editors (or IP addresses) want to make changes, they can propose them through the edit request mechanisim. Hasteur (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I considered doing this, but it seemed wrong to arbitrarily prevent IP editing just because it's an IP. Since confirmed users were also revert warring, full protection seemed required. Most of all, I'd like to see a resolution based in the consensus of all involved. If we can reach a consensus here that the IP then refuses to abide by, that would be a clear basis for semi-protection. causa sui (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok the 70.137 IPs all belong to me. I have proposed not to read the labels from the medicine bottles, but take the labels directly from the FDA website, as this is the only authoritative source. I agree with DMacks. As the label has changed over time FDA is the only one having the current revised and maintained version of this. As with laws, we have to cite the law. Secondary sources are not binding but just opinions. I do not see why semi-protection would be an advantage. 70.137.159.49 (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Multiple IP editors are inserting and removing content from the article. The discussion on the talk page has not effected a cessation of edit waring on the article therefore restricting IP addresses is the best way to handle this war.  It still allows you to propose changes (or encourages people to stand up and register for an account), but curtails the ability for IP hopers to go on a rampage.

The other IPs (non - 70.137) do not even show up as disputants. They have continuously reverted edits without discussion. I already said I agree with DMacks in the matter. Now if we can get the opinion of the others involved... 70.137.159.49 (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can give me some diffs I'll add them to the list of disputants and notify them of the discussion. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * these two IPs have not ever reacted to requests to discuss, to join discussion or to give reasons for edits or an edit summary. They were the "other party" in the edit war. 70.137.159.49 (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I added those two IPs and notified them. causa sui (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

JM Productions and MorbidThoughts dispute


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

An issue concerning a particular incident involving the company and one of its former employees has been seen a defamatory because of the source in question being viral video sites, even when the videos being used as sources feature quotes that come from the parties involved in the dispute. Furthermore, the user has continuously threatened to block me from editing Wiki pages, even though I have seen no sufficient proof that the user has any authority to do such. Since there is no proof to who this user has implied himself to be, the conspiracy theories that came from the company that put out the video that began the controversy in question, and how some companies have edited Wiki articles to hide criticisms about them, I have suspected that this user might have a personal gain by keeping talk about the incident quiet and using the blocking threat as a scare tactic, though there is no way for me to confirm that one way or another. The edits I have provided were intended to be in good faith and to add what I thought was a critical incident in the company's history.

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

MorbidThoughts has left comments about these edits in the language which suggests that he's an admin, yet no sufficient proof exists, to my knowledge, as to him having this power. I have suspicions that his actions are based on either bias towards the company or against the former employee. Either way, I do not suspect his actions are in good faith.

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

I have discussed this on both his talk page and on the JM Productions talk page, discussing possible tags that would be appropriate to add to such a section if there's a dispute over it. On both occasions, the tag suggestion has been completely ignored in favor of strict admin action, any talk was completely stonewalled, and a claim that the sources that were used were not sufficient and were deemed "gossip sites". The sites and videos used came from the parties involved in the incident (and the individual was formally employed with that company), which makes it clear that some consideration should be taken due to the persons telling the story.


 * How do you think we can help?

A third party that can safely make a call as to possible tags that can be used. There have been no requests from Morbid to have any other party involved. Since there is dispute about his status as a user on Wikipedia, this should be addressed, as well. I would like to see a discussion amongst several users, at least, concerning the section instead of a rash decision based upon possible bias followed by idle threats.

Darkpower (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

JM Productions and MorbidThoughts dispute discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''


 * Just a note here. Since the disputed text involves living people, WP:BLP comes into play.  Looking over the sources and the disputed text, none of the sources is what I would call a high-quality reliable source.  I know this is porn, but even porn has good reliable sources that can be used to verify this stuff, and I just don't see these being used in this case.  This is why good secondary sources like newspapers, journals, or books are better than simply citing video clips and stuff like that.  Journalists have the time to research the details behind an incident, and can themselves help provide context and analysis.  When your major source is a video of dubious provenance, with no context or analysis along with it, then Wikipedia really shouldn't be reporting on any "incident" supposedly shown in a video.  If you want to say everything you keep adding to the article, find a newspaper/journal/magazine article (or source of equivalent reliability) that reports the level of detail you are.  Simply citing a video isn't good enough, really.  You need better sources.  -- Jayron  32  02:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the questionable nature that some viral videos tend to carry on this site, which is why I tried to take special care about adding them and making sure that the section took a NPOV side of things. This is why I suggested the tag solution: let the users decide. That could also lead to someone who has already found additional sources.


 * And speaking of, I might have been able to come through with some additional sources, though they come in the form of internet sites of different sorts (some are reliable, though you take what you can get since most mainstream sites are just going to talk about the immorality of porn and never about the details). I was surprised what I found when I used The Google to search for this. This also proves my first theory correct: that this incident got a LOT of attention, and as such, might be worthwhile to mention. I'd have to check to see if these sources are just as viable, though I question still why a video of an interview of one of the two members involved in the incident is not enough proof that anything actually happened.


 * And this also does not resolve the other half of my issue: the user's attitude towards this. No alternative to where the section can be discussed by anyone. He seemed to just do what he wanted without any care to the good faith of Wikipedia. I tried to add the section in good faith (and yes, I will be looking at trying to reinstate that section; I don't give up that easily, and hopefully new sources will be enough). His "do it and be blocked" attitude without even considering any other reasonable alternatives just strikes me as odd and suspicious.Darkpower (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's why I cited WP:BLP. With living persons, precaution must be taken to avoid even the appearence of being defamatory; WP:BLP is clear: with contested information about living persons, don't "tag and let the reader decide".  We remove the information entirely, and don't report it at all, until the information can be clearly backed up with reliable sources.  We don't take chances with this stuff, we don't "let the reader decide" when information which is potentially defamatory is in articles.  Just leave it out unless and until good sources can be found.  Please read WP:BLP, the guidance is in the lead section.  -- Jayron  32  19:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As another neutral, I concur entirely with Jayron32, but would further caution that WP:GRAPEVINE says that the three revert rule does not apply to reverts of removed contentious BLP information. Unless the new sources are absolutely and unquestionably reliable - something I suspect will be difficult to achieve considering the subject material - then boldly reintroducing the material without first discussing the new proposed sources at the BLP noticeboard before the material is reintroduced will be taking a considerable risk. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * On the adminship/warning issue: if someone is doing something wrong, you don't have to be an admin in order to warn that person. I frequently warn people about bad behaviour and point out that if they persist they may be blocked and I'm not an admin. You need an admin to actually do the block, but if you are in the right about policy, there isn't an issue. Morbidthoughts has posted ordinary automated warnings to Darkpower's talk page. Just to make it clear, Morbidthoughts is not an admin. But the warnings he placed on your user page aren't a big deal. As for the BLP issues, as TransporterMan says, I'd suggest taking it to the BLP noticeboard. Porno-related BLP issues are a recurring issue. You might also want to ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography as I'm sure there are regulars there used to handling porno-BLP issues. I don't see any major civility or behaviour issues that need the attention of an admin here, and I hope that the WikiProject Pornography people can help sort the BLP/source use issues out. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Austrian business cycle theory


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

I have an issue with the unwarranted deletion of information that is well within Wikipedia guidelines. I have attempted to initiate a conversation with the two users responsible for this deletion on the discussion page of the article, but no response has been forthcoming.

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



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

Yes, I have attempted to open a discussion on the talk page of the article. No response has been forthcoming.


 * How do you think we can help?

Revert the page back so that the edited information is available to the public.

Michael.suede (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Austrian business cycle theory discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

Guru Josh


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

The page in question is there for details about the person known as Guru Josh aka Paul Dudley Walden, for the uninformed he wrote a song called "Infiniry" in 1990 which then in 2008 was re-released to massive commercial success. The issue is that the 2008 version was released by 3 people working as "Guru Josh Project" which disbanded as a group in 2009. (see http://www.gurujoshproject.com/ for proof of disbanding). The issue that has arisen is that one of the previous members has been masquerading as Guru Josh falsely. Despite numerous edits by myself and others, a user specifically keeps revisiting and adding false refferences to a spin off band under a similar name trying to despertaley grab visitors from Guru Josh to their new venture.

It reached such a stage whereby Guru Josh took one of the previous members to court for trying to falsely register the name "Guru Josh Project" on his own without the knowledge or consent of the other members, Guru Josh won the case, which goes on in detail as to how this previous member has repeatedly tried to pass himself off as Guru Josh.

Full legal transcript and court ruling here http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-challenge-decision-results/o12511.pdf

This same member has visited Guru Josh's page now some 5 or 6 times in 2 days trying desperately to vandalise the page and add redirects to his 'new band' under an almost too similar name.. this vandal needs blocking and ideally the page locking for a while until such time as all comments have been verified.

A better solution yet would be to lock the page for admin only edits, whereby any changes that need making need to be sent to admin for verification purposes before posting is allowed, to stop the repeated vandalism attacks.

As a seperate issue, I also tried to add an image of the Artist to the Wikipage, unfortunately the bot deleted it and despite my best intentions I cant get the image re.instated, even though the photo is from the artists own photo gallery from the press pack, and can easily be confirmed as him by doing a quick google search.

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



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

unable to contact Dazperkz directly, plus as his obvious intention is to cause harm and damage to Guru Josh, it is probably best handled via resolution.


 * How do you think we can help?

ideally Dazperkz needs blocking and the webpage locked for admin edits only, whereby any new changes to the page have to be vetted first by an admin for authencity.

Zhardoum (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As i've stated below, i Dazperkz have only commented with true facts Zhardoum has been commenting on TM proceedings that are still on going and really have no relevance to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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

You didn't contact the other disputant. Your really need to do that Hasteur (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he will listen, he has already been blocked on wikipedia once, I posted on this page as a way to find amicable solution to this problem, I do not believe that me contacting him will do anything at all to ensure a solution, I would like you to read through the facts and decide on how best to proceed, remember he has already been ordered by the courts to stop and is still continuing, so I doubt a well worded memo from a Wikipedia writer will cause him to 'cease and desist'.

- Zhardoum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhardoum (talk • contribs) 15:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, according to they have not been blocked.  Posting on a page in all caps and bolding gives the impression of shouting.  Furthermore, your supposition (and explicit linking) of the other disputant with a real world identity is bordering on a violation of WP:OUTING.  Even if outside legal entities have ordered the real world identity to stop using the name, that is not enforceable here on Wikipedia.  I have looked closely at the editor's very short history here and see a potentially misguided editor.  The fact that you are refusing to engage the editor in any version of conversation about the articles suggests that either there's some sort of axe to grind here.  Please make consider backing off this page as you are displaying significant ownership of the article and it's  bordering on the level of a undisclosed conflict of interest. Hasteur (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No axe, I think if you compare the two editors in question, then one has added details with relevant links and references to back them up and the other has added links to another band infringing on the Artists intellectual property rights which have repeatedly been removed by others.


 * The very fact of me raising this here as a dispute must surely on its own merit preclude the option of being tainted as an editor, I am most happy for other editors to add comments as long as those comments don't border on vandalism, As to the capitals used in the post, that was due to copying and pasting using a different font.. and shall be remedid now.

Zhardoum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhardoum (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Legal issues resolved or unresolved in real life have no bearing on Wikipedia unless a) reliable sources like newspapers have reported on them or b) the Wikimedia Foundation has intervened. To my knowledge, in this case neither has happened, so you can leave those details aside.  The relevant policy is WP:LEGAL.
 * Court documents cannot be used unless to 'augment' a published reliable secondary source (like a newspaper). This is especially true if the ruling involves living people.  See WP:BLPPRIMARY
 * Both editors clearly have a WP:Conflict of interest and should take extra care not to let their personal involvement or interests influence the article.
 * Otherwise, that leaves a regular old content dispute about adding an external link to a band with disputed motives. So: 1) Are there any published reports about this dispute from independent non-judicial sources?; 2) Note that including a link to a related band does not imply approval, only relatedness; 3) the external link could have a note such as 'Band B, a spinoff from Guru Josh started by member x'; 4) External links should primarily be about the main article subject, not related subjects (that's what [See Also] is for).  See WP:EL for external link policy; 5) All editors should try and discuss issues cooperatively and without resorting to legal language or assumptions/accusations about others' motives; 6) Note that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion of bands or for advancing court rulings or for protecting intellectual property (unless covered by WP:COPYRIGHT policy).  We just write articles based on good published sources.  And we link to useful, clearly defined content.  Ocaasit 18:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am more than happy to stop posting on this topic, unfortunately the other named writer repeatedly keeps changing the page about the Artist to constantly refer back to his own music group which as mentioned contravenes more rules than I care to mention.

Can I strongly suggest then, that the page be locked and only Admin be allowed to make changes, as this will both stop changes by myself and any others.. and to which seems like a perfectly good solution. If I am biased as you put it, then surely my requesting the page by only editted by admin would be the ideal solution. Zhardoum (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Locking everyone out of editing is not the solution. Now that it's been established that attempting to insert the external link is promotional, there are other tools (like reversion) to prevent Wikipedia from being used as a advertisment venue. Hasteur (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

now its gone laughable, now we have admins posting unfactual posts on the page. to whit "The Guru Josh Project still gigs worldwide..." as allowed and posted by 'Onewhohelps' please show me any evidence to prove this.. This is the whole point here, this is false, time and time again i have posted correct and verifiable documentation to prove my posts, yet now admins are coming along and adding posts with no proof whatsoever. Really, this is a total waste of space, if you as admins cannot read the information given to you and still add posts that go against everything that has been proven to you, what is the point of wikipedia? you might as well close up shop now. Seriously, I have given you more evidence that 80% of wikipedia pages ever get to see, yet you allow vandalism of a page without any proof whatsoever and then go so far as to complain to the person armed with the documents of fact.

Are you really going to sit back and now say that this case has been handled correctly, I request an admin of high standing review all aspects of this case make an informed judgement because right now it just appears biased against people who come armed with the truth. Zhardoum (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, you want policies and guidelines...
 * Bold, revert, discuss - You haven't opened a single thread on the article's talk page expressing why the other artists formerly working as a partnership should not be allowed to attribute themselves in a way that was allowed in the Partnership Contract
 * WP:CIVIL - Your edit summaries of reversion and postings here are not compatible with editing in a collegial manner.
 * WP:BITE - Your actions against a relativeley new editor (and as yourself) are significantly harmful
 * WP:3R - You are as of this posting sitting on the 3 Revert line. If you undo one more change on the page you can be blocked for edit warring.
 * WP:DEADLINE - You haven't given the other editor an opportunity to speak, yet want action 'now. From what I can tell, this is not a violation of WP:BLP so we can take our time to consider the issue.
 * This board is not staffed by administrators. Pleas review the purpose of the board again and understand why requesting "an admin of high standing" is not appropriate here.  You've been given the advice of 2 editors in good standing.
 * This constitutes the warning to ceace Off-topic or non-productive discussions can be closed after due warning, as the board is designed to diffuse disputes, not escalate them. Hasteur (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apologise as i am new to wiki but the comments i have made are 100% true and factual and i do not intend to cause Mr Walden any problems, i only want the article to be factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The facts are being twisted by Zhardoum to cause personal damage, the TM proceeding are still in process by appeal due to certain evidence being dishonest. As for the Guru Josh Project still gigging worldwide, this is 100% fact, Darren Bailie of Guru Josh Project played in Brazil on the 30th July 2010 and the week previous in Austria. He also has many gigs booked for the future as does Anders Nyman. please select pictures on this site then scroll down to the 22/23 July 2011 to confirm that the Guru Josh project are still gigging and will continue to gig as they are also on the sites roster for future bookings. These facts are true. In all due respect I suggest you get your facts correct before making incorrect changes to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is improper to reveal the "real world" identities of other editors, to make negative statements about living persons without support from high quality reliable sources, or to make legal threats or implied legal threats. I have removed the offending material from this discussion. Do not restore it. Only discuss edits, not editors. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to be WP:BOLD and make the following changes Hearing no objections I think this will resolve the issue of negative advertising on this article and will archive this discussion in 36 hrs. Now the Project's page I'm going to look at closely again. Hasteur (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Stip all 3 artists that were part of the project of the personal website references. We can't use individual self published websites for references
 * 2) Strip the Guru Josh Project Reference. We have a article for the project and the external link can be used there.
 * 3) Remove extra bolding to be consistent
 * 4) Add the internal wikilink to the project's article

Guru Josh resolution
Proposed solution has stuck so we'll consider this closed

Coffee Party USA


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

The current version of the article in question makes little mention of any third party's perspective on the political movement's political orientation. I have made edits, to the article to rectify the lack of third party perspective on Coffee Party USA but they've all been reverted by User:Xenophrenic who has gone on record repeating Coffee Party USA's self-published descriptions of itself as non-partisan (Coffee Party USA's self-published descriptions of itself as non-partisan can be found here: , ) thereby violating WP:NPOV by stating an opinion/uncontested assertions about Coffee Party USA as a fact. The user has gone on to further write that he/she has yet to see "any reliable source describe the Coffee Party as any one of these [progressive, liberal and pro-government] adjectives" even though sources from established news sources such as The Telegraph, |newspaper=Politico Politico, |newspaper=Washington Post The Washington post, CBS and The Atlantic Wire have all used such adjectives to describe Coffee Party USA.

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



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

Discussed on talk page, but we seem to have gotten nowhere.


 * How do you think we can help?

Given the vested interest of user Xenophrenic in editing this article, assistance here on this matter would be appreciated.

Galafax (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please either remove your request for a Third Opinion or remove this request. As it says in the instructions, above, "This is not the place to discuss disputes that are already under discussions in other forums." The Third Opinion project has similar guidelines on its FAQ page. Please choose one or the other, but not both. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I overlooked that part when I was filing this dispute resolution request. As per this edit, I've removed the request for a third opinion.Galafax (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You neglected to notify Xenophrenic that you listed them as a disputant. I have remedied this for you. Hasteur (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There's also a related ANI thread that may need to be considered. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Galafax considered his reply to Xenophrenic here to mean that he gave notice? He remarked "Apologies where? Sorry, couldn't find the part where I would ever do I mean did that. But don't worry about the imaginary apologies the jokes on you as you couldn't even make the effort to show up on the dispute resolution page. As for the sources, I'm sure if you had any I mean better comprehension skills..."  On the one hand, Galafax's account is only 48 hours old, so you'd expect a new editor might not understand the nuances of notifications.  On the other hand, if you study the small number of edits he has made, he has brought up a lot of Wikipolicy cites, posting links in his arguments for things like WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:WEASEL, WP:BURDEN, WP:NPOV, etc, as well as quickly resorting to multiple noticeboards.  That makes it hard to figure out if he's a new editor who needs a little mentoring, or a returning editor who is now editing under the Galafax account. AzureCitizen (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Kristin Nelson
Dispute overview Kristin Harmon Nelson--Note 20 in her bio states she may have had sex with Ron Reagan Jr. in late 1970's and was caught by Secret Service, but Reagan was not president until 1981
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

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



Resolving the dispute Note: Only other thing IP address has done is to post at Editor Assistance/Requests Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?


 * How do you think we can help?

99.22.220.13 (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Kristin Nelson discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' Editor did not provide us with enough context to understand what this is about. Their editing history does not reveal anything useful. Doing some research. I was able to determine that the article and section the IP is complaining about is Kristin Nelson for the 2nd Reference #20. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll go to my local library and pull the book in question to read the ~5 pages before and after the specific reference. If that's what the book says then we have to go with it. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Though I'm going to close this as inappropriate for this noticeboard since (a) there's no active dispute and (b) the filing at WP:EA disqualifies it here, I would note that:
 * The Kristin Nelson article says that they were discovered in 1976.
 * Ronald Regan "Sr." was a presidential candidate in 1976.
 * Presidential candidates have received Secret Service protection since 1968.
 * So despite the suggestion made by the listing party here, it is entirely plausible that the Secret Service could have been involved. At the same time, I commend Hasteur for agreeing to check this out and would encourage him to go ahead and do so and, if the edit is verified, note his results on the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Death of Caylee Anthony, Missing white woman syndrome


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

As a result of the emotional investment of a number of editors at the contentious Death of Caylee Anthony article, it is nearly impossible to keep a link to Missing white woman syndrome in the See Also section. Editors appear to be taking personal offence at even the mention of the popular view that the hysterics over the Anthony trial are the result of MWWS, since it calls into question their own emotional investment in the issue. There has been no attempt to include MWWS in the text of the article itself, only to add it in the See Also section at the end of the article. There is ample evidence that many people -- particularly in the media itself -- regard the Caylee case as a classic and even prototypical example of MWWS. As you can see in the discussion, there is absolutely no controversy at all regarding the obvious and apparent fact that there has been discussion by the media of the Anthony case in relation to MWWS. However, several people are of the mistaken belief that a simple mention of it in the See Also section requires reliable media sources stating for an absolute certainty that this is in fact a case of MWWS. Even though a citation is not required for inclusion in See Also, when a RS citation was found, it was deamed unacceptable because the newspaper in which it appeared was "small." Between the specious dismissal of what RSes do exist and the obvious reason for a shortage of RS criticisms of the mainstream media by the mainstream media, even the completely nonsensical demand that RS be produced for a simple mention in the See Also appendix of an article which already exists on Wikipedia (with mention of the case under contention) can be seen as unsupportable.

Given that there is popular discussion around the Anthony case about its popularity being the result of MWWS, it seems to me to make perfect sense that it be in the See Also section. (Try doing a Google search on "missing white woman syndrome" and "anthony" on Google; this produced 31,500 hits for me; and while this is certainly not a RS, it is certainly solid proof that many, many people regard the Anthony case as MWWS -- certainly enough to warrant a mention in See Also.) The personal and emotional investiture of people in the case appears to be the only reason why people want this link removed, as is evidenced by some of the reasons given for its removal, which range from "lack of RS" (after dismissing what RS exist) to "I don't like it." Given the hysterical emotional irrationality around the case in the population as a whole which makes this article the subject of continuing controversy and dispute, I do not have confidence at this point in resolution without outside mediation by uninvolved editors.

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


 * Yes in the See Also Section
 * Yes in the See Also Section
 * Yes in the See Also Section
 * Yes in the See Also Section

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

See discussion here.


 * How do you think we can help?

This desperately needs the eyes of people without emotional investment in this case, who are not going to take personal offence based on whether or not to add a reference to the See Also appendix of the article.

SmashTheState (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Death of Caylee Anthony, Missing white woman syndrome discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

I should probably be added to the list of editors above since I too removed this from the See also section. I believe that the sources being used to state this are unreliable. I also believe that the reason this case got so much attentions is because of the lies, sex, and videos that were produced, not because she was a single white female. Thank you for your time, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  15:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What are the sources being used? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This repeated rationale, that the See Also link needs to be removed because there are no "reliable sources" makes no sense whatsoever. That something is linked in the See Also appendix isn't a claim of any kind except that it has some kind of relationship to the material in the article and may be of interest to those who are interested in the article subject.  It is not a claim that you, personally, are a racist.  It is not even a claim that the hysterics around the Anthony case are the result of MWWS.  Only that a significant number of people regard the Anthony case as being an example of MWWS.  That there are those who do so has been amply proven.  Anyone who disputes that there are many who regard the crazed circus antics around Anthony case as MWWS need only type "missing white woman syndrome" and "caylee anthony" into the Google search engine and observe how many thousands of links pop up.  Again, putting a link to MWWS does NOT require reliable sources because no claim to its veracity is being made.  -- SmashTheState (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Opinion pieces are being used. You can see them at Death of Caylee Anthony.  To SmashTheState, the article doesn't say anything about this so putting it in the See also section isn't proper.  The article should state something that the case got attentions because of this which it doesn't that I remember.  Give a reliable source, not an opinion piece, or add something to the article that shows this, again using a reliable source.  You added the Death of Caylee Anthony to this other article, but you used an opinion piece to do so.  My understanding is this is not the way policy works.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You're wrong, Crohnie. The article actually DOES make a reference. The body of the article DOES have something (however brief) about "white woman", said by an authority on psychology. The segment reads this way: "Psychologist Dr. Karyl McBride discussed how some mothers stray away from "the saintly archetype" expected of mothers. "We want so badly to hang onto the belief system that mothers don't harm children," she stated. "It's fascinating that the defense in the Anthony case found a way to blame the father. While we don't know what is true and maybe never will, it is worth taking a look at the narcissistic family when maternal narcissism rules the roost. Casey Anthony is a beautiful white woman and the fact that the case includes such things as sex, lies, and videotapes makes it irresistible." [105]"  Apparently you never noticed my comments on the talk page about this. Nor read through the whole article carefully.  Also, to be honest, it does not even matter if the article itself made a clear reference to this. That's NOT a hard-fast qualification for a link to be in then "See also" section. As long as there's arguably SOME relevance or remarks made in other sources, or whatever.  And there are some. Even though others like to rationalize them away.


 * Also another thing that you (and others) are just plain wrong about or just don't grasp...is that MWWS is BY ITS VERY NATURE AN "OPINION". So to complain "oh it's just an opinion piece you cited" is rather silly, given the fact that uh Missing White Woman Syndrome is already a THEORY AND AN OPINION TO BEGIN WITH ANYWAY!!!!  So any one who mentions it in the media (either McBride the psychiatrist or Rivera the journalist etc etc) would always only be giving their "opinion" about that matter IN THE FIRST PLACE.  It would ALWAYS be that way basically. Pretty much.  Because it's a theory. But it doesn't matter if they're "opinion pieces".  The issue and theory have been raised by quite a number of people and authorities, regarding this media insanity with the Casey Anthony/Caylee Anthony case.  In general.  Peace.... Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a neutral on this dispute. It seems to me that this matter should be settled in favor of inclusion on the basis of this sentence from the WP:ALSO section of MoS:"Links included in the 'See also' section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."(Emphasis added.) I would note that nothing in that section suggests that See Also entries must be referenced or reliably sourced. Taken as a whole, that MoS section would seem to favor inclusion of a link unless it can be shown that the subject linked is absolutely unrelated, with marginally-related links being subject to removal if the See Only section becomes disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article (which is not the case here). It would thus be one thing if the proposed link was to, say, Creation–evolution controversy or Persimmon, but there is at least a clear a priori argument to be made that there is a peripheral link to MWWS and some have argued in the discussion that the connection has also been made in the press, if somewhat unreliably. That ought to be enough for inclusion. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree include in See Also Section with or without reference. Mugginsx (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is no need for a reliable source, only for relevance to the topic. There can be pointy examples of "see Alsos", but this seems sufficiently relevant to be of interest and use to the reader. The question to ask is - doess this add something useful? It seems to me that it does. In response to User:Crohnie, there is nothing wrong with using "opinion pieces". After all, this is inherently a matter of opinion. There are no established medical means of reliably diagnosing this 'syndrome'. Paul B (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok fine with me, I pretty much just lurk on this article and add when I have something to say, which isn't too often. :) -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How do we know if MWWS is related to Cayley Anthony at all, peripherally or otherwise, if there are no RS that support that assertion? Shirt  waist &#9742;  23:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * the body of the article DOES have something (however brief) about "white woman", said by an authority on psychology. The segment reads this way: "Psychologist Dr. Karyl McBride discussed how some mothers stray away from "the saintly archetype" expected of mothers. "We want so badly to hang onto the belief system that mothers don't harm children," she stated. "It's fascinating that the defense in the Anthony case found a way to blame the father. While we don't know what is true and maybe never will, it is worth taking a look at the narcissistic family when maternal narcissism rules the roost. Casey Anthony is a beautiful white woman and the fact that the case includes such things as sex, lies, and videotapes makes it irresistible."[105]" My point is that the very article itself gives at least a bit of justification (and a "source" in a sense) for the whole "white woman" angle. The MWWS article has at least some reason to be in the "See also" section. Why not just let this go already? If it means this much to "SmashTheState" and we see journalists like Rivera and psychiatrists like "Dr McBride" saying things like this, then that gives at least some credence to the point here. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What does "Casey Anthony is a beautiful white woman" have at all to do with Cayley Anthony? The article is about the death of Cayley Anthony. Casey Anthony is not the presumed (by some) subject of MWWS, therefore the quote you cite is totally irrelevant to this discussion. And if, as you say, "it means this much to "SmashTheState", why would he say something like this - "I had typed a long response, full of citations and references and a bit on the purpose of consensus. Then I realized that I don't actually give a fuck. You win." -- SmashTheState (talk)2:02 pm, 17 July 2011, Sunday ?  Shirt  waist &#9742;  01:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To answer your question, uh, Caylee was Casey's DAUGHTER...and was "white" too.  Did you even read ANY of what I wrote on the talk page regarding this?  How can you say "what at all does it have to do"?   It has everything to do with it.   If it was a black mother with a black toddler daughter, it's NOT likely it would have gotten like this.  I've heard Geraldo Rivera (and a few others) say that if this was a black woman who killed (or accidentally killed) her black child in Florida (which happens) this would NOT have gotten NEARLY as much attention, if at all. But, Geraldo and others continue, because Casey is a W-H-I-T-E woman, and the little girl was W-H-I-T-E, that that is at least PART of why the big attention and frenzy. Which, as an example, can be seen right here. Not sure how you missed that, but it's been there. (Also, as to SmashTheState, yeah, he did say that in frustration, but if you notice, HE CAME BACK LATER ON AND STATED A BUNCH OF LOGICAL THINGS, AND GAVE A CITATION AND LINK...to consider.  Did you ever see that?)  Anyway, the link is NOT totally irrelevant.  My point is that the very article itself gives at least a bit of justification (and a "source" in a sense) for the whole "white woman" angle. The MWWS article has at least some reason to be in the "See also" section. Why not just let this go already? If it means this much to "SmashTheState" and we see journalists like Rivera and psychiatrists like "Dr McBride" saying things like this, then that gives at least some credence to the point here. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, "a 'source' in a sense" does not appear anywhere in WP:RS as being a valid option. WP requires real, reliable sources. Again, the quote you're talking about is in relation to Casey Anthony as a mother, NOT Cayley Anthony as the supposed subject of MWWS. And yes, I did read what you said in talk, and I also read Swarm's (among others) effective refutation of it, which is what helped inform my opinion on this. Shirt  waist &#9742;  02:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Swarm refuted nothing. But just ranted and whined and rationalized sources and citations away.  As you're doing.  And was wiki-uptight.  Not understanding the simple fact that there's a VERY ARTICLE IN A RELIABLE SOURCE that has the VERY WORDS "missing white woman" in it...like right here.  That was not "refuted", but simply rationalized away, as "just opinion" (not grasping the point that MWWS is by very nature theory and opinion anyway).  You can't see how it "has to do", if they're mother and daughter, and how it was related as a general phenomenon. Then there's not much more I can say.  Because when it comes right down to it, you and "Swarm" simply don't like this link in the article, don't like the implications of the matter, and SIMPLY DON'T WANT IT THERE, then NO AMOUNT of "reliable sources" will do, because you and uh "Swarm" willy just find silly reasons to either deny them as "reliable sources" or use sophistry to explain them away, and it's "not good enough" or "was not really referring to that" or "it was just that person's opinion" (not understanding that this very notion of MWWS is basically a theory and opinion to begin with!!!!) or your non-sensical "what does that have anything to do with Caylee"...  Why did the psychiatrist even bring it up then?   Why are there articles saying this?   Obviously the "has to do" is that BOTH of them are white.  And you wrongly think that because it says "missing white WOMAN" that "Caylee" can't qualify cuz after all she was a just a child. FAIL.  Shows that you're not grasping what the syndrome is really about, and that it's broader than just that.  As I said, Swarm (and you) refuted nothing...


 * Many "See also" links in articles don't necessarily have 100% relation to the main article it's posted in.  So what?  As long as there is arguably SOME connection or relation, and if some news sources brought it up, whether we personally like it or not or totally agree or not, it's whatever.  If SmashTheState wants to put it there, and he has made at least some case for its application or relation, I don't see the big deal.  It's not like putting "serial killers" or something in the See also section.  Or "Satanic ritual murders"...or something like that, that has NO real relationship to the article, at all.   "MWWS" at least is SOMEWHAT pertinent or relational, in some sense.   So to me it's whatever.  I can see it being there.   Or not. (Though I lean more obviously towards it being there...) I don't think this matter is worth this much stress, energy, time, or attention.  For this page to even be here now.  This thing has gotten silly now.  There's pertinence and relevance, and there's enough to prove that.  Despite the denials. Cheerio. Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Having reverted the link back into the article three times without achieving a clear consensus to do so, thus exposing yourself to possible charges of edit warring, seems to say more about your position on this than "whatever". Shirt  waist &#9742;  05:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you need to learn how to count also. I only reverted TWICE in 24 hours.  NOT "three times" like you wrongly said.   Also, nice DODGE to all the points and things I raised...   Which shows a lot about YOUR position.   Whining about "whatever" and slandering me.  I NEVER violate "3RR".  So saying that I did on this public forum can get YOU in trouble.  Gotta be careful what you say.  I only reverted twice.   It was "SmashTheState" that did it before...   I'm not him.   You said I "reverted link back into article three times." FAIL...it was only two times. Check it again.  The only reason I'm even addressing you now is to set your wrong assertion straight.  Otherwise I would not have bothered.  I don't want people believing a lie.  I NEVER EVER violate "3RR".   I'm careful with that.  Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about 3RR or 24 hours, did I? "Edit warring" is also construed as repeatedly reverting the same thing over more than 24 hours (which is done by some to try, usually unsuccessfully, to get around 3RR- and I'm not saying this was your intention), which is exactly what you did here, here, and  here. That's 3 reverts of the same thing in less than two weeks.   Shirt  waist &#9742;  06:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, well fine. It's true...you didn't actually say "24 hours". But the implication seemed to be there.  Because you said "three reverts" and also "charges of edit warring".  So I thought you were meaning that.  Yes, I did revert a few times, but over a span of time.  As you said "2 weeks".  And others have too, on this matter.  But ALSO, you see that I have put good-faith efforts to DISCUSS the matter at length, on both the talk page and also this special page.  As I said, I try hard to avoid CLEAR violations and "3RR".  But yes, there was confusion as to what you meant.  Because even though it's true you did not say "24 hours" in my case, you didn't exactly say "in the last 2 weeks" either in that comment.  So I was not totally sure what you meant, given the context of your charge of "edit warring".  I already know that "3RR" is not the only way to "edit war", but it's a bright line that is NOT AMBIGUOUS like other things might be.  Also, another thing...I would NOT revert it at all if there was clear consensus on Talk (or here) against having that link on that article.  As I said, I do NOT violate WP policies on these things.  I do not violate "3RR" NOR "consensus".  And no consensus has yet been reached on this thing anyway, so far.  Hashem sfarim (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus when smashthestate kept putting it back in (three times) either, without establishing consensus in talk and after being reverted by three different editors. That's disruptive and qualifies as edit warring. When I was the fourth editor to revert him, you decided four editors making the same revert wasn't enough consensus to keep you from carrying on STS's edit warring. You say there was no clear consensus in Talk against having that link in that article - well guess what - there was no clear consensus for including it either. That's why STS stopped reverting and started this DR. It wasn't a signal for you to keep on reverting where STS left off, that's not how WP wants editors to behave. Instead of continuing to edit war, you should have left it as it was and waited for a clear consensus to emerge here first, not continue STS's disruptive editing. That is how things are supposed to work here. Shirt  waist &#9742;  11:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't know exactly that it was "four editors" that did that. Also, the point you're missing is that it was removed (by Macarion) before consensus was actually reached. Meaning that the MWWS link was there for a while now (a good week or two I think) yet someone ("Macarion") decided to remove it. WITH NO EXPLANATION GIVEN... Nothing was stated in his edit comment, when he did that.  Why are you not complaining against THAT "behavior".  (Meaning, that you're ignoring the CONTEXT of what I did and why...)  Even though it was known already that there was a dispute, BUT THAT THE DISPUTE SEEMED TO HAVE ENDED, as no one opined or commented anymore for a while.   Yet the link was removed again.  That could be deemed as "edit warring" if that's the case.  There was already a talk thing on this a week or two ago, the link was still there, yet "Macarion" (against policy arguably) removed it, willy nilly.  And then because of that, SmashTheState understandably put it back.  And then you and others all of a sudden decided to revert HIM.   I saw THAT and did what I did.  Macarion had no business doing that with a talk thing already there (so, again, why aren't you crowing against his rude WP-violating "behavior" in doing that?) and doing that with NO explanation or rationale given in the edit comment.  He just did it unilaterally.  So why shouldn't Smash put it back after that?   And with no consensus reached I felt it was wrong for you and others to remove it again.  As I said, not everything is so black and white.  I did what I did BECAUSE OF A CONTEXT that was obviously warranting what I did.  Macarion was wrong in doing that.   So conveniently ignoring THAT (where this whole thing recently stemmed from) is not an honest or thorough recount of what went on here.  Again, I don't violate 3RR NOR clear consensus.  And there was none of that.  There was a context for what I did, and Macarion was out of line. Therefore I submit that I did not clearly "edit war".  peace... (also did you see my comment to your remarks below, and also Carol's?) Hashem sfarim (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You still seem to be unclear on the significance of the chain of events as it relates to edit warring and the consensus process, so I will attempt to clarify where you (and STS) went wrong. When Swarm reverted STS for the second time on 7-17 with an edit summary that advised STS to take it to Talk, the dispute began and discussion on the talk page was started. All reverting on this issue should've stopped at that point until a consensus in Talk for its inclusion was reached. As you probably know, it is incumbent on the editor who wishes to add controversial material, which has been reverted, to gain consensus for it first before re-adding it. USER:albacore then violated that by putting the link back while discussion was underway. Swarm then properly reverted it and again advised that the dispute be discussed in Talk by saying "it is seriously inappropriate to keep adding this without answering the clear justification for removal on the talk page". Then you, Hashem sfarim, decide a few hours later on 7-19 to improperly revert again, saying "it's been discussed, and there is some justification...see my response in Talk", as if the fact that you discussed it in talk settled the matter. Discussion continued with no consensus reached when on 7-30 USER:macarion again properly removed the link which was improperly put back by you earlier - an edit summary would've been nice, but it was clear to all why it was done anyway. STS then continued this disruptive editing by again re-adding the link (without an edit summary) ignoring the fact that still no consensus had been reached. This was then properly reverted by Chronie for the same reason as the other reverts up to that point, after which STS again improperly put it back. Seeing that there was no clear consensus in Talk for the link's inclusion (which was echoed by RxS's comment below), I then followed protocol by again reverting STS's improper revert, repeating Swarm's original admonishment that the issue should be resolved in Talk before re-adding this highly contentious link to the article. You then show up to again improperly revert while saying "this has already been discussed quite extensively on the talk page...and there've been enough valid reasons to keep this link in...sources and references regarding this exist...stop edit-warring over this please" - apparently oblivious to the fact that you were the one engaging in edit warring, while apparently asserting that you, Hashem Sfarin, have unilaterally decided that there has been enough discussion, and that you, Hashem Sfarin, have decided which reasons presented were "valid" and which were not, therefore giving you the right to circumvent the consensus process and reinstate the disputed link. After reverting you and pointing out to you that this matter has been been brought up at WP:DRN at 04:32 on 8-1, you ignore this and again put back the contentious link at 16:13, the inclusion of which is still being debated there(here) and remains unresolved. I hope you can see by this that after the issue was brought up in talk on 7-17, and certainly when the issue was raised at DRN on 8-1, continuing to add the link after those dates without clear consensus at either place to do so is in violation of WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, which states: "Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute.  When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. When these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution." WP:TALKDONTREVERT also states: "The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition/change/removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions."
 * Hopefully, you and STS will learn from your mistakes here and avoid being blocked in the future for this kind of disruptive behavior. If not, well, you've been warned. Cheers Shirt  waist &#9742;  03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can use "including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." for controversial stuff. There are thousands of subjects that are peripherally related. I can think of a lot of semi related subjects, so there needs to be a way to sort through them. Reliable sources is the way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that you regard the McBride quote as unreliable? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a real case for inclusion here. There's a fair bit of WP:SYNTH going on here. I also agree with the above comment, controversial inclusions need to be supported by more than just " peripherally related". Even at that, there are no RS that firmly link this and MWWS so the association is a little POV (in addition to WP:SYNTH. I know there may be some opinion pieces on this but you need to be careful with those, especially in BLP's RxS (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And, as I look at the talk page I don't see anything like a consensus to include it. It should be removed until consensus is reached. RxS (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, as I said, what you and others are failing to grasp is that this very notion of MWWS is basically a theory and opinion to begin with. So it doesn't matter that this thing was brought up in "opinion pieces"...because that's the nature of the "syndrome" in the first place. A hypothesis. The point is that it's been brought up ENOUGH to warrant a simple See also link.   As SmashTheState said, all you have to do is google the words "Cayle Anthony" along with "missing white woman", and see what comes up, to see how this has been something mentioned by experts and journalists, and the arguable relevance. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If MWWS is so theoretical, subject to opinion, and so bereft of WP:RS that all anyone trying to put it in can find to support its use is an op-ed piece...maybe we should avoid it altogether. To quote WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion". I assume this also holds true for "See also" sections. Shirt  waist &#9742;  05:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, but then are you saying that the "MWWS" Wikipedia article should be "avoided" as ever being a See also wiki link on any other WP article? Because of the nature of the "syndrome" being an opinion or theory.  I don't know.  I was just making the point that simply because it was found on some "opinion pieces" does not matter much given the fact that this whole "MWWS" is an "opinion" in many ways to begin with.  Also, earlier, my point is that the Caylee article DOES mention something (however brief) about "white woman", by McBride. It's an opinion by nature.   Also, again, I did NOT revert "three times" with this. But only twice.  I'm very careful to never violate "3RR".  So I'm not sure why you said that.  Maybe you mis-read it, and counted SmashTheState's revert also with mine.  But I'm not him.  Anyway, I don't like this "syndrome".  I just know that it HAS been brought up by quite a few in the media and in psychology etc.  I don't know if it's honest to simply ignore that.  Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm saying MWWS is a vernacular term with little or no solid RS to support it or verify it that I can see. So why should any article link to something as tenuous as that, much less an article where nobody can find an RS that links its subject directly to MWWS?
 * As for 3RR, see my response above. Shirt  waist &#9742;  06:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My response to that is basically two-fold. One...It's debatable whether those sources are "RS" or not.  It seems to be based on an interpretive thing about "opinion".  It could be argued that in a sense they are reliable sources, to a decent extent.  And the nature of MWWS is "opinion" anyway.  But also, number two, something that Smash has brought up.  In a See also wiki link WHERE EXACTLY DOES THERE HAVE TO DOGMATICALLY BE A "RELIABLE SOURCE" SOMEHOW INVOLVED WITH THAT NECESSARILY?   That something is linked in the See Also appendix isn't a claim of any kind except that it has some kind of relationship to the material in the article and may be of interest to those who are interested in the article subject.  It is not a claim that you, personally, are a racist.  It is not even a claim that the hysterics around the Anthony case are the result of MWWS.  Only that a significant number of people regard the Anthony case as being an example of MWWS.  That there are those who do so has been amply proven. Hashem sfarim (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to note I also heard this concept (if not the exact phrase) mentioned on two or three different cable stations during various discussions of this case, so it's definitely a concept that's out there and relevant for the see also and/or a sentence or two in the publicity section. (And glad to see outside editors are coming by DRN and opining!!) CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Couple of things. First, please don't yell, some of us are sensitive to use of the caps keys. My take is that everything in WP needs to be verifiable in reliable sources, even if it isn't directly cited. Now, some of you are arguing that op ed pieces are not reliable sources. That's not really true, in that an op ed piece by an acknowledged authority can certainly be reliable for statements relating to their field. If Hawking writes a blog or editorial column for the NYTimes about the history of scones, that's not a reliable source, but if he does so in regard to quantum mechanics, that's a reliable source. I suggest that since MWWS is about how the media focusses their attention on crimes carried out against certain types of people, opinions expressed by news professionals published by reliable news outlets would be reliable enough to justified a see also link.

Also, I took a look and some of the see also links are unneeded, for example, links to people involved in the trial are better made in the body of the article rather than the see also section. The main questions governing see also sections are relevance and number of links. The bar for relevance is pretty low, since the purpose of the see also links is to suggest additional reading on topics that are related, but not relevant enough to include in the body. So all that is required is to show that there's some reasonable linkage, and I think there is, for example this article, and a piece by a media critic posted on an NPR blog, which does not mention Caylee by name, does link her murder to MWWS. And this op ed piece by a someone who served on a community editorial board for a local gannett publication. The McBride quote doesn't cut it for me, but any one of the three sources above meets the relatively low bar for an RS for a see also link for me. But that's just my opinion. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just one more piece of bureaucratic background: In Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults in September, 2006, a case in which the editor in question was among other things accused of edit warring over inclusions in a See also section, the Arbitration Committee made a finding of principle that, "Internal links in a 'See also' section need only be of related interest." and for various reasons rejected an alternate statement of principle that "'See also' sections should contain directly relevant material, and should not be used to make arguments or points." The current "peripherally related" MoS formulation in WP:ALSO was, I believe, in June, 2008, without any discussion that I can find. I remain of the opinion that relatedness, per se, is not needed and that "of related interest" is enough. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's very useful information. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Two things - this proposal was evenly split 3 to 3, not exactly a "rejection", and what exactly does "of related interest" mean?  Shirt  waist &#9742;  03:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See the top of the page, in this particular case it appears that a majority was 6, rather than a simple majority, so I think it is fair to say that it was a rejection of point 6. Point 5 seems to be a clear majority. My point is that there are reliable sources establishing a connection between this particular case and MWWS, enough to support a line in the article itself that the case has been discussed as an example of MWWS. I believe TransporterMan's point is that the MOS and the cited arbitration suggest that sourcing for see also links are not required. Thus far it appears that you have been arguing that the external link should not be included because there are no reliable sources for it, but it appears that there are, and that they are not required in any case by the MOS.
 * I would take "of related interest" to mean that some significant number of people would find the material in the linked article to be of interest as they read the linking article. I think that the fairly large number of google hits, over 10k, on '"Caylee Anthony" and "missing white woman syndrome"', particularly the coverage in news outlets, and op ed pieces establish that there is "related interest". But again, these are just my opinions. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, 3 "oppose" and 3 "support" of point 6 is neither a rejection nor acceptance, but that's beside the point.


 * In any case, the argument put forward by others, which I agree with, that controversial inclusions like this one need to be supported by more than just "peripherally related" as stated in MOS, is a valid one. I've already stated my views on what constitutes an RS in this case so I won't repeat myself. My opinion of what "related interest" means differs from yours in that the two subjects must be connected in a significant way to each other, other than the appearance of the words "white woman" in both. A "See also" link is basically telling the reader that the link has enough relevance to the subject of the article they're reading to justify its inclusion. I'd rather not rely on some op-ed writer's opinion of how Cayley Anthony is an actual example of "MWWS", which in itself is a vague and unquantified vernacular term. As others have said, using such sources as that for info like this is not a problem - if all the other "syndromes" describing the media fascination with this case are also listed along with MWWS. The result would probably be a "battle of the op-ed pieces", but incorporating that stuff into the body of the article, instead of sticking it in the "See also" section, would better serve the article by neutralizing the MWWS bias created by only having MWWS in "See also".  Shirt  waist &#9742;  12:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are some editors on this article who haven't figured out that Consensus does NOT trump policy, including even obvious BLP violations that have to be fought over. Sigh.... So something like this that is in a somewhat gray area are even more difficult to deal with. I think the POV for some may be that Casey's death is some cosmic message (or similar event of importance) that can't be sullied by any allusion to what many see as a racist media emphasis on the disappearances/deaths of white children/women. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Of course it does. WP:Consensus is policy. In the context here, linking MMWS is a slam on Anthony and we shouldn't do it. Gerardw (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (insert) To clarify, consensus of a few editors highly involved in the article, if they ignore all input from visiting editors or various noticeboards, doesn't trump obvious policy as communicated by those other editors. (Not as sexy as the short version.) Sometimes there are gray areas, sometimes an issue is more clear. The arguments below make me think it is clear this should at least be in See also, though a sentence or two in text to explain it would make even more sense. It's not a BLP issue because it's an analysis of media/public reaction to Caylee's disappearance, not a claim of something Casey has done without any WP:RS, which abound ad absurdum. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (insert)If we paraphrase the above as 'The consensus of the greater Wikipedia community trumps the consensus of highly involved editors,' we're in agreement. Given the above reasoning I concur with the inclusion. Gerardw (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Several points:
 * Nuujinn is correct #1. In the context of the arbitration decision, they rejected inclusion of point 6 in their final decision and approved inclusion of point 5, on the basis that a majority found that point 5 was a more appropriate statement of WP policy than point 5, point 5 was therefore included in their final decision, point 6 was not.
 * Nuujinn is correct #2. "Related interest" means only that people who read one article might find the other one interesting because of some kind of similarity. Per MoS, the degree of similarity can become relevant if there are a disproportionate number of see also links, but when there are only a few links, as here, the only test is whether or not they are utterly unrelated.
 * I recommend this dispute be evaluated by an uninvolved neutral and be closed in favor of retention of the "See also" link at this time. Everything that can be said has been said. My evaluation is (a) that there is sufficient similarities in subject to retain the link, (b) that even though verifiability is not needed for the addition of a see also link that there is, indeed, some degree of verifiability available, and (c) if the opinions given at the article talk page and on this page are analyzed that there is a consensus in favor of inclusion of the link of about 6 or 7 in favor to about 3 opposed. Since any one of those three reasons, (a)-(c), would justify inclusion of the link, my recommendation is that this matter be closed in favor of retention of the link.
 * Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think what some people are missing here is that even if something is allowed by policy, it does not mean it's mandated. It still has to get consensus (when it's challenged). In this case, the see also link may or may not be justified by policy but it doesn't matter if you can't get a consensus for inclusion. There are enough reasonable arguments on both sides, but there's not an agreement that it should be added. RxS (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect. Policy is the standing consensus of the community as a whole and if it allows something, then it is allowed. To disallow that thing, either the policy must be changed (which cannot be done through local consensus) or an IAR local exception to that policy must be made. That requires the formation of a consensus to make that local exception, but the policy to allow it stands until and unless the consensus to make a local exception comes together. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If an edit is not specifically allowed or disallowed by policy, then a challenge is, indeed, enough to put it into question. A mere challenge is also enough to require an unsourced assertion in an article to either be reliably sourced or removed under WP:BURDEN and enough to cause a speedy deletion or non-BLP prod nomination to be rejected, but it's not enough to put an edit which is either specifically permitted or specifically prohibited by policy into question without an IAR local exception. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC) PS: I'd like to clarify that when I said that if "an edit is not specifically allowed or disallowed by policy, then a challenge is, indeed, enough to put it into question," that that's a broad practical summary, not a statement of policy. A challenge to such an edit only puts it into question to the point that its retention does not justify an edit war over it. That is, if a challenger abandons the challenge it does not mean that the challenged edit must still be removed if consensus for its retention cannot be obtained. That is unlike, for example, a challenge under WP:BURDEN which requires the unsourced assertion to be sourced or removed even if the original challenger does not follow up on the challenge. (And before you ask, yes I can tell you how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, too.) —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Transporterman - I'm not following your reasoning regarding WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Consensus, whether for or against inclusion, is not going against any policy that I can see. You seem to be asserting that the wording "peripherally related" in MoS and "of related interest" in the ArbCom finding clearly relates to the "grey-area" situation in dispute here, which is: 'does a link to the subject of another article belong in this article, even though no reliable sources have been found - and only opinion pieces have established a barely-tenable connection between the two.' If you're trying to say that a vague statement like "of related interest" means what you and Nuujinn say it means, you'll need to convince me by providing evidence of that, and not just your opinion, as I have my own opinion of what it means. If you can't, then you can't hang your argument on "Policy clearly allows it, therefore consensus does not trump policy". I would also suggest that stating "Everything that can be said has been said" in a discussion is presumptuous and usually premature. Shirt  waist &#9742;  23:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll say it again...because maybe you missed it a little farther above, or maybe it's not totally sinking in, or perhaps it is, but you just don't care all that much (because of simply not liking or not wanting this link in that article). Ok, here goes... Number one...A See also link DOES NOT NECESSARILY NEED "reliable sources" so dogmatically, like you and "Swarm" or others want to constantly assert.   It's like what STS and I keep saying on this that completely gets ignored or un-appreciated.   Also, number two... I said already, and as editor "KLP" stated, pointing out your CIRCULAR REASONING...that the very nature of MWWS is "opinion" to begin with. (sighs)  And theory.   So the sources are BOUND to be uh "opinion pieces."   So what???    They're in reliable sources.  And that's not the point anyway.   A See also wiki link does not necessarily have to be that way.  Again, did you even google the very words "Caylee Anthony" along with "Missing White Woman Syndrome" and see what comes up???   TONS...from reputable people. I mean, these are not nameless bloggers saying this stuff, but PEOPLE IN THE FIELD.  Journalists, psychiatrists, lawyers, etc etc.  Solid credentials, and so forth.   (And so what that they're mostly "opinion pieces"...when the very thing is by nature "opinion" to begin with? So that argument becomes empty and CIRCULAR...as KLP said right right here.) And then it becomes a clear case of simply WP:I DON'T LIKE IT that you and Swarm and Crohnie etc are guilty of.   Again, I said above, that my response to you is basically two-fold. One...It's debatable whether those sources are "RS" or not. It seems to be based on an interpretive thing about "opinion". It could be argued that in a sense they are reliable sources, to a decent extent. And the nature of MWWS is "opinion" anyway. But also, number two, something that Smash has brought up. In a See also wiki link where exactly does there have to dogmatically be a "reliable source" somehow involved with that necessarily? That something is linked in the See Also appendix isn't a claim of any kind except that it has some kind of relationship to the material in the article and may be of interest to those who are interested in the article subject. It is not a claim that you, personally, are a racist. It is not even a claim that the hysterics around the Anthony case are the result of MWWS. Only that a significant number of people regard the Anthony case as being an example of MWWS. That there are those who do so has been amply proven. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hashem sfarim - I'm getting really tired of your uncivil behavior and treating this discussion like a battleground. I understand your arguments - repeating them even louder accomplishes nothing, so unless you intend to add something new without being so confrontational and uncollegial, I'd suggest you avoid participating in this discussion.  Shirt  waist &#9742;  04:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's been that bad. Compared to how some others on WP have acted at times.  But really?  No one's perfect every second in every syllable.  And neither are you.   Also...I was just emphasizing some points.   Look at what Nuujinn wrote to you below (as I see you have), and see how your charges have added nothing to discussion, but simply distraction and a waste of time.  When you do that.  Instead of dealing with the actual substance of what I've been saying, you harp on junk like my supposed "edit warring" which arguably was not even true, but just a matter of interpretation.   Or my supposed "loudness", which is just emphasis.  Or supposed "incivility", which is just straightforwardness and boldness.  What do you call your stuff here?    Sweet and congenial?   Yes, you have addressed some things here that I've brought out. But it seems you've evaded and complained more with me, than anything else.  Over petty stuff.  And then have the rude nerve to say "I'd suggest you avoid participating in the discussion" when I was already IN the discussion pretty much from the start, and am part of the whole matter unfortunately.   Again, it's just frankness that I see that your main reason for not wanting this link has nothing substantially really to do with WP policy.  But simply because the idea of it and the implication of it irks you, and you "just don't like it".  Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it. (Also, what I write on here is actually not just for you...but for others to read and consider too.)   Like I said too, so what that they are "opinion pieces"?   When the countless statements are IN "reliable sources"?? And who really is an "expert" on MWWS anyway?  I mean, if psychiatrists can't be considered "experts" in various human and social behaviors, then who would be?  Is there a degree in the studies of MWWS or something?   And the whole subject is by nature opinion to begin with. And making such a fuss over a See also wiki link about "reliable sources" is a bit unnecessary in the first place.  You say that you "understand my arguments", but you have yet to really refute any of them.  And they're not just "mine" anyway.   As you can see from others on here. Making either the same or very similar points.  Also, like I said, a whole host of sources and comments and links to "MWWS" and "Caylee Anthony" can be found, proving the point quite amply. Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Shirtwaist, I would hate to think that this is a really a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. First, you questioned whether there were reliable sources. The NPR piece I cited is not a "vague op ed piece", as the article is written by a media critic and published by a reliable source, and it is thus clearly reliable. Then you made accusations of edit warring and disruptive behaviour, which isn't relevant to the question of whether the see also link should be included, and generally not helpful in these kinds of discussions. Your assumption about having to attribute see also links sourced to op ed piece seems not to make sense to me, since normal practice is not to provide citations for see also links, and, as Transporterman has argued, we don't require reliable sources for see also links in the first place. Your repeated assertion that the arbitration finding on point 6 was "evenly split 3 to 3" and thus not a rejection isn't really true, if you look at the top of the page you'll see "On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority", and as Transporterman points out, proposal 5 is the one that carried the day. You've arguing that the link is somehow controversial, but have given no rational that I can see that it is. Caylee is sadly no longer alive, and the article is about her death and the surrounding events, not Casey, so I see no BLP issues. And I see no policy or guideline that suggests that we have to convince you of what "of related interest" means, since it's pretty straight forward english, and the finding of the arbitration committee clearly rejected the notion that '"See also" sections should contain directly relevant material.' I'm afraid I'm seeing a pattern of trying to use any excuse possible to keep out a simple see also link, and I'm not seeing any argument that is informed by policies and guidelines. I'm sorry if I am missing something, but that's what it looks like to me at the moment, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise, and I'll wait and see how the addition of the information relative to MWWS works in the article's body goes. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nuujinn - I don't intend to restate my argument, but I'd like to clear up your confusion on a few points.
 * 1)The writer of the NPR piece, like all the other sources presented, is expressing his opinion that the Cayley Anthony case has something to do with MWWS, and as others have pointed out, opinion pieces are not reliable sources on anything except their own opinions or their own field of expertise. The writer may be a "media critic", but I see no evidence of him being an expert on MWWS.
 * 2)If Hashem sfarin hadn't engaged in disruptive editing on the Death of Caylee Anthony page, then denied his obviously disruptive behavior there, there would be no need to have it pointed out to him in great detail.
 * 3)The ArbCom finding about proposal 6 has nothing to do with my arguments, I never implied it did. It is totally irrelevant to this discussion, as I made clear to you earlier. Why you bring it up again here is beyond me.
 * 4)If all the reverting and discussion about including/excluding this link doesn't prove to you the link is controversial, I don't know what will.
 * 5)I don't see where any BLP issues have been brought up in this discussion.
 * 6)"I see no policy or guideline that suggests that we have to convince you of what "of related interest" means" - I agree, and the same goes for me not having to convince you of what I think it means, thus the inability of either of us to assert our meaning on others while claiming support of policy.
 * 7)If you're not seeing any argument from those opposing inclusion that is informed by policies and guidelines, I can only advise you to read the discussion here and on the Death of Caylee Anthony talk page again. I hope this has cleared things up for you. Shirt  waist &#9742;  05:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @TransporterMan: I'm not sure where you get the idea that if content is allowed, it's mandatory, That's never been the case and it isn't now. All it means is that the content in question is open to editorial judgement and consensus. Let's look at the policy: Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. (my bold) Nothing there states that see also content is immune from consensus or editorial judgement. In this case, there's no consensus for it's addition in the editorial judgement of the participating editors. You simply cannot bypass the process of consensus. RxS (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are bounds to assuming good faith, and it should be manifestly obvious to any outside observers that the Death of Caylee Anthony article is a great, glowing, neon placard for WP:OWN in mile-tall letters of supernatural flame, where a group of editors regard it as their duty to expunge it of anything they regard as injurious to the memory of Caylee Anthony. I brought the case here because the talk page discussion was completely circular as a result of endless rounds of completely specious rationalization in which the Caylee fan club totally ignored all rational conversation through a series of increasingly torturous "talking points" which have no relationship whatsoever to Wikipedia policy (or, indeed, reality).  The colossal irony, of course, is that these people are exhibiting classic signs of MWWS themselves, even while they fight bitterly against any mention of it.  The fact is that we could argue here ad infinitum and they will continue to fling up random assertions for why a simple mention of MWWS in the See Also appendix is unthinkable because they are not constrained by either logic or reality.  Frankly, at this point, I'm not sure what can be done about a group of people who manifestly exhibit a toxic combination of pathological obsession, ill will, and total moral certitude in their holy vision of Saint Caylee the martyr of the Master Race. -- SmashTheState (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * SmashTheState's comments, as well as the absurd length of this thread on a minor issue, point out the problem that there are a few editors (and not necessarily the ones who've posted the most in this thread) who have an irrational lack of ability to deal with this topic in an NPOV way. Some don't even want to see the prosecution evidence presented in any logical order, not to mention have a fair exposition of the winning defense side. The only solution may be WP:RfCUsers for the most recalcitrant and argumentative editors.
 * Related question: So should such user behavior be brought here first? A purpose more generally this noticeboard has to decide, including per my earlier comments on talk. CarolMooreDC (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything we can do here. The notion that a simple see also link can be considered so onerous astounds me, and some of the editors are clearly in a battleground and wikilawyer mode and unwilling to consider the arguments presented by others. My suggestion would be to start moving towards mediation by moving through the dispute resolution guidelines, because I think that's where this will wind up ultimately and there's no reason not to cut to the chase. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * {Insert}: You may be right. It's probably the most nightmarish article I've worked on as far as questionable and absurd arguments to support even clear policy violations in BLP. I've worked on some contentious articles on the Israel-Palestine issue, which needed it's own Arbitration. At least in that case the POVs were more evident; here it's more obscure so more frustrating. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A structural note. And article about MWWS is basically about the term, a term which is essentially a POV/political "lens" that those with particular POV apply to the situation, and which alleges discrimination. So, while, at the simpleton literal level, the term appears to about be situations themselves, in reality it is about a "lens" which some apply to those situations, and a lensed view of those situations. So, any application of that term to the situation (e.g. as implied by a link) is essentially a statement that the "lensed" view is valid & applicable. The MWWS article is about the "lens", not about the situations that one might view through the lens. North8000 (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything is a lens, even death to those who believe the living soul/spirit/consciousnes keeps on going after the physical body is dead - whether it reincarnates being another lens. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * True. But I guess what I meant but failed to say is that the subject of the MWWS article is itself a controversial assertion. Like creating a "Miserable failures" article and then linking people's  articles to it.   North8000 (talk) (signed by Nuujinn)
 * Well, if one could create a "Miserable failures" article without violating NPOV, V, and other policies, I think linking to it would be appropriate. I think in that case there would also soon be a "Stunning successes" article, and a link to that as well, then huge discussions at various noticeboards about deletions, mergers, wording, etc. To me the issue is fairly straight forward--media critics and editors (former or active) have some expertise in discussing what the media is doing, and there has been discussion of this particular case by such people, so some mention of it somewhere in the article seems appropriate. If editors feel that the body is more appropriate, seems fine to me so long as they adhere to policies and stick to reliable sources which directly link this case to MWWS, and not turn the article in question into a debate over whether or not MWWS is real/true/accurate/fair/, etc. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@RxS: Local consensus can simply not trump policy willy-nilly. I've cited clear policy — WP:LOCALCONSENSUS — to support my position, but your argument is nothing more that it's just not that way here. What proof of your position do you have? For example: Let's say an article clearly meets both the general notability guidelines and any specialized notability guidelines set out for that subject matter. Policy therefore says the article can be included Wikipedia. Just because a couple of editors then claim on the talk page of that article that it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia does not create a situation in which the article must be deleted unless a consensus is built to keep it. If a local consensus is successfully built to support an IAR local exception to delete the article because deletion would benefit the encyclopedia more than retention (which is always the reason for an IAR local exception), then it can be deleted but the "no consensus" result must be that the article is to be kept. (I'm not referring to the AfD process here, though I think similar logic may apply there.) In the final analysis, of course, this is a wiki and within the limits of the Founding principles and certain other restraints set by the Wikipedia Foundation and/or Jimbo Wales, anything can be changed by consensus. But there are certain established consensuses which cannot be changed locally except through a IAR local exception, they're called policies, and in those cases a "no consensus" result on the proposition that policy not be followed requires that established consensus, i.e. the policy, be followed. I wholly concur, by the way that there's nothing in the MoS section which says, expressly or in effect, that "see also content is immune from consensus or editorial judgement," but there doesn't need to be: Once the standards set out in that section were elevated to policy, that result is required by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. (Lest I be misunderstood, let me make clear that I'm not saying that see also content is entirely immune to removal, but I am saying that the only grounds on which it can be removed are those set out in MoS [and, perhaps, the Arbcom decision, though I personally think that they both mean the same thing]: "peripherally related"/"related interest" and removal of more remote links in favor of closer ones if the see also section is overcrowded.) Let me begin to conclude by saying, however, that our discussion of this point may be moot and/or entirely theoretical: As I asserted above, I think that if the pro and con voices here and at the article talk page are carefully evaluated that there is a consensus in favor of retention of the link, including the neutrals who have weighed in here on this issue. What's clearly not here is a consensus in favor of its removal. Our discussion about the effect of policy vs. consensus only has meaning if I'm wrong about there being a retention consensus and the neutrally-evaluated result is "no consensus." Finally, let me reassert that I am here as a neutral: I truly do not have any emotional investment in either of the articles in question, the subject matter of those articles, or in whether the link is included or excluded. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It helps to say who you are replying to :-) I'm not sure. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @CarolMooreDC: All of that was to RxS. I've linked the @ at the beginning to make that more clear. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @North8000: No, your analysis that, "any application of that term to the situation (e.g. as implied by a link) is essentially a statement that the 'lensed' view is valid & applicable," tries to read something into "See also" links which plainly is not there under MoS. A see also link does not imply that the linked article is directly related to or a type of the linking article; MoS clearly says that it only implies a peripheral relationship, and ArbCom says that it only indicates an article of related interest. Neither of those comes even close to implying that the linked view is valid or applicable. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So, if I put a "see also" link in the Obama article to the future "Socialists run amok syndrome" article, that would not imply that he is one of those?  :-) North8000 (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @TransporterMan - I don't think it's proper for you to refer to "policy" in regard to this issue. MoS is a guideline, and as such is not under the same constraints as a "policy". I think you'll find the words "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions" in the guideline template, and "whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" in the instructions for a "See also" section. And as we all know, "common sense" is a matter of opinion and consensus around here. Therefore, you cannot assert that "policy trumps consensus", as there is no policy involved here. It naturally follows that "peripheral interest/of related interest" are open to interpretation, are they not? Shirt waist &#9742;  23:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this discussion, so I'm coming in late. I don't understand the approach to a "see also" section that is being taken here. WP:SEEALSO says that the see also section should only include links that would be in a hypothetically "perfect" article. That means links that can be sourced. It has been shown that "Missing White Woman Syndrome" can be reasonably sourced; however, as this article falls under BLP, we should not slap on contentious links, especially links that are sourced with op-ed pieces. Why? Because, when dealing with op-ed pieces, we are to attribute the opinion to the author. This should be even more important when dealing with a contentious opinion on a BLP. Therefore, it makes more sense to remove the link from the "see also" section, and attribute the opinion to its author, in the body of the article. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 22:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @Shirtwaist: Actually there is no substantial difference between policies and guidelines except that, in practice and as stated at Policy and guidelines you are more likely to be blocked or banned for violation of a policy than you are for a guideline. The words in the guideline template reflect a similar statement in the definition of guidelines at Policy and guidelines, but the reference to common sense needs to be understood in the context of the provision in the lede of Policy and guidelines that, "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." The link on common sense is important because it takes us to an essay which says, "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense." (I've expanded the links so it's easy to see what they mean.) So what does using common sense mean? It doesn't mean opinion and consensus as you suggest. It means following policy and guidelines and Wikimedia's founding principles and doing what's best for the encyclopedia. What's the process for deciding a claim about what to do when policy/guidelines and what's best for the encyclopedia conflict? First, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS applies to both policy and guidelines: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. ... Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community." (Emphasis added.) Consensus can change, of course, but WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says that in the case of policies and guidelines that the established consensus set out in a guideline applies unless a new consensus is formed to either make an IAR local exception or to change the guideline altogether. Thus:
 * both policies and guidelines are subject to the use of common sense and exceptions, but there's nothing to suggest that those apply differently in the case of guidelines than they do in the case of policies,
 * an exception in the best interest of the encyclopedia can be established through consensus for either a policy or a guideline, but if there's no consensus for an exception the policy or guideline still applies, and
 * in the final analysis there is no substantial difference between policy and guidelines except enforcement.
 * Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @TransporterMan - I really don't see how you can use that argument to assert "policy trumps consensus" in this situation.
 * "established consensus set out in a guideline applies unless a new consensus is formed to...make an IAR local exception" ← I think we all agree with that. That's why we're here in the process of forming an IAR "local exception".
 * "both policies and guidelines are subject to the use of common sense and exceptions" ← Also agree, considering the following entry in common sense: "just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation". That is exactly what we are trying to decide here - through the consensus process - whether or not including this link is a good idea in this situation. Your point about the essay is fair, but then it's an essay, not a policy or guideline.
 * "(Common sense) doesn't mean opinion and consensus as you suggest" ← I don't agree at all. The wording in WP:COMMON itself, which I've quoted above, clearly holds out the option of local consensus (through opinions of individual editors) deciding what's best for the encyclopedia in a particular situation. This thread is a perfect example of that. Shirt  waist &#9742;  22:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @Chickenmonkey: Unfortunately, WP:SEEALSO isn't the best-written guideline to ever hit Wikipedia. It helps to know the history of the current section. When this section was created the big debate was whether see also sections should exist at all are not. Some folks thought that — as has been argued here — that if a link wasn't good enough to be in the body of an article that it just shouldn't be included at all. A counterargument was made that articles ought to be succinct and as brief as possible, with the result that some less relevant links should, rather than taking up space on relatively marginal matters in the article, be included in a see also section. A third faction thought that a see also section should not only exist for links that could be included in the article, but also for links which would be of related interest but which weren't relevant enough to be in the article. There was also some support for the position that relevant links should go in both the body of the article and a see also section. The text of WP:SEEALSO was written to make clear that see also sections should exist and that higher quality links should not go in both the article and the see also section, with editorial discretion and common sense being applied to decide whether those links ought to go in the article or in the see also section. It also agreed, however, with related interest — peripherally related — links being included in the see also section even if they could not also be included in the body of the article. The appeals to "perfect article" and editorial discretion and common sense refer to the question of whether links should go in the body of the article or in the see also section, not to the question of whether they or peripherally related links ought to be included at all. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is exactly the argument I made: the link should go in the body of the article, not in the see also section. Keeping editorial discretion in mind, I believe that's the best course of action, for this particular link. The reason I believe such is due to the fact that it is contentious, opinion-oriented material in a BLP. With such material, we should attribute the opinion to its author. I'm not making any statement on the quality of WP:SEEALSO or whether "see also" sections should exist. To that end, I'm not sure what your reply to me was meant to convey. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 21:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that no RfC was ever posted about this issue, but was skipped by the OP in favor of going directly to DRN. Would it be worthwhile to post an RfC about this as a next step in the process? Shirt  waist &#9742;  04:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Transporterman. It seems that putting a contentious link in context with a few sentences along the lines of "X, Y, and Z (important commentors on racial issues[ have attributed the media attention surrounding Caylee's death and Casey's trial to missing white woman syndrome. Blah blah nice analytic quote, blah blah." would be the best way to solve the problem, if in fact, there is significant discussion of mwws with regards to this... bazaar. (I've heard plenty of discussion along those lines, but I'm not particularly well versed in the body of work surrounding the case; perhaps it's not a significant viewpoint overall.) If that angle isn't significant enough that this sort of passage could legitimately be written, then the link doesn't belong in the "See also" section either. Danger (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed closure
Proposal 1:

The guidelines of this project state that nonproductive discussions should be closed. This discussion is no longer productive and should be closed.


 * Support:
 * TransporterMan ( TALK ) 16:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose (the discussion continues to be productive and should be continued.):


 * Abstain:

Proposal 2:

If this discussion is to be closed, a neutral editor who has not been involved in this discussion should examine both the application of policy and guidelines to this dispute and also the level of consensus reached in regard to this dispute here and at Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony and render an opinion as to whether or not the "See also" link in question ought to be included or excluded or, in the alternative, whether the resolution of that issue remains unclear, and stating as briefly as possible the reasons for that opinion.


 * Support:
 * TransporterMan ( TALK ) 16:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Crohnie Gal Talk  18:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose (the discussion should be closed without such an examination or opinion):


 * Abstain:

Proposal 3:

To assist in either the examination described in Proposal 2, as a waypoint if this discussion is not to be closed, or to aid in any future examination of this discussion in a different forum or process, please state your opinion:


 * A "See also" link to Missing white woman syndrome should be included in Death of Caylee Anthony:
 * TransporterMan ( TALK ) 16:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No such link should be included there:


 * I have no opinion:

Template for additional proposals

Proposal _:

[State the proposal]


 * Support:


 * Oppose ([state the counter-proposal]):


 * Abstain: