Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 36

Disputed sentence and its sources on Soka Gakkai page


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

This subject is about a dispute concerning a certain sentence which appears in Soka Gakkai page - section: Perception and Criticism- posted by editor Catflap08 and discussed with Wikipedia editor John Carter on the Talk page at my (SafwanZabalawi) request without a resolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C5%8Dka_Gakkai

The sentence in dispute is the following: “There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance[58] and proselytizing[59][60][61][62] practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members[63].”

/1/  The dispute is about using unreliable sources and also making a misleading  accusation about unspecified number  of Soka Gakkai (and SG International membership of 12 million) members –in a negative defaming way, without any valid evidence. I’ll focus on the discussed in Talk page example of relying on unreliable references : http://riverdalepress.blogspot.de/2009/03/ps-24-parents-call-for-principals.html This reference is a blog which published a report in a tabloid style about a local disagreement between the parent’s association of a certain school (PS24) and a teacher (Mr. Scharper) - as the blog reports: “after weeks of rumors that he crossed the line between church and state with Buddhist prayer meetings in his office and attempts to recruit school staff for a “prayer circle.”

/2/   Wikipedia guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Usage_by_other_sources  indicates: “Never use….blogs as a source for material about a living person”. The mentioned source is a blog, with a defaming accusation involving a living person (the teacher).

/3/   The source does not report a final fact but rumors and multiple conflicting stories about the alleged matter. The storytelling style based on rumors are not a reliable source in Wikipedia performance.

/4/  The source itself states that there are equal contra-claims about the reported rumors: “Not everyone at the school gives much credence to the accusations, including some people who work closely with the principal every day. They say they have never been offered a card nor have they been approached to join him for prayers”.

/5/  The blog mentions that Ms Trebach (an accuser of the Mr. Scharper, the Buddhist teacher):  maintained “that she could not confirm or deny allegations of proselytizing or a hate list.” This is a source destabilizing its own credibility where the accuser cannot confirm or deny the accusations.

/6/  The blog also makes a hint to a bullying atmosphere in that school: “One staff member, who did not want to be named, said it was a small group of teachers and parents who wanted Mr. Scharper removed because they are now unable to exert as much influence as under the previous administration. Rumors that speak against Mr. Scharper are matched by others that say the allegations are part of a vendetta started by a disgruntled staffer at the school”.

/7/ Another source repeating the same tabloid and unconfirmed story was also used by the editor involved. My question to Wikipedia is whether a source based on: “rumors, did not want to be named, could not confirm or deny, vendetta, accusation of no credence... administration influence, allegations...” is acceptable in Articles.

/8/ These sources were used as the ground for a sentence generalizing this alleged (and probably fabricated) incident to defame an unknown number of an organization, SGI, which firmly opposes rumored in the blog wrong behavior. The editors’ claim that “some” of the 12 million members also follow the blog’s example (of alleged proselytizing) is lacking substance and has no validity nor any proof in reality.

/9/  This subject brings this dispute to another source (mentioned in the disputed sentence), being: http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/932823/ and which the editor used to accuse SGI of lack of religious tolerance. The mentioned source claims that a teacher at the University ( Ms Christoffersenat) was discriminated at because of her age and religion. The Court however dismissed that claim as the following source reveals: http://www.rickross.com/reference/gakkai/gakkai56.html and this means that the source provided by the editor was misleading and incorrect.

/10/  The claim in the disputed sentence that an unknown number (of the 12 million members organization) allegedly practice proselytizing is not supported by any factual incident or source including the last source of that sentence, which is: http://www.culthelp.info/index.php. This is a rumor spreading source, which has no endorsement of any professional side and I am also questioning the validity of that source as a Wikipedia approved reference. Thank you for your attention.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

"Yes"


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

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

Soka Gakkai Talk page


 * How do you think we can help?

Clarify validity of disputed sentence and sources.

SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Disputed sentence and its sources on Soka Gakkai page discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''


 * blogspot.de (or any other blog) is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. Delete anything in the article that is only backed up by a citation to a blog and delete the ref to the blog. Double check to make sure the statement in the article isn't found in a blog and a reliable source. It is easy to remove those by accident.


 * For those who are wondering why blogs are not reliable sources, consider this; I could write on a blog that Betty White invented the telephone, then I could put it in her Wikipedia article with a citation to the blog. (and we all know that Betty White invented the telegraph...) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To be honest all that had to be said about the issue has been raised in the articles’ talk section already. Authors like Montgomery, McLaughlin also used as reference bringing up the issue. An issue that is not even new, two EXAMPLES of WHERE proselytising has occurred and have been reported on were entered. Even the court ruling on the Soka University case is weak, as it deals with grounds on which the woman got sacked … it was not said that proselytising does not occur. Other editors have also informed Safwan on the issue of sources and references. To my mind the editor would just like not to see the issue being mentioned at all. By defaming sources arguing on the basis of Wikipedia guidelines the editor has actually proved he has no real knowledge of the guidelines. And finally as the author seems to be going on about the issue – nowhere does it say that all alleged 12 million members proselytise … the sentence is a summary of sources and references critical/sceptical of Soka Gakkai. I suggest to you to get familiar to why references are used in general.
 * To my mind the author has actually shown WHY Soka Gakkai is often criticised – its inability to face criticism. Rather than to deal with issues raised the messenger is being ‘attacked’. Typically those issues are then branded rumours originating form tabloids, same old story. And ... the Riverdale Press is not a blog. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please comment on article content, not on user conduct. Talking about other editors is not helpful. Criticizing other people is not a good way to resolve a content dispute. Please talk only about what should and should not be in the article and why. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on the above, the disputed sentence : “There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance[60] and proselytizing[61][62][63][64] practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members[65].” should be changed to meet Wikipedia guidelines, as presented in the following point by point for better clarity:

1/ The sentence’s allegation of controversy regarding “religious tolerance” depended on reference:[60]:http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/932823/ about a case, which was dismissed by the court. This part of the sentence and its reference has the potential to mislead Wikipedia readers about the subject as current or having validity - while there is none.The involved editor is criticizing the court’s decision, however, Wikipedia is not the place for criticizing the court as making wrong or weak decisions. This part of the sentence will be accordingly deleted. (It is also to be noted that the subject of “religious tolerance” is already mentioned in another paragraph in the article, following the disputed sentence).

2/ The sentence becomes: “There has been controversy about the degree of proselytizing[61][62][63][64] practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members[65].”, however:

3/ Because reference [61]: [Daniel B. Montgomery: Fire in the Lotus, Mandala 1991, p. 185-186] – meets Wikipedia guidelines, it should be kept as a valid,

4/ Reference [62] http://riverdalepress.blogspot.de/2009/03/ps-24-parents-call-for-principals.html is a blog (it reads “blogspot” ) and it admits that it presents a rumor. Rumors are not a Wikipedia approved source of information. The contents of that rumor was disputed even within the blog. Further, the reference contains statements of individuals who did not want to be named, indicating an atmosphere of bullying and threats associated with that tabloid type information. There are also many Anonymous comments put in the blog's discussion part about the rumor. This reference will be deleted.

5/ Reference [63]: http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=5600 is a summary and repetition of the previous rumor, and will be deleted. Basically the whole described rumor is based on “ some parents did not like a teacher, but other parents disagreed with them” - and this is not a quality of reliable reference.

6/ Reference [64]:http://ncsu.academia.edu/LeviMcLaughlin/Papers/1636042/Did_Aum_Change_Everything_What_Soka_Gakkai_Before_During_and_After_the_Aum_Shinrikyo_Affair_Tells_Us_About_the_Persistent_Otherness_of_New_Religions_in_Japan is inaccessible. Reference to a title-only of inaccessible text to readers is not a valid source of information about allegations in the text. A title of a document without text is not a Wikipedia approved source. This reference will be deleted whenever it appears unless full access and verifiability of the claims allegedly contained in the source are presented.

7/ Reference [65]: http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=867&Itemid=11&limit=1&limitstart=5 presents a POV of an unknown writer, in an article which was not published in any journal. This reference is used to wrongly generalize a POV of amonymous writer or group of writers - criticizing the attitude of “some” of the 12 million members organisation - but being unable to point to a single incident,  nor to even a single individual of the “some members” of the 12 million group. The quality of this reference, and its use here to generalize a stereotype over a whole group of people (a group which officially dismisses the allegation) all this does not support its use as a reliable or honestly-informative source, and it will be deleted. Finally the disputed sentence will become: ““There has been controversy about the degree of proselytizing[61] practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members.” Regards. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a question to Dispute Resolution Editors. You have mentioned that Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.. Following this, I resonded with the above 7 points of discussion about the disputed sentence. The opportunity was open to the editor involved (Catflap08) to have an input and cooperate, respond, discuss here on this page, but he failed to do so. There was no further addition to his previous input (focused on attacking the person). I have presented my points and suggested an alternative solution and invited for discussion here. I waited for a further discussion, but having no response, I took it as his acceptance to my suggested editing of the disputed sentence, and changed it accordingly with explanation on Talk page of the article.


 * Unfortunatelly, I was unfairly accused of vandalism and other rude remarks - and the disputed sentence was returned back to the Article, as if your opinion here or following the rules in applying to Dispute Resolution was meaningless!. I request your guidance on this situation. Regards.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Actually, I think the Riverdale Press blog might actually meet WP:USERG standards, which specifically indicates that "news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." I am not myself sure how to actually determine from the newspaper's "blog" site whether it actually meets those standards myself, because I actually haven't dealt with such sources before. But if it is, as it appears to be, a form of online edition of that newspaper, it probably would meet RS standards. I have sought outside input at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to the comment: The comment above does not help in resolving whether a blog can be used asa reliable source. Guy Macon says blogs are not reliable sources. John Carter says he is not sure. I request other Wikipedia editors to examine the matter, because it belongs to clarifying Wikipedia guidelines. To initiate an examination of whether a blogspot - and in particular the mentioned one - meets the guidelines I’d like to present the following points:


 * 1/ Wikipedia guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Usage_by_other_sources indicates: “Never use….blogs as a source for material about a living person” . The mentioned source in dispute is a blog, with a defaming rumor involving a living person (the teacher).


 * 2/ In Citing Sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sourcesources we find: “the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia”. Here we have an information about “controversy about proselytizing” supported by a blog which defines the information as a mere rumor.

I disagree with the editors (involved in supporting the blog) on accepting a rumor as a reference in Wikipedia article, whether it is on a blog or a rumor spreading -self confessed tabloid.


 * 3/ There is a problem of Anonymity, included in the blog. The blog indicates statements of individuals who “did not want to be named” and created a string of personal comments - similar to chat groups comments - with many identifying themselves as “ Anonymous”. Question to all Wikipedia Editors: Is a blog reporting a rumor and including anonymous contributors to the information, is this a reliable source? John mentions that blogs are acceptable if : “these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field”. In the examined case, the writer confesses of writing a rumor and the other contributors to that blog are not professionals, as they signed with “anonymous”.


 * 4/ The rumor-based information (contained in that disputed reference) was copied by another similar source. If a person repeats a lie or a rumor many times, that does not make it reliable. The other source which “copied and pasted” the same rumor meets also the same quality of lack of credibility.


 * 5/ If the opinion of other editors is to accept the disputed blog (and the second source which copied the rumor from that blog) then I suggest the following: the accurate citation by the editor(s) of the sentence should include that “there was a rumor about proselytizing”, and then add the blog as a reference. If the word rumor is not added to the citation, then the citation is misleading as it falsely claims that it is about proselytizing while it is about a rumor of a single incident of alleged proselytizing (and which was disputed by other individuals involved in the matter, as the blog itself mentions).


 * 6/  Both editors involved in this dispute ignored an important issue raised, being another false claim of the editor involved about “religious tolerance”. All rasied matters should be addressed, and this matter in particular is very important and should not be avoided: the disputed sentence starts with a claim of “controversy regarding religious tolerance”. To support this claim, a source citing a complaint by a certain individual about age discrimination and religious intolerance, in a case which went to the court and which was dismissed by the Court. The Court did not rule about any breach of religious tolerance referred to in that misleading source. I do not know about Wikipedia rules concerning criticising a Court’s decision on this page as being wrong or weak - as a justification of including a misleading information in the article.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We have a content noticeboard that specifically deals in source reliability, the reliable sources noticeboard. This matter has not gone through RS/N to my knowledge, and I check RS/N multiple times a day. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I was responding here to a comment which appeared on this page. Do I have to do something else, such as referring the contents to another board? and how? Appreciate your help.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * DRN doesn't have the kind of reliable sourcing experience that RSN has. You may wish to read WP:RS/N's instructions on how to ask a reliability question, as we're requiring editors to supply sufficient information to allow answers regarding reliability.  In future, if reliable sourcing issues come up, WP:RS/N may be the appropriate noticeboard to bring the reliability aspect of content disputes to.  Consulting RS/N can help clarify the reliability aspect of a dispute, and allow disputants to focus their attention on other aspects of the dispute to help produce the best articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarificationSafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC club dead or not


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

On the 14th June 2012 Rangers FC where officially confirmed as to be liquidated. Since then there have been a lot of POV pushing from both sides ie rival fans making a mockery of the situation, and supports not wanting to admit the demise of there club which was a very big club. However at the moment no one can agree on what to do with the article because of POV and conflicting sources saying different things. The biggest problem is are the club are company serperate as a lot of sources suggest or is the company the club as some other sources suggest. Also how the article should be as there is two ways similar clubs have had there articles done, one for new club or club page and a page about the liquidation process. There is also a problem with how people interrupt the sources.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

Yes apart from various ip users as there not listed what ips


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

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

There is loads and loads of discussion on the talk pages and at various users talk pages, the problems is there is users pushing pov and also taking advantage of the club demise to make a mockery of it, there is fans who dnt want to accept there club might be gone, there is problem with sources conflicting themselves, there is also user who contact sources and complainant there publish stuff wrongly so making source conflict even further. we had agreed back about 14th june to wait and see what happens and not to create a new page for the new company as no one knows the final outcome and what is truly happen, someone created it and now that is in afd, whoever created went against consensus and made the page and now the old page got constant abuse the admin have fully protected it and forcing discussion on the talk pages. There has also been discussion at the project page but most editors seem not to want to get involved because it such a sensitive issue and they do not want fans of the club or opposing fans say there taking sides.


 * How do you think we can help?

hopefully by having someone neutral look at the sources and the arguments and hopefully not got much knowledge in football (soccer) that a cones-us can be reached and agreed on, as then no one can say that it is conflict of interest or pov pushing and who can read the sources and determine what they might be saying

Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC club dead or not discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * Here is what I think. The Rangers Football Club PLC are Rangers as we have always known them. They have went through 2 name changes, they started as The Rangers Football Club in 1872, they then became a Ltd Company in 1899, changed their name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd, in 1995 they became a PLC and changed their name again to The Rangers Football Club PLC, who as we know are currently in Administration/Liquidation and soon to be dissolved. That is the long and short of it. Sevco Scotland(new Rangers) could basically be anyone, technically a Hearts fan could have went to Rangers administrators instead of Charles Green and bought all the assets to a new Club called Hearts of Scotland. Just to finish off, technically they are not dead yet they are still alive but about to be dissolved(dead). I would also like to add anyone who believes Rangers still exist would need to provide proof that Rangers FC are basically a Fictional Non-entity that only exists in the mind, because those people refuse to accept that The Rangers Football Club PLC is Rangers and claim that The Rangers Football Club PLC were just the owners of Rangers, however if they were just the owners then the "club" would be an asset of The Rangers Football Club PLC which would mean they exist in The Rangers Football Club PLC's annual accounts but obviously they do not as The Rangers Football Club PLC are Rangers. So there is two options - (1) The Rangers Football Club PLC are Rangers and Sevco Scotland Limited are new Rangers or (2) Rangers FC are a Fictional non-entity that only exist as people say they exist and they can be whatever people want them to be.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I plan to put both sides of the argument and my own opinions later, my problem realtes to what the sources say and as wikipedia editor i cant use my POV against what sources say Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite to this. Not really my specialism but if pushed it looks, on the face of it, more of a Darlington/Halifax scenario than a Leeds United one. That's because - by hook or by crook - Leeds got a creditor agreement. As such I'd say two articles would be better in this case. Ie. a separate one for the phoenix club/NewCo type thingy which will apparently start in the lower leagues, if it gets off the ground at all. I have some sympathy with the contributors who want to "wait and see" how it all pans out but the problem with that is that it could take years. Meanwhile the existing articles remain in a misleading or innacurate state. I found my way to the discussion after checking the Rangers L.F.C. article and was shocked and surprised that basically NONE of all this stuff was on the main Rangers FC page. That situation has improved now and I'm sure that by working together you guys will get things right whether you decide to have one big article or two. Good luck! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The decision on the entry point of the newco into the Scottish football structure is likely within 2 weeks. Leaky  Caldron  17:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The comment about Leeds United is exactly the point - while Leeds United managed to escape liquidation at the last minute, Rangers are going to be liquidated. Liquidated clubs do sometimes lead to new clubs that claim to be a continuation, but they are new clubs with new articles. Airdrieonians and Airdrie United sees itself as the successor club. Halifax Town A.F.C. was liquidated and FC Halifax Town is the successor club. Chester City FC was liquidated and Chester FC sees itself as the successor club. Rangers FC should be no different just because it was so huge - it is being liquidated and the successor club is in process of getting established. By the way, I think it is significant that the advert on the Rangers website promoting the Rangers strip for 2012/13 speaks about "The Spirit lives on" - an acknowledgement that it is a new club. It also speaks about getting the 'new Rangers strip' but the word new is in red to stand in contrast to the rest of the statement - again, an acknowledgement that the old Rangers is finished. I realise that Rangers fans find this hard, but Wikipedia has to take a NPOV approach to these matter: Rangers FC should be about the club until 2012, and a separate article is needed for the new entity. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * but that is your pov and interposition of what it says on the site, i agree with you the club is dead, but we cant refute the source saying it is alive i agree some have a vested interest to make sure it is, but we cant say we ignore one source because it doesn't suit what we want on wikipeida, we have to be neutral. ill reply later tonight or tomorrow with my onion and views, so it is clear what my pov is, but then ill put my argument which supports both dies of the argument as i believe both are correct Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Im going to ignore the sentiment of your statement re new strip because that is your point of view and should not be taken into consideration. However originally (still do) i felt that eventually we should go down the new club route however as long as there is equal sources disagreeing then we should of stayed with one article until we could factually state one way or another. Some sources link club and company as one and others don't. The way the main article was before Superbhoy and a few others edit warred rather than actually spending time to gain a consensus was as neutral as it could be for now and had stopped edit warring. Superbhoy ignored the consensus on the talk page and pushed ahead creating a new article and editing the main page against that. Im not saying he is right or wrong just that he won't listen to anyone unless its his version of events. In the form of the new entity they have set that up so that club and company will not be the same as they will have two boards and operate separately this is so they cant bring each other down so Sevco and club aren't one in the same. In regards to Airdrieonians F.C. they purchased another club Clydebank F.C. so thats a different situation. At this time we have two articles neither of which are either accurate or neutral. A draft article should be drawn up for the main page and be worked on to make it accurate and neutral and form a consensus. My opinion is the new article is factually wrong and cannot be deemed accurate until all the events have actually happened and we know more, that will gradually come out over the coming weeks. I think that should be redirected to Rangers F.C. or a brand new article Liqudation of Rangers where the content probably belongs, and then once we have sources that agree they are separate and have proof of the name of the new club not just the company name then we can recreate it. Wouldn't have any objection whatsoever to that but for now its unclear. Edinburgh   Wanderer  18:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just an idea why don't we create here a list of sources that state club and company are the same and equally a list of ones that don't define them as the same and then get outside opinion on which way to go that is what Dispute res is for after all. Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I plan to edinburgh and my opinion is the same as your eh club is getting liquidated but sources are saying there serpentine and we should wait and see how it unfolds then create articles move articles etc and that was the cones-us we all agreed on. Bit busy just now but i am hoping to write up my statement and then write up argument for it be a new club with sources i can find people are welcome to add to what i get, and argument for the club and company are serpentine with sources i can find again people are welcome to edit. I just wish we could have all agreed on the talk page but i dnt think it will happen because of POV Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andrewcrawford for creating this talk page. Right now I see that the oldco is the club that holds the history but no assets that'll not play again. newco is a company that owns all the assets but not the history and holds no permit to play so is barely a football club. I think that we should keep the two articles like this until it becomes clear whether newco gains a permit to play in a league at which point we can discuss whether that should be in a separate article from the old Rangers FC.--Dingowasher (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Until such point as the "newco" is even confirmed as a footballing entity it makes little sense for us to declare it to be "Rangers", and even then our precedent for recent phoenix clubs is to assign them new articles even if they are regarded as spiritual successors to defunct entities. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All this arguing is because people think they understand what is meant by "Wikipedia is not a news service" but they don't. It means among other things that if we wait until the fourth of July meeting to find whether the new company becomes a "footballing entity" then it doesn't matter. It means we don't have to comment on this metamorphosis on a day by day basis. It means we don't have to do anything for the sake of doing it. Personally I think that the new company will be treated as the old club when the other clubs vote them back into the Premier League, because voting for the loss of the Rangers' support would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I could be wrong: but there's no point in rushing. Just because you can do things instantly doesn't mean you should. Britmax (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Britmax with Inverness and Aberdeen joining Hearts, Hibs and Dundee Utd in saying no to the New Club being promoted from the wilderness to the SPL then they won't be promoted.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Aberdeen have said the statement published the other day isn't theirs and until the vote is done we cant take a press release for granted they could change there mind episcopally if they get pressure from a bank manager dent forget that why david murrey sold rangers because of the bank and the bank will have far great say than supporter, if any of those club have any sort of debt that a reduction in income might mean they wont repay the bank will force there hands so let not jump the gun, but i dent think they will get back in i hope they dint. secondly they wouldn't have been promoted if they do get accepted they be replacing the old one ie like for like Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ingore mt statement on aberdeen just seen the news rangers will be voite no by aberdeen Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it certainly would appear turkeys are voting for Christmas as Britmax put it. That's five announced they will vote against. Aberdeen, Inverness, Hibernian, Hearts and Dundee United.[ http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18577192] Love the analogy though. Edinburgh   Wanderer  16:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well that surprises me but not as much as you might think. I've been wrong before and I'm still breathing. Excuse me, however, if I reserve judgement until we see how the turkeys actually vote. None of this, incidentally, reflects what I think should happen. It's just my view on what probably will happen. Britmax (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the conclusive proof by Rangers, SFA and UEFA that Rangers are dying, the pictures are of the important bits, the websites are the sources of the pictures:-


 * Established
 * http://www.plus-sx.com/companies/plusCompanyDetail.html?securityId=10824
 * http://i47.tinypic.com/1feomo.jpg


 * Rangers Football Club PLC aka the Club
 * http://www.plus-sx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/RangersPublicCensureFeb2012.pdf;jsessionid=9EA142C7247E4F79D12253203EE173C8
 * http://www.plus-sx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/RangersFCDisciplinaryNoticeFeb2012.pdf;jsessionid=9EA142C7247E4F79D12253203EE173C8
 * http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495830
 * http://i46.tinypic.com/33b35fr.jpg
 * http://i48.tinypic.com/ja9swl.jpg
 * http://i47.tinypic.com/xpbscj.jpg


 * Full Member
 * http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/09%20Articles.pdf
 * http://i50.tinypic.com/1enw34.jpg
 * http://i45.tinypic.com/2vd6738.jpg


 * Legal Entity
 * http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartThree-UEFAClubLicensing/03%20The%20Club%20as%20Licence%20Applicant%20and%20Licence%20%282%29.pdf
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28business%29
 * http://i47.tinypic.com/21jt8o8.jpg


 * Company and Club
 * http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/fe/a8/0,,5~174334,00.pdf
 * http://i49.tinypic.com/2eujzq1.jpg
 * http://i45.tinypic.com/2wf0nzt.jpg --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As can be gathered from a lot of the above, the precise situation Rangers Football Club finds itself in is currently uncertain. Much of what has been discussed depends on how you chose to define the club, as opposed to the company that owns and controls it, as opposed to the team, as opposed to the position held within the league, as opposed to the fans, as opposed to its history. Current guidelines in Wikipedia regarding football clubs are not clear on the situation, simply because it is an unusual situation that only has a few, similar to some extent, precedents. Sources are also unclear, with much disagreement, conflicting interpretation and speculation. However, things are slowly clarifying.

But this hasn't stopped some editors straining to implement sweeping changes based on their own preferred interpretation of events and indulging in synthesis. My position is that nothing radical should be done at this stage until the dust settles. That isn't going to happen for a few weeks at best. Wikipedia is not a newsfeed. It doesn't need to be a constant stream of the latest guesses, speculation and theories. It shouldn't be attempting to establish facts, it should be collating them, after they are established.

If, after suitable time, it appears that reliable sources are generally reporting that the new owning company is a continuation of the club, then I see no no reason to break Wikipedia into separate articles. If it is generally being reported as a new club, then it should be divided suitably, according to consensus. Personally, I see a football club as being somewhat more than a company and it is a mistake simply to regard the situation as an acquisition of assets from a liquidated company and establishment of a new. Football clubs are as much a social and cultural entity, consisting of things that cannot be made bankrupt and sold.-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I take it your a Rangers fan with their head in the sand? I have a shovel you can use to dig yourself out, if you want to smell the coffee any time soon. Football Club's are not Fictional Entities that only exist in the mind. They are Real Life, they can die and they can begin. As The Rangers Football Club and Sevco Scotland prove. One is dying, the other has been born. --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * superbhoy please keep the discussion nice Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Having made clear your allegiances so prominently, I suppose you would have difficulty with the idea that not everyone here has an agenda. Your opinion is noted, please do not confuse it with fact. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 18:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok here is my POV and opinions on the subject they are bold because it what i believe not what i am [pushing. It is my belief that Rangers F.C. the club is gone and once liquidation is complete no longer exist just like Third Lanark and Gretna. Ok arguments for the club and company being serperate so the history carries on, a lot of sources say that the history continues on and that club and company are serperate entities. Sources http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18452212 "Season ticket income looks vital if he's to avoid pitching the club back into administration. So Charles Green now has control of the assets, but faces hostility from his customers." suggests that it is the same club, as if it was a new club you could not put it back into administration http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/18417312#asset http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18496571 http://www.oldsquare.co.uk/pdf_articles/3100105.pdf "specifically the section that states; ISSUE ONE: THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER TUPE APPLY 2. It is now clearly established that, in order to decide whether TUPE apply to a particular transaction, it is necessary to ask two questions: 2.1 does the function which is being transferred constitute an economic entity? 2.2 will that entity retain its identity after the transfer? As TUPE has already been established to apply in the case of Rangers then they must have satisfied the courts already that they are the same economic entity as before and they have therefore retained their economic identity." http://mlm-solutions.blogspot.co.uk/p/live-event-page.html "Q. After the liquidation/death of Rangers FC PLC and the creation of a brand new legal entity, when can/does the new company become a new club? A. As of yesterday, the new company operates the club. Of course, it does not yet have membership of either the SPL or SFL, which is an essential rquirement for any professional football club." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18417120 "the history of the club remains with the club, so the club moves from Rangers Plc into the new company and all of the titles and 140-year history will remain with the club." http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/25/uk-soccer-rangers-idUKBRE85O0WP20120625?feedType=RSS&feedName=sportsNews "this is talking about the parent company being liquidated but not the club" http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18560798 "this is a interesting one it says early in the article the club and history does not exist, but later on says '"The formation of a new company is not the issue. The players would be playing for the same club - Rangers - in front of the same fans.' so saying the club still exist in it current form" http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18592410 "The Edinburgh club are still owed £800,000 from Rangers for the player." if it is a new club they would not owe the club anything as there be no debts, uefa or fifa rules state that football debt transfer to the new company but a club who is only related to a old club by name does not bear the old club debt owned http://www.football.co.uk/rangers/green_aiming_as_high_as_possible_for_rangers_rss2446203.shtml "The issue is complicated by uncertainty over Scottish Football Association action, with an appeal hearing due against Rangers before Green bought the club's assets and business."There are sanctions that could withdraw the club's ability to play," Green said. "Part of my job is to work through the issues and make sure we're playing football and we're playing football at Ibrox for many years to come."" if it was new club they would not face sanction for a club that is not them, ie the new club only shares a name with another club so can not face sanctions from another club but if the club counties then they can http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18418513 " And it stresses that either way, the sale goes on and Rangers, the team, does too." http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html "  This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA"), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA and by the Judicial Panel Protocol which sets out the disciplinary rules relating to the conduct of members of the SFA and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to enforce such rules. " this is very complying source it is goverment website for scottish law

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18687492 '"We are acutely aware that events at our club, brought about by people who are no longer here, have triggered a crisis in Scottish football," he said. "Ally McCoist, the staff and players have nothing to apologise for.

"But the club needs to make an apology. It is only right that someone expresses our sorrow and regret."' if it is a new club they wouldn't apologise for a club they dnt own and wouldn't talk about people who are no longer there, also " the old company was consigned to liquidation " doesnt say club

Now i will present agruments for it being the club and company are the same so club is liquidated http://www.itv.com/sport/football/news/rangers-administration-timeline-19732/ "June 14 - Charles Green completes purchase of Rangers assets and business following the club's liquidation, hours after a consortium led by former manager Walter Smith makes a late bid." http://www.clyde2.com/news/local/rangers-pair-reject-contract-transfer2012-06-24T06-06-25/ http://www.itv.com/sport/football/news/newco-rangers-set-for-spl-rejection-11233/ "Green needs seven other clubs as well as the soon-to-be liquidated Rangers to vote in his favour at a meeting next Wednesday and, unless there is a U-turn from at least one chairman, there will be no top-flight football at Ibrox next season." http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/7812988/Newco-will-be-The-Rangers-FC- "The decision means the troubled club will now be liquidated with prospective owner Charles Green hoping to confirm his newco which will be known as 'The Rangers Football Club'." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2163893/Steven-Naismith-Steven-Whittaker-reject-transfer-new-Rangers.htmlRangers duo Naismith and Whittaker reject contract transfer to new company "Whittaker remarked that: "We owe no loyalty to the new club, there is no history there for us." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18603617 " The consortium led by Charles Green believe the players' contracts should transfer from the old, soon-to-be liquidated Rangers. " Now as can be seen there is realible sources pointing to it be the club and the company getting liquidated, but there is also realible sources pointing to the PLC getting liquidated and not the company and the club are a serperate entity and has been tranfer to the newco, this is wher ehte problems stems no one really knows and until it is made clear we cant say the club is dead.

I am goign to try summerise what is disputed.


 * Rangers FC PLC (this is not dispute as far as i can tell by anyone)
 * Rangers FC and Rangers FC PLC are sereperate entites as source can confirm
 * Rangers FC PLC is the club so not serperate entities so the club is liquidated sources can confirm this to
 * Rangers History is transfer to the new club if it is deemed a new club
 * The Rangers Football Club LTD is a new club
 * Who is teh owner of Rangers FC PLC Craig Whyte or Charles Green conflicting sources say one and the other
 * Playing squad should it be empty since the players have been trasnfer to the newco via TUPE again this matter after a decision on the article ie is the club dead or not

If i have missed anything please post, post any sources for either side of the arguement witha quote if possible ill add ot the list, can everyone involve say there thoughts on my opinions and my summary and soruces please :)-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Far too much info here for genuinely uninvolved, non-partisan editors to comprehend the arguments, WP:TL;DR. In my opinion the Administration & insolvency material should be the subject of a separate article, written from a neutral point of view. That article will form a bridge between the existing article and the new or between old & new sections of an extended single Rangers article. Leaky  Caldron  16:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * i agree that article on adminsitration liquidation etc is required, but that doe snto solve the underlying problem that pov pusher are trying to amke the article one way or the other, the problem is we cant say for one way or another if it a new club or not the osurces are conflicting-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@STVGrant: It's Sevco 5088 because Green isn't operating a football club at present. If/when he gets Rangers' SFA membership, he's operating Rangers FC. There appears to be a growing consensus in the media that it is the same club IF Green can get Rangers share back — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadSynergy (talk • contribs) 16:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)--BadSynergy (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Andrew. I've told you before but it's worth repeating, there is no need to rush. If the article is a bit flaky for a while, so what? Stick a non-neutral tag on it until the dust settles. Leaky  Caldron  16:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * i know there no point in rushing and that is what i and others agreed early in the discussion on the talk page but POV pushers from both sides have made this debate so for now i want to get the cheapness to wait and that until we know for sure we cant make claims im in agreness with you but POV will not stop so by forcing this to weird discussion then a conesus hopefully can be reached Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Andrew see your very first BBC link source thing up there, its a contradition on what your trying to say from the off. Your trying to say the Club has never even been in administration or is in liquidation because its only a company that is so how could a club go "back into administration" if it has never been in administration to start with, because its never come out of administration which means its now in liquidation. I haven't hid my allegiances, as you see from my name im a Celtic fan and am still dancing and consuming Jelly and Ice Cream at their death. PS. The only source that the club isnt part of the company is that there would be an asset called "the club" or whatever in Rangers accounts but there isnt... oh and take a swatch at this:- http://i48.tinypic.com/afemhv.jpg "SALE OF THE CLUBS BUSINESS AND ASSETS"--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Charles Green has his say http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2qlOISpN_4&feature=youtu.be --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * i dnt take green comment with more than a pinch of salt or should that be a heap ;) no what i am trying to say with the first bbc one is for a club to go back into administration ie i think like Motherwell the club has to exist but if it is a new club then it is impossible to go back into administration do you understand what i mean now. the point i am making is there is conflicting information out there so we cant call it in Wikipedia sense that the club is dead until we have sources all more a less saying the same thing we cat make Wikipedia take sides and the way we have 2 articles and they have people pov means the article dnt comply with Wikipedia policies. now on personal note i agree with you completely rangers are dead or my opinion is the newco/club cause in my opinion it is a new club i wont follow it aint rangers in my books should be booted out the spl and go to div3 or lower if they introduce feeder league into div3 with this restructuring i email all the chairmen of the spl clubs and gave my vote for them voting no Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Try to get consensus one way or another
Can we please discuss which way forward, and get consensus whether that is to use two articles or one so we can get both articles or one article correct there both inaccurate Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html " This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA"), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA and by the Judicial Panel Protocol which sets out the disciplinary rules relating to the conduct of members of the SFA and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to enforce such rules. " this is very complying source it is goverment website for scottish law, now that state rangers plc own ranger football club two serpentine entries so this source holds more weight than any source since it from Scottish courts which has to adhere to law


 * LC, if you read Andrewcrawford's user page you may wish to strike your comments. Writegeist (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Dyslexia IS a literacy problem. LC is correct. Rather than just explaining bad spelling, we should correct it to make it legible to the rest of the world, which is what I have now done. This doesn't have to be seen as criticism of Andrewcrawford, just assistance. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * hilo48 dsylexica effects the ability to write as well at least in the uk, i think america it only affect reading as it is defined but i have problem with writing and the post complained about i did spell check but since i cant spell at all teh spell checker cant fix it please understand it not as simple as you think use a spell checker if you have no idea how a word is spelt then when you get options of say 5 options how do you choose? i will try spell a word i find hard and then put all the options it gives me and give the word i was trying to spell and see if you can work out what i tried ot say if you want me to show how bad it is for me, for example dsylexica it has 5 options   lexical   Mexican   dyslectic   despicable do you think any of them are saying what the word i am trying to say is? how do i choose the right one if any are the right one ? Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)



Rangers F.C. is not going to be liquated, it is The Rangers F.C. Plc that is going to be liquated. The club cannot be liquated, as it is not a body corporate, only the business arm is being dissolved. This is getting ridiculous, their needs to be a final consensus on the Club v Company question so we can move on.

It is my opinion that the 1899 company being liquated should be mentioned heavily in the Rangers F.C. history article. The clubs and its players and officals are of the opinion the history continues and the golden thread from 1872 has not been broken. If any user is to debate this, please make clear what the situation of Rangers F.C. was 1872 until 1889, should all that history be discounted? The club is more than just a corporate entity.Johnelwaq (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * From 1872 until 1899. Rangers FC was a football club without the protection that 'limited liability' would have given those who were running the club's finances. The club therefore registered as a company in 1899 to gain these benefits - the club was now also a company and the company was the club. Now we find that the club/company is so massively in debt that it cannot pay, and no-one was willing to buy it because of those debts - a CVA proposal having failed, it is now going to be liquidated. The End. (Except that the spirit of the club lives on in the hearts of its supporters and a new club is being formed to carry forward that spirit.) Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't know how this is going be resolved really because each side can pick from a variety of sources to back up their claim. However do we take the word of a couple of journalists? Or do we take the word of insolvency experts and the SFA? Just to put it out there IMO Rangers the club is separate from the plc just by going with HMRC and BDO statements. However I don't see a resolution coming anytime soon when you have editors like SuperBhoy who decides upon himself to create a new page on a whim when there was many sources stating the opposite to what his page claimed. BadSynergy (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We all know its a new club BadSynergy wether Rangers/Sevco Scotland fans like to admit it or not. The SFA said "Sevco Scotland" have applied for an SFA License to become a member club - this wouldnt be needed if they were Rangers as they are already a member club. I could be here all day proving it but here's Sevco Scotland Chief Executive in his own words telling it like it is.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2qlOISpN_4 --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again you fail to grasp that there is a variety of sources stating the opposite of what you claim including the SFA. That's why I said I don't see a consensus being reached anytime soon as Wikipedia relays on sources not POV's. -BadSynergy (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And once again Superbhoy1888 produces his own preferred interpretation of events that aren't supported by the sources. Sevco Scotland have not applied to be a member club, they have applied for Rangers, the club owned by Sevco Scotland, to be a member club.  Superbhoy1888 might like to read the cite he himself last placed on the Newco Rangers article that contradicts what he's saying here.  That's not to say it's right, but it simply spells out that the situation is very open to different interpretations and not finalised yet.
 * Whether you regard that Rangers, owned by Sevco Scotland, to be a continuation of the previous Rangers, owned by the company entering liquidation, is a matter of opinion. It's got to the point of splitting hairs, but as long as some editors are willing to present their opinions as facts, it has to be done.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * i will be taking this to informal mediation because this is not good for wikipedia we have articles/articles that have so many problems, it is alos bad that the medaitors here have choosen nto to get invovled and some users have choosen not to be invovled but i do welcome the ones who have regardless of your view it better there views and comment than not bothering Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Everybody seems to accept that Rangers FC is currently a member of the SFA. In that case, could someone who is arguing that Rangers FC is both alive and will survive the liquidation process explain what need is there for Sevco Scotland to seek SFA membership? If Rangers FC is not dying, surely its membership of the SFA will live on? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said on talk page Fishiehelper Green's company needs that share otherwise Rangers don't have a league to play. This isn't a brand new club requesting a place in Scottish football, it's a club trying to stay in it. BadSynergy (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

BadSynergy when did the SFA claim anything different? Sevco Scotland does not own Rangers, The Rangers FC Group Ltd(owned by Craig Whyte) owns Rangers(The Rangers Football Club PLC). Sevco Scotland are nothing at all to do with Rangers, they have no connection other than they were the (soon to be) Football Club who bought their assets. It is a Brand New Club trying to join Scottish Football BadSynergy--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats an incredible distortion of what is currently happening. Sevco own Rangers however without the clubs share Rangers will be a club without a league to play in. Look at the SFL's brochure talking about loss of income if Rangers are thrown out of Scottish football. Nothing about letting in a brand new club. SFL'S chairmen want the club to start in Div 3 because of breaking the rules. If its a new club why are these officials talking about it being the same club? BadSynergy (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No its not its the truth.

Has it never crossed your mind that if the "companies" owned the "clubs" then the "clubs" would be assets of the "companies" and that they would be in every single set of that clubs accounts. The reason that the "club" isnt listed as an asset of the "company" is that the club is the company. Clubs are Legal Entities, they are Incorporations, they are companies. --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * http://i48.tinypic.com/ja9swl.jpg .jpg
 * http://i47.tinypic.com/xpbscj
 * http://i47.tinypic.com/xpbscj.jpg
 * http://i50.tinypic.com/1enw34.jpg
 * http://i49.tinypic.com/2eujzq1.jpg
 * http://i45.tinypic.com/2wf0nzt.jpg
 * http://i47.tinypic.com/21jt8o8.jpg
 * Like I said earlier I could bring up sources to support my claim and you could bring up sources to support yours. Until there's something clear and defined I can't see this dispute ending anytime soon. BadSynergy (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No you couldn't. Do it then, show me where Rangers FC or Rangers Football Club exist as a "club" written down in a set of accounts or whatever by Rangers, SFA, Administrators or Charles Green in an official document. Just like I have just showed you how Rangers say they "became" as company, not were taken over by one, also say they "were incorporated", how that the SFA says a member "is a club", and that a club is a "legal entity", a legal entity is a company, UEFA state that legal entities are the only clubs who can get a UEFA license that means clubs who are not companies cannot take part, this is because clubs that arent companies cannot legally accept or distribute payments as it would be illegal. You will find nowhere, not a single place on the planet where Rangers FC are a club owned by The Rangers Football Club PLC or Sevco Scotland Limited as they are not. Rangers FC was a name used by The Rangers Football Club PLC as a trade name, they owned the Trademark and now Sevco Scotland own it, they now own the trademark name of Rangers Football Club too, these are not clubs, they are names and nothing but names like I for example could be legally named "John Brown" but everyone could call me "Mad Ugly Alkie Fruitcake" and everyone would know me by that name, that doesnt mean its my Legal name, on my passport it would still say "John Brown" this is the same for Rangers, their real name is The Rangers Football Club PLC, Rangers FC and Rangers Football Clubs were just names they can be reffered to because they own the copyright, they copyrighted them so that no other clubs or people for that matter could call themselves it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * as has been said many times any source that shows that it is opposite to you you either ingore it or refrut it, ok here is a question for you as i do enjoy your post even though you push your pov you do still respond civilly, do you accept that some sources say the club lives on and that the plc dies? if so do you accept this causes a a problem because how can we represent both sides on wikipedia which reliable sources say both sides of the argument are correct Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with this dispute is that some editors are using the excuse 'the sources contradict' as a cover for the fact that they are unwilling to accept the reality of the situation. I asked a perfectly simple question about why there was a need for Sevco to apply for SFA membership if they 'owned' Rangers FC and Rangers FC is already a member. Answer? Well that question is never actually answered directly - loads of stuff about anything else, but a refusal or inability to address that central question. The reason is obvious - Sevco Scotland has to apply for SFA membership because it is a new club, formed to replace Rangers FC that is being liquidated. This is exactly what happened to Halifax Town which was liquidated and reformed as a new club - and there are two separate articles for each of those two separate entities. Why should Rangers FC be treated any differently on Wikipedia than Halifax Town? Rangers having more supporters (and more supporters who also edit Wikipedia) shouldn't be accepted as sufficient reason. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sevco have to apply for SFA membership because the club had its membership revoked, because the company that ran it is going into liquidation. This is against the rules of the SFA, as running a club in such a manner is not conducive to a fair and competitive league of good standing. This means the new company buying over Rangers has to re-apply to get back in. (See here for a reliable source that summarises it thus, "Rangers crisis explained".) Straight enough answer? Whether this should result in two Wikipedia articles depends on how the new Rangers is generally perceived by reliable sources.  It it is regarded as the same club, in the same location, the same fans, the same manager, and many of the same players and staff, then it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to state otherwise.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not so. Rangers FC has not had its membership revoked. Rangers FC continues at present to be a member club of the SFA. However, when Rangers FC PLC is finally liquidated the club (which is the company) dies with it. Also, no new company bought Rangers - no-one would buy it because of its massive debts. Instead, once it entered liquidation process, its assets were bought by a totally separate and unconnected company. This company is now applying for SFA membership. As for the 'same club, in the same location, the same fans' - that was Halifax Town A.F.C. which was liquidated and started again as FC Halifax Town - two separate articles on wikipedia for the two separate clubs. Any reason that Rangers should be treated any differently on wikipedia? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So my cite is wrong and yours is ... non-existent. As I've said all along, there are a number of ways this can be interpreted.  Your favoured one is just one of these.  You say club=company, others say company is just part of what makes a club.  You have no basis in deciding that yours is better or more accurate than any other because it's simply worthless POV founded on synthesis. Reliable sources will make the decision for you in due course. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * With no offense to those sources though, I know they are incorrect. Because a Club is a Company, it has to be to function in the SPL and in UEFA Competitions. Like ive said before, if Rangers were merely a club owned by The Rangers Football Club PLC, then they would be an asset of it and feature in everysingle set of accounts that they've ever published. But they are not, Rangers are The Rangers Football Club PLC, as you will see on official documents, such as announcements of shares, takeovers, going into admin etc. The Rangers Football Club PLC will reffer to themself as The Rangers Football Club PLC("the Club" or "Rangers FC" or "Rangers Football Club") thats an actual legal thing they do to make it clear that when ever they refer to "the Club" or "Rangers FC" or "Rangers Football Club" they are talking about The Rangers Football Club PLC and just using those informal names. 1872 The Rangers Football Club are born, 1899 they change their name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd, its a legal formality that you MUST change your name to include either Ltd or Limited when you become a Limited company and in 1995 they became a PLC and changed their name to The Rangers Football Club PLC, likewise you need to add PLC to your legal name when you become a PLC. Like the guy above states "sources contradicting" means absolutley nothing, Sevco are not Rangers and cannot ever be, because Rangers are The Rangers Football Club PLC--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Here again is more total and utter conclusive proof. This is what Duff and Phelps say on their letter proposing the CVA http://i46.tinypic.com/2rc8oeo.jpg "Sale of the Clubs business and assets" not sale of the Club, the club like ive been pointing out all along is The Rangers Football Club PLC it cannot be sold by anyone except Craig Whyte who owns it but it would be pointless to own it as its now going to be dissolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

nither of you two understand the main prinicple of wikipedia sources not opinion or pov and what your giving is oyur pov and how oyu see the sources, i will rpeat i dnt deny you are right but you are also wrong with regard of wikipedia because sources say both wikipedia is not about you or me it is about showing the osurces and what they say, the fact both of you are not willing to you accept wikipedia polcieis you could end up getitng warning for yoru behviour i aint goign to personal do it but i am trying to give you both warning you are both turning your nose up at sources, the most relible sources are liqudiators, courts and sfa all of which same it is the same club when we cna get sources saying what you say then i will be on your side like i was in teh first plce until i start finding source saying the oher way and as wikpedian editor i cant ingore them even though i dnt agree ith them Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC) posting last source before taking to informal meditaion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18687492 '"We are acutely aware that events at our club, brought about by people who are no longer here, have triggered a crisis in Scottish football," he said.

"Ally McCoist, the staff and players have nothing to apologise for.

"But the club needs to make an apology. It is only right that someone expresses our sorrow and regret."' if it is a new club they wouldn't apologise for a club they dnt own and wouldn't talk about people who are no longer there, also " the old company was consigned to liquidation " doesnt say club Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realise that the quote is from the Chairman of Newco Rangers - the club that is trying to persuade fans that it is the continuation of Rangers FC so that they will buy season tickets! Hardly a source that can be relied upon! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * yes but we can not decide if it true or not based on that that is original research the source says teh club is alive but i can find and will put more sources that shows bbc as with otehr sources reports in one article the club is alive not jsut that one but other but in other article says the club is liquidated that is why this is not clear cut decision the founded 1873 is clear cut so can be changed as i said on teh tlak page i will for now until we get a consense on the dispute of club dead or not i will support it being two articles and we make both article reflec t what ther emeant to be if the dispute consense later on decided one articles we will merger it all together Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN. It does not appear to me that anyone who is not involved in this dispute is willing at this point in time to step in to work on this dispute, nor does it appear that the discussion is making any real progress on its own. Under those circumstances, if I am correct, it would be much better for this discussion to be taking place at its proper place on the talk page of the article and/or perhaps moving on to a merger discussion or a request for comments. Unless someone is willing to say there is some benefit in keeping this thread open or unless some volunteer steps in to take it on, I am going to close it as intractable 24 hours after 19:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC). Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * i am in process of taking it to rfc as even with a volunteer i dnt think a consensus will be reach because the situation isnt clear cut and secondly pov pushers on both sides re not willing to back down so rfc will although outside input from neutral hopefully no knowledge of the subject to make neutral discession Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Age of consent, To Catch a Predator


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

Flyer22 believes that I am incompetent in editing the age of consent/age of majority articles and should possibly be topic banned, although she hesitated later on and said she may not try topic ban me

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

Not yet. I am not allowed to post on Flyer22's talk page so I cannot.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

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

Yes, I have tried talking to various editors about it and they have all ignored me. I have tried talking to Flyer22 about it and she has accused me of stalking her. I have improved my editing in terms of it all being sourced except for very well known facts, which was her previous main criticism, but she has other criticisms, such as the belief that the vast majority of my edits are sloppy. She also has suggested that I'm biased.

By determining whether or not my edits in the articles related to age of consent and age of majority, are bad enough to warrant a topic ban in that sector. --RJR3333 (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you think we can help?

RJR3333 (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Age of consent, To Catch a Predator discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''


 * A simple question. What are you asking us to do? If someone believes that you should be topic banned from a subject (if this is indeed the case - you have provided no evidence), so what? We can't prevent people believing things, self-evidently. Flyer22 is in no position to unilaterally topic ban you anyway - he/she isn't even an admin - and topic bans are brought about under specific processes, rather than at the whim of individuals: see Topic ban. Unless and until a topic ban is proposed, there is nothing to decide, and no dispute to resolve. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See the Age of consent discussion at the To Catch a Predator talk page, then here (which shows one of several instances where RJR3333 has repeatedly violated WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK), then here and here (for how RJR3333 is constantly and inappropriately posting about me across various talk pages, while also misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I or others have stated; for example, there was no "later hesitation"; I initially stated that I was very close to requesting a topic ban on him, but also used the words "whether or not I request a topic ban," which of course indicates uncertainty of doing so). The editor has inappropriately discussed me on so many different pages now over the last few days, obviously including this one, that I am tempted to call this harassment. What he has considered harassment in terms of my interaction with him has been me correcting his edits and advising him to defer to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as WP:LEAD, WP:TALK, and WP:CONSENSUS. The consensus regarding the lead of the To Catch a Predator article, as stated in the Reasons not to archive ALL of this talk page discussion (where RJR3333 absurdly asserted that I acted inappropriately by archiving old and settled discussions), has been that there is no false impression given by using "age of consent" or including the show's age range without any qualifiers, as recently as Zadignose's comment on the matter. RJR3333 didn't listen to him either, and Zadignose obviously considers RJR3333 just as hard-headed and disruptive as I do. RJR3333 had a compromise that made explicitly clear that we are speaking of the age ranges for the show only, when the wording was "on the program, the range is usually ages 12–15," but he threw that away to stubbornly add his desired wording. I am not sure what to do about this editor, but he doesn't grasp policies and guidelines as well as he should and keeps beating a dead horse regarding this To Catch a Predator debate. There isn't even a debate anymore; it was settled last year -- that no elaboration of any kind is needed for the age range in the lead -- and there have been editors who have come across RJR3333's editorial comment/note in the lead this year and have removed it (again, refer to Zadignose's post). Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing that RJR3333 be topic banned from these or any other articles? If you are, this isn't an appropriate place to do it, and if you aren't there is no dispute to be dealt with here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I started the thread, not her. My suggestion is that it be decided whether or not to topic ban me here. --RJR3333 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're in the wrong place. WP:Editor review is what you need. Or ask to be adopted. Good luck. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, AndyTheGrump. Per above, I stated that I was close to proposing a topic ban on him. As a long term-editor who understands Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I know the appropriate place to request one. And, Itsmejudith, referring him to WP:Editor review is not a good idea, considering that he is just going to misrepresent my criticism of his edits in a grand-rant fashion...as he has done across various talk pages now. I am tired of having to weigh in on these matters just to correct his spin on what has transpired between us. I've suggested that he get a mentor or ask to be adopted. He did, and no one has taken the time to mentor him properly. Even if they did, like I stated, he never seems to grasp Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While we are on the subject Flyer22, why don't you just propose an article ban on me instead of a topic ban. Because the only areas I have been disruptive, for the most part, are the Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator articles. In the regular age of consent and age of majority articles I have been pretty ok as far as avoiding conflict. --RJR3333 (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note to you: In addition to other things, what you state on your talk page about Legitimus being an administrator and having ignored me when I spoke of you is false. He's not an administrator, although he should be, and he commented on the Talk:Chris Hansen debate when I asked him to. Not to mention, people do discuss Wikipedia matters off Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Right - there is no content dispute - which is what this noticeboard is supposed to deal with. Nobody has proposed a topic ban for anyone (though this isn't the place for such a proposal anyway). There is nothing more to be said here. RJR3333, I suggest that rather than wasting everyone's time, you do something useful for Wikipedia.

Could an uninvolved contributor please mark this as closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

BP


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

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

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

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

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

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

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

Discussion and POV noticeboard


 * How do you think we can help?

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

 petrarchan 47 T c 01:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Here are 2 discussions regarding other edits which look like POV pushing to me [removal of BP oil spill financial aftermath] and [removal of the fact that BP's oil spill was the largest accidental oil spill in marine history].  petrarchan 47 T c 02:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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


 * We aren't administrators here. We are dispute resolution volunteers. The goal here is to reach agreement. Right now I am waiting until both parties have posted their arguments. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Following Petrarchan47's comment above in which they state that 'to me it looks like the other editor is working on behalf of BP to make their Wikipedia article favorable. Also, help with the edit in question would be great.', and in view of their repeated attempts to impose changes to the lead of this article, despite having been reverted for very good reasons and a discussion being ongoing on the article talk page, I am unwilling to enter into any further discussion with them.
 * I have made over 130 edits to the BP article. Anyone is free to compare the state of the article when I started working on it and the position today. My edits speak for themselves. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * I hope someone can tell me how Wikipedia deals with companies that might be trying to edit Wikipedia articles to better their image. I have a hard time believing it's left up to individual editors who notice POV to deal with it on their own - as you can see it is not easy or effective. The snarky attacks are not fun either. petrarchan 47 T c 21:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the above violates the request to 'keep it brief'. Let me know if it's better to move this to my talk page, with a link. Thanks.  petrarchan 47 T c 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Petrarchan47, can I ask why you have actually come to this noticeboard at all when you are in parallel simply attempting to force your proposed change to the lead of this article (which is long standing and has been stable for a long period of time, and was the result of discussion)?


 * Rangoon, I have already stated my reasons for bringing this dispute to this noticeboard. The length of time that the paragraph has been in place is irrelevant. The paragraph either is or is not POV. Outside help is needed as you and I see things quite differently.  petrarchan 47 T c 22:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is highly relevant. The existing lead is long standing and therefore has the weight of accumulated consensus. It was also the work of multiple editors in discussion. You are attempting to make a non standard and bizarre change, which would create a one line, in fact considerably less than a line on my screen, paragraph, right in the middle of the lead, which is designed purely to give heightened emphasis to negative aspects of the company's history. You have admitted as much yourself, when you say that you feel that the text is currently hidden.
 * Whilst discussion is underway on this proposed change which has been reverted by an established editor for very good reasons please refrain from your efforts to impose the change through edit warring. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have never come across this type of grief or 'longstanding' (ie, "carved in stone") argument when making changes to the lead of any other article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are always a work in progress. I am not alone in seeing the paragraph and your attitude as problematic. You think your reasons for reverting my edits are good ones. I do not. Changes to articles are not based on whether the editors are ["elite editors"] or editors like me. That's what I love about Wikipedia. It is (supposed to be) "for the people, by the people" and edits are to be based on their NPOV - not on who did the edits or on how long the edits have gone unchallenged. I can see why no one would want to challenge edits on this article based on my experience thus far. petrarchan 47 T c 23:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes you have to date have around 140 article edits on WP, I have substantially over 100 times more. I have worked on the leads of I would guess hundreds of company articles and you appear to date to have worked on only that of BP. I do not expect a medal for this or even any thanks. However I do ask that you stand back and ask yourself, "why is Rangoon so anti this particular edit, and yet has not reverted 90% of my edits to the BP article?". My genuine, sincere goal is to make the BP article as good as possible and to make WP as good as possible. A half a line paragraph right in the middle of the lead would draw huge attention to that text, in much the same way as if the text were in bold or italics. Why make that sentence into a single paragraph rather than any of the other sentences? Why not adhere to the usual WP approach of having no more than four paragraphs in the lead? I can't see a good reason for it.
 * And I don't in any way believe that the current lead is perfect. For example it should in my view have more detail about BP's history. It currently has essentially none. However this particular change would not in my firm view be a step in the right direction.
 * I would like to add that I do recognise that you have an expertise on Deepwater which I personally lack, and is no doubt rare, and in that regard your recent edits to that section of the article are most welcome. The section was much in need of work. aRangoon11 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


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


 * I am glad you are willing to join the discussion. But, I cannot believe that your sincere goal is to improve the BP article if you would remove important information about the oil spill without doing an ounce of research. You can highlight the sentence and do a Google search in 1 second. Though I have 1/100th of your experience, I would never think to remove a statement from a Wikipedia article unless I had a good reason and had done some research first to back up my moves. You never answered me as to why you removed the oil spill information. I assume based on your statements it was to improve the article and Wikipedia? Obvious POV is obvious - one needs zero editing experience to recognize it. petrarchan 47 T c 00:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding that specific edit, I can see how it might have put that thought into your head. Please note however that the text 'and caused the biggest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry' was removed from the "Safety record", where I felt it had no relevance, and was purely duplicative of the very long section on Deepwater in the Environmental record section earlier in the article, which deals with the size of the spill. My edit summary of 'dealt with at length higher up' was perhaps unclear on the point, and I should have explained it on the Talk page when you queried it. However I was annoyed by what I felt to be your confrontational attitude in terms of repeatedly making your desired change to the lead despite having been reverted for good reason, and so instead was terse.
 * I do stand by that specific edit though, that wording is not needed in the safety record section.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The way it reads now, the Deepwater Explosion caused (only) the deaths of 11 people. That's it, no other consequences you can think of? It also caused the oil spill, which is hinted at with the redirect to the oil spill article. But that is whitewashing if you ask me, and not fair to those who come to seek information. The Deepwater explosion caused a pretty big oil spill and that fact should be added. As it stands now, this is a single sentence section. How can you defend that after all the grief over a single sentence in the lead? Further, I have seen a few examples in your edits of late that scrub data about the financial after effects of the oil spill. This is history and very relevant to this article. It was daily news for about 6 solid months. There is no reason to delete the info altogether. Unless we aren't here to build encyclopedic knowledge but rather to - for whatever reason - mold this Wikipedia article into something favorable for BP's image.
 * The spill is dealt with at length in the (excessively long) Deepwater section in the Environmental record section just a little higher up in the article. Repeating that information again in the Safety record section would be pure duplication. Some of the financial impact of the spill on BP should probably go in the History section. We need to be careful to avoid duplication and overlap however, and be aware that the amount of content on Deepwater in the article is already excessive and undue.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The intro is in clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines for [Wikipedia:LEAD]. This is what we're here to remedy. Discuss. petrarchan 47 T c 22:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead is there to provide an overview of the topic. That does not mean that the length of sentences in the lead or number of sentences should try to exactly mirror that of the article.
 * For me the lead most requires improvement through the addition of a brief summary of the company's history. We need to avoid the lead becoming too long however, it is already about right in terms of length.
 * The first and second paragraphs of the lead provide a good overview of the company's operations and the company's place within its industry. The third paragraph is where I would propose adding in some more historical info. As part of this I would be prepared to lose all of 'In 1997 it became the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period'. Key points which in my view should really be in the lead are: the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and Iran connection, nationalisation and privatisation, and the acquisition of Amoco and ARCO.
 * This needs a bit of thought and work however.
 * The BP lead is by the standards of company articles in WP already pretty good though, and certainly better than peers such as Total S.A., or Chevron Corporation.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Luckily there are [guidelines] to help us get the intro balanced out. petrarchan 47 T c 01:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * This is the sentence that was removed: "this environmental disaster is now considered the second largest in U.S. history, behind the Dust Bowl". This claim is NOT made anywhere else in this article. That is a lame excuse and was not even applied uniformly - that the explosion caused the oil spill is also a duplicate. To me this edit is POV pushing/cleansing/whitewashing with no valid argument to support it. petrarchan 47 T c 02:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Intro, from Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Lead: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article....In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. This includes specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, and titles. This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body." petrarchan 47 T c 02:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it is getting exceptionally tedious that, whilst this discussion is ongoing, you are going to the article and making edits which you know are disputed. What is even worse is that, once reverted, you are simply making the edits again. And again.
 * Secondly, the Safety record section is about SAFETY. We have an Environmental record section in the article, which has a *very* long (excessively, unduly, long) section on Deepwater. That is the place for discussion about the spill and its environmental impact. It is questionable whether Deepwater should be repeated in the Safety section at all, but if it is, this should be very brief and concern only the explosion and the related fatalities.
 * You have unhelpfully completely ignored most of the points which I just made above about the lead. Perhaps you could now reply to them.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears I ignored your suggestions, when actually you and I were writing at the same time, and when I hit "enter", I received and "edit conflict" notice as you had just entered your bit. I was not responding to you because I had not seen your contribution - look at the time stamps. You and I are both editing during this dispute, shall we both put all edits on hold and discuss them here first? That sounds good to me.
 * Secondly, I have not seen any mention of the single sentence and it's need to be expanded with references. What do you suggest for fixing the problem of undue weight?:
 * "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence" without any refs (violating Wiki rules). This sentence is roughly 1/13th of the intro yet the subject matter is roughly 1/3rd of the article. petrarchan 47 T c 15:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In regards to your suggestion for the lead, it is not becoming too large given the size of the article. As for the body, I can cut some of the 'fluff' from the oil spill section. As for addition of history and acquisitions to the intro, as long as it follows the guidelines for "undue weight", I am fine with whatever you choose to do. As you know, my issue with the intro is bias. I agree the statements about green energy could be removed from the intro, but not deleted. They should be moved into the body of the article. In general, for an encyclopedia, the more information offered, the better. I have concerns with the deletion of material for no good reason.  petrarchan 47 T c 23:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am happy to not make any edits to the article whilst this discussion is ongoing. I may do so if edits are made by others which I feel need to be either reverted or corrected, but otherwise will not go to the article to make any changes myself.
 * Although the lead is at the moment not too long, and could get a bit longer, if the history content which I have suggested above were added to the current lead then I feel that it would become too long. However if those two sentences which I have identified above were simultaneously removed (and yes am happy for them to be moved elsewhere in the article), I think the length would probably be OK. I think that the removal of those sentences and addition of the history content would go a long way towards addressing any possible concerns about the lead having an excessive amount of content on renewable activities, and would provide a much better summary of the article and overview of the topic.
 * On the point of a citation for the sentence "BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence", in my view this is more than adequately supported by the citations within the body of the article.
 * On the point of weight, a lead does not need to contain a direct proportion of content relative to the size of sections. This is generally impossible and impractical given the small size of the article lead and to attempt to do so would merely create a low quality overview. The lead is there to both provide an overview of the topic (since many people will only read the lead) and a summary of the article. We also have a problem that the 'Environmental record' section in particular is very bloated and of an undue length. In terms of significance to the topic, which is a company, that company's own operations and the most significant details of its corporate history are of much greater relevance than important but secondary issues such as environmental record, safety record, sponsorships and the like.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Environmental Record IS BP History, perhaps keep that in mind. The sentence mentioning BP's environmental and political controversies violates [Wikipedia:LEAD] Do not hint at startling facts without describing them....the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. ....(and for our perusal:) In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources....The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies...Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
 * "We also have a problem that the 'Environmental record' section in particular is very bloated and of an undue length." That's certainly debatable, but not surprising these are your views.  petrarchan 47 T c 02:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)  petrarchan 47 T c  02:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC) petrarchan 47 T c  03:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


 * A tiny list to give an idea of the negative impacts BP is having, to help with scale - these are new stories from just the past month or so:
 * [on humans]
 * [on Gulf shrimp]
 * [on science]
 * [on microbial diversity] petrarchan 47 T c 02:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

 petrarchan 47 T c 04:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Dormskirk, it looks like you changed the third paragraph. I was responding as if you had quoted the version I'm used to, the one that includes "BP currently invests over US$1 billion per year in the development of renewable energy sources, and has committed to spend US$8 billion on renewables in the 2005 to 2015 period." That is how it reads now. petrarchan 47 T c 04:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * I put a note on the talk page to say that I planned to edit the lede and was directed to this discussion. If the lede is supposed to give a brief summary of the article for the reader, this information regarding BP's environmental record is laughable - I don't know how else to say it.  I really can not imagine that anyone could read the environmental sections and references and still say that one vague line in the lede is adequate.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst Dormskirk and I edit on a very wide range of company articles, and on all aspects of their activities, it is fair to say that the other two editors in this thread are primarily concerned with the environmental impact of BP's activities. And primarily with increasing the emphasis on environmental impact in the article. There is zero interest being shown in the operations, corporate affairs and general history sections. That's fine, but this is an article on a company not on an environmental topic. The core of the article is about the company's own operations, corporate affairs and corporate history. Many editors in fact question whether company articles should have sections such as 'Environmental record' at all. Personally I don't take that approach, but do recognise that this is secondary information, just as information about sponsorships would be.
 * Dormskirk and I have also made by far the greatest contributions to the BP article in terms of number of edits. Yes that should count for something in a discussion like this.
 * There are also plenty of criticisms of the article being made, but few constructive suggestions. I made what I felt to be a pretty reasonable suggestion above as to how to move the lead forward. It would be good if either we could get a consensus for that suggestion, or hear some other suggestions. Otherwise we are just going round in circles. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


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


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

Rangoon, please see the following from the spill article:

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

In view of the fact that BP has been been found to be largely responsible for what the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder calls the largest environmental disaster in US history, I would expect nothing less than a paragraph in the lede to summarize the Gulf spill. You seem to want to suggest that it is just "two editors in this thread [who are] primarily concerned with the environmental impact of BP's activities" as though certain editors had to really dig deep to find the dirt on BP and bias the article with it. That is absurd. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a company with a 100 year plus history and with global activities. A paragraph in the lead on Deepwater would be grotesquely undue in the context of the overall history of the company and its whole scope of activities. It would be both highly recentist and highly slanted towards the U.S. It would also place a subjectively large emphasis on the environment. For example, more people died in the 1965 Sea Gem offshore oil rig disaster and the 2005 Texas City Refinery explosion. Neither of those belong in the lead in my opinion, but I am puzzled why you think Deepwater deserving of an entire paragraph and show no interest at all in those events. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The history of America is far longer, and in BP's short history it has managed to create the largest oil spill ever for the US, and what most sources call America's largest environmental disaster ever, while others say it was second only to the Dust Bowl (a fact which you think had no place in the article) as well as ranking number one largest accidental marine oil spill in the entire world. These facts are undisputed. Your reasoning above in not in accordance with WP:Lead "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" I am frankly sick and tired of trying to reason with someone who clearly does not want to follow the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia. No editors should have to deal with this if they are simply trying to update an article or fix obvious bias in the article - whether it happens to be that of a large company or otherwise. You were fine with mentioning environmental impact in the lede when it made BP look good. Now when confronted with facts, you declare that companies should not have to even mention environment. There are many updates to be made as the aftermath of the oil spill and the various court cases hit the media, as they doing now. I do not want to have to deal with this nonsense in order to update the article.  The POV on your part is clear, and given your behaviour including bullying and lying as well as your self-appointed position as owner of this article, this will likely need to be taken to the Admin board sooner rather than later. petrarchan 47 T c  21:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To answer Rangoon's question about changes for the lede:
 * I don't think the DWH spill should require it's own paragraph. It should be mentioned in the lede as the single sentence mentioning BP's 'troubles' gets flushed out in accordance with WP:Lead. BP's troubles should merit a single paragraph and should not be followed immediately by a rebuttal.
 * Rangoon suggested removal of BP's green/climate claims from the lede and we agreed on that.
 * Rangoon suggested to replace the green claims with more about BP's history particularly it's acquisitions. He also said the single sentence about BP's troubles is fine the way it is. I disagree with both points. I would need to be shown why more about BP's history and acquisitions merit space in the lede. These arguments only seem valid from the POV of BP or someone hired by them to make sure BP looked good on the internet. But maybe I'm missing something? petrarchan 47 T c 21:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's amusing that despite your taking such great offence at being called a POV-pusher, and insisting that I desist from this, you have since made a plethora of personal attacks in this thread, including saying that I am working for BP and that I am a liar. I have made an effort to engage you in a constructive discussion, despite my views on your very narrow agenda regarding this article and complete lack of interest in the great majority of its content, but it is proving fruitless and very time wasting. Now you are threatening to take me to the Admin board, but simultaneously accusing me of bullying.
 * There are a number of highly significant aspects of BP's history which are not currently in the lead and which should e.g. mention of its foundation, nationalisation, privatisation, the acquisitions of Amoco, ARCO and Burmah Castrol, and the TNK joint venture. I propose adding in this information, and removing the sentences about BP being the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and its investments in renewables. This is a more than reasonable proposal, and yet since it was made all that has followed is unconstructive comments, absurd suggestions such as putting an entire paragraph on Deepwater in the lead, and multiple personal attacks.
 * I will now make a further proposal, that, in addition to my proposed changes described above, a mention of Deepwater be made in the following way:
 * 'BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and received criticism for its political influence.'Rangoon11 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is from the intro to the Resolution Dispute: "We may need some administrators to take a look and see which editor is POV pushing". I am not bullying or threatening you by saying this should go to the administrators, I am simply repeating a claim I made originally. As for saying you worked for BP, I am questioning it. My claim in the intro to this DR was "it looks to me like he is working on behalf of BP" but I have not said that you do.
 * As for the narrow focus with regards to this article, I have also stated that right now I am focusing, to the exclusion of all else, on the bias in the Intro and on remedying that. There is absolutely no clause anywhere in Wikipedia supporting your grief about my narrow focus. I would prefer if you were to use arguments that could be supported by Wikipedia guidelines, it makes things simpler and much faster.
 * Here is where you indeed told an untruth. When I pointed out that it was not located anywhere else in the article, you switched your reasoning for the edit with "not relevant to section - which is about SAFETY" and proceeded to let me know you weren't pleased I was still editing whilst in discussion. If your edits are valid you would not have to dance around looking for a valid sounding excuse for them. If you had no bias, you would not have a problem with leaving that statement in the Deepwater explosion section, as the section is very short, the information is important and well-sourced. The Deepwater explosion happens to be in the SAFETY section, but that is not justification for your removal of the sentence. Secondly, your argument makes no sense as you left other remarks in that would also need to be removed if your reasoning was valid. It does feel like you are wasting editors time by not being honest.
 * Keeping in mind "due weight" I stand by my recommendations for the third paragraph re environmental and safety incidents and disagree it should remain one single sentence. You don't like single sentences, anyway. petrarchan 47 T c 06:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not true that since your proposal to add BP history no one has commented. I said that as long as it abides by guidelines for weight, add anything you like. I also asked you to support the claim that BP's acquisitions and history deserved more space in the lede. Those facts might be important to you, but why are they important to Wikipedia? The reason this is all so hard is that your additions all seem geared toward minimizing BP's negative side and bolstering it's positive and neutral aspects in the article. I would like to work with editors who want to update the page with plain ole facts regardless of how it makes BP look. In fact, I did want to keep the mention of BP's recognition of climate change. Since they are the first oil company to do so, it is notable in my opinion. petrarchan 47 T c 06:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to keep the reference to BP being the first major oil company to recognise climate change if there is space in the updated third paragraph.
 * It would be good to hear the views of the other participants in this thread so that we can implement the proposed changes.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This should help. Perhaps take a quick glance at BP, note the sections, their content, and weight (space) in the article.
 * From WP: Writing better articles] If the article is long enough for the lead section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any.
 * Based on this and other Wikipedia guidelines, let's make a very rough draft for an unbiased Lede, starting with 'the third paragraph'.  petrarchan 47 T c 02:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an essay, not a guideline. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Essays are not policy or guideline and it is really rather tedious to have chunks of them copied and pasted in here, replete with bold text. The same thing has happened on the BP talk page. Just another example of what a tedious, timewasting exercise this discussion has been.
 * The question is, do we have a consensus on what should be included in the revised third paragraph. I am particularly keen to hear the views of Dormskirk, who has great experience in company articles and previously said that they thought the lead perfectly fine as is.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Rangoon, company articles have no different guidelines at Wikipedia than do other types of articles. It's easiest to refer to the Wiki guidelines when going forward, which is why I continue to quote them here. Otherwise we're arguing "I'm right, you're wrong and my friend agrees!" which could take forever. petrarchan 47 T c 20:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Before we go any further, where are the official guidelines/policies for Leads? We need get on the same page. Also, is there a different policy for writing an article about companies? (Seems I've been referring to essays rather than official policies.)  petrarchan 47 T c 21:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Gandy, here is an idea of the facts I am considering when trying to create a balanced Lede. (Or, just scroll up to my June 13 entry/response.) petrarchan 47 T c 21:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangoon, please reread Dormskirk's comment, you have misquoted them. They referred solely to the third paragraph and changed it slightly before saying it looked fine. petrarchan 47 T c 22:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC) petrarchan 47 T c  22:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


 * Again, would someone point me to the Wikipedia guidelines for Lede? Also if there are different guidelines for articles about companies we need those as well. We all seem to have have slightly differing ideas regarding these guildelines and it would help to begin by getting on the same page. Thanks.  petrarchan 47 T c 04:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * I believe that Beagel is sidestepping the real issue here when he suggests that a decent compromise has been reached with one sentence regarding environmental issues (now with a mention of the spill) and the following sentence praising BP's good work for the environment. BP's extremely long list of negative environmental practices and events, as listed in the lengthy sections of the article, need a separate paragraph in the lede rather than be combined with mention of their efforts to combat greenhouse gases,  which has very little copy in the article.  One could make an argument if BP had a long history of environmentally friendly activities with many references to back it up, but that is not the case at all and to give equal copy in the lede, in the same paragraph, and immediately following their poor environmental record, is very misleading. Gandydancer (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been following this discussion and, although I defer to the experienced editors here on the issue of balance in the article's introduction, I thought I might be able to help with some of the figures that are getting confused. Before I get into that, Petrarchan, here is the link to the Wikipedia article guidelines for companies, and a couple about writing introductions:
 * Companies, corporations and economic information
 * Lead section
 * Writing better articles
 * Regarding the figures quoted by Petrarchan for Deepwater Horizon: BP has spent almost $23 billion on the response and claims, including $8.5 billion on claims, advances and other payments so far, not counting the $7.8 billion additional claims that have been estimated as part of a legal settlement. The escrow amount that BP committed to put aside was $20 billion. The $15 billion figure that has been in the news is just speculation — as you can tell from the wording of news articles that mention things like "an unnamed source familiar with discussions" — and is not related to BP's announcement of the $20 billion set aside right after the spill.
 * In response specifically to what Petrarchan was saying, that it shouldn't just be a plan for reducing greenhouse gas that's mentioned in the lead, I think the following release provides the information he's seeking here:
 * BP Beats Greenhouse Gas Target By Eight Years And Aims To Stabilise Net Future Emissions, 11 March 2002
 * I hope that this information is helpful. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Arturo, your help is greatly appreciated. As for the greenhouse emissions, the article from BP may not be enough to warrant inclusion in the Lede, I believe we would need a reliable secondary source. As for the $20B Escrow, Feinberg was planning to spend $6B and return the remaining $14B to BP, so it gets confusing.
 * Thank you also for the 3 links. The Company article guidelines show that there is no different set of guidelines when writing an article about a company. The essay about Ledes is good, but Rangoon has suggested essays aren't really relevant as they aren't official guidelines, so it is of no use to us here. The article about Ledes is what I have been referring to. Here is the section which shows our one single sentence mentioning environmental issues and the spill is not sufficient: the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The 'explaining' part is why I suggested adding context to the accidents.
 * Beagle, I do agree we will have to compromise at some point. But the article is roughly 1/3 to 1/2 dedicated (rightly so) to environmental and political issues. The intro is supposed to let folks know what they'll be reading in the article. This is why to dedicate a paragraph to these issues in the Lede seems appropriate. petrarchan 47 T c 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To newer editors to this discussion, note this is focused on the Intro, but I also brought up the fact that content was being removed from the article, and that the POV problem does not end with the Intro. Please see my first comment in this discussion...  petrarchan 47 T c 02:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If I've understood correctly, the guidelines for the introduction refer to a standard for an ideal form of article. The BP article as it stands is not in perfect shape and much information is missing about its operations, leading to an imbalance of information about environment and politics. Would it not be better to generally improve the article first, then return to the introduction later once the other issues in the article have been addressed?
 * Meanwhile, here are some secondary sources for the reduction in greenhouse emissions:
 * Energy Policy Journal, 2006
 * Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2005 (footnote 10)
 * The Climate Group, 2005 (page 4-5)
 * There were also some news articles, but these tended to report meeting the target as "the company announced" or "Lord Browne announced". Hopefully the above sources work well enough. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually peer reviewed sources are favored, so if a reliable source published an article about BP's reduction in greenhouse gasses, that would help. Then we would need to prove it belonged in the Lede. This discussion is focusing on getting the obvious bias out of the Lede. Other improvements can be done in time, but it's best to keep focused for now as this is dragging on longer than anyone wanted. petrarchan 47 T c 02:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Rangoon11 is the one introducing POV into the article, the one advocating greenwashing by butting together in one paragraph the mention of severe environmental criticism with the mention of slight environmental commendation. Though the one cannot possibly balance the other, it is made to seem so. Rangoon11's style of communication has been bullying and stultifying rather than collegial. Thank you to Petrachan47 for bringing the issue to DR. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps before coming to a discussion such as this purely in order to make personal attacks you should actually familiarise yourself with the article. And I didn't even write the paragraph in question. All I have had in this disussion is repeated personal attacks, hence why I decided I could not be bothered to continue my involvment in it. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for discussing disputes about article content, not user conduct. If you wish to complain about another user, don't do it here. Take it to WP:WQA, and if that does not resolve the issue, take it to WP:RFC/U, but please wait until the DRN case is closed. It often happens that solving the content dispute solves the user conduct issues as well.


 * It looks to me like we have pretty much done everything we can do here. Unless someone has an objection, I am going to close this. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We're almost finished, but not quite. Give me until Monday as I am researching over the weekend and will present an idea for the third paragraph as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience. 174.74.66.179 (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Take as long as you need. We only want to close cases where everybody has given up or where they resolved the issue and didn't bother telling us. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That is good to hear. To be honest, I will probably need another week.  petrarchan 47 T c 12:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to Rangoon11 statement to Binksternet, Rangoon is the editor who wrote the problematic portion of the 3rd paragraph beginning here. He is also the editor who added a false statement to the first para "[BP] also has major renewable energy activities, including in biofuels and wind power." I can find the diff if requested.  petrarchan 47 T c 22:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Here is where Rangoon11 added the second portion of the greenwashing. If editors are blatantly spinning articles and telling untruths in the DR, what (speedy) course of action is recommended?  petrarchan 47 T c 22:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So once again you accuse me of lying. What I meant to say was that I didn't write that part of the lead alone, Ocaasi was involved and we reached a settled position together, hence why it was so stable for months despite the BP article being a magnet for anti-BP POV pushers. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

After exhaustive research, my opinion is the following suggestion for the controversy bit in the BP Intro best reflects the references available on this topic and is equal in weight to the other paragraphs in the intro as far as their detail and length. I did not cover the "political influence" aspect, anyone who cares to research that bit is more than welcome.  petrarchan 47 T c 01:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC) petrarchan 47 T c  01:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * BP has received criticism for its political influence, price manipulation, and greenwashing. In the last decade the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the US including the Texas City Refinery explosion, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, named the largest environmental disaster in US history.  During this period, the company was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanor and was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company. A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance.    petrarchan 47 T c  01:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC) petrarchan 47 T c  01:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to say, but this suggestion is unbalanced and POV (one may say even WP:COAT). The third paragraph as of this version is more balanced and more neutral. Beagel (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Grotesquely recentist, unbalanced, POV laden and U.S.-centric. And wholly out of step with company articles in WP. It is interesting to look at the leads of BP peers ExxonMobil, Chevron Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Total S.A. and Royal Dutch Shell, which do not even refer to issues like this at all in the lead.
 * The lead is there in part to provide a summary of the article, but not to provide a summary in exact proportion to the length of applicable sections in the article. A lead is by necessity highly restricted in length, and there is also a certain fairly set format which further resticts space. The primary task of a company article lead is to address the core elements of what the company is, its place within its sector, and its history.
 * The BP article was ruined during Deepwater, when large numbers of (I assume) American editors filled up the article with any "controversy" which BP had ever been involved with (again, generally in a highly recentist and US-centric manner - no interest in the 1965 Sea Gem offshore oil rig disaster because afterall it was in the 1960s and happened in the UK, so who cares?), whilst showing zero interest in developing the article as a whole, and leaving large sections ruined. Some of that has now been rolled back, but the article remains a recentist attack piece on BP. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Should also add, it was very clear from the above very long discussion that there was absolutely no consensus for a whole paragraph on "controversies" in the lead, and in fact a number of editors stated they were fine with the lead as was. I am therefore distinctly puzzled at this drafting proposal, and how it is any way an attempt to resolve a dispute. Since this discussion began a contentious (but long standing and stable) sentence and piece of wording has been removed from the lead, and a specific reference to Deepwater added, even though the consensus in this discussion did not demand the changes. Even so, the response has simply been to push for ever more emphasis on "controversies". Meanwhile petrarchan47 has been busy adding even more "controversies" to the main body of the BP article too, whilst attacking others for POV-pushing and declaring their aim of getting me topic banned for the same.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * With BP's "dismal safety record" in the news, how can you prevent a paragraph of criticism in the lead section? The company is supremely unsafe; ABC news wrote that "OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 'egregious, willful' safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation." With a ratio of BP's 760 to 11 of all the others, you can plainly see that there are grounds for prominent criticism. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I added 'more' controversies because they have been deleted from the article, and the Lockerbie release was never added. I made a note that I would be adding Lockerbie weeks ago. If anyone questions whether my suggestion for the Intro is POV, first please read the Intro now, it reads like it's meant more for folks looking to buy BP stock. Also please do a quick search "BP, safety" - that is all I did. In every single article, all three accidents were mentioned. Even though Alaska and Texas were dwarfed by the Gulf spill, they are considered in the literature to be extreme cases. My Intro suggestion is simply a reflection of what's out there. You will have to do your own search to see what I mean. This is actually a watered down version of the information on this topic. BP has had far more accidents than any other oil company whilst pumping less oil, and there is a reason: after multiple investigations and internal BP reports - that BP took more risks and cost-cut in pursuit of profits. This information was not available until recently, so it makes no sense to call any past version of the Intro perfect - you had limited information at that time. Why should this new understanding regarding the accidents not be included? Would a normal encyclopedia have this info? If it was a good one, it would. Here is how the Intro looked before Rangoon's arrival. At this time there were many editors at the page, working peacefully together, and the Intro seemed NPOV except that undue weight was given to the DWH spill. Now it's more like a dictator is controlling the page, and it's been scrubbed of vital information and a sense of balance. petrarchan 47 T c 19:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I also used the search terms "BP, accidents". I highly recommend doing a quick search like this to help with this DRN.  petrarchan 47 T c 20:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Also, there is no reason to continue to compare this to other "company articles" unless we are talking about guidelines for company articles. Arturo from BP left a link earlier in this discussion for company articles - there are NO separate rules for company articles. The suggestions in the link from Arturo aren't even being followed at the BP article. It says to put stock information in a section of the article, not clog the lede with it. Also please don't compare this article to Exxon and the like, they are not following Wikipedia guidelines if they do have controversies (like Exxon Valdez) and do not mention them in the Intro. We're not using other articles to help with the Intro, we are only using the Wikipedia guidelines for WP:Lede.  petrarchan 47 T c 05:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC) {od}


 * I wrote a long point by point reply to Rangoon but I'm not going to post it. Looking back at all the work that Petrarchan has done and to see Rangoon simply  call it, "Grotesquely recentist, unbalanced, POV laden and U.S.-centric", what could I possibly say that would do much good here?  If the Task Force means what they say when they state that it is their goal to see that NPOV is maintained, perhaps they can help and I have contacted one of the members to ask for advise. Gandydancer (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion might seem US-centric because BP itself is; the 2cd paragraph of the Intro states "Its largest division is BP America, which is the second-largest producer of oil and gas in the United States." Also, please stop suggesting a single sentence is sufficient, as it violates WP:Lede. petrarchan 47 T c 22:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer note: Normally we close discussions after a few days with no discussion, but I am temporarily collapsing this one and giving it more time; See the discussion for details. If 10 days go by without activity I will close this. This discussion is still open: anyone who wishes may add comments, and anyone who wishes is free to uncollapse the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Should we add new content here? For now I am adding it above.  petrarchan 47 T c 01:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see the discussion going away. I have taken out the "collapse" template to make visible the recent suggestions by Petrarchan47. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the proposed paragraph again, to keep it with its references:

BP has received criticism for its political influence, price manipulation, and greenwashing. In the last decade the company was involved in a number of serious accidents in the US including the Texas City Refinery explosion, the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, named the largest environmental disaster in US history. During this period, the company was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanor and was levied 300 times more in fines by OSHA for refinery violations than any other oil company. A series of investigations found BP took too many risks, cut corners in pursuit of growth and profits, and neglected preventative maintenance.

Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details


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

This is a continuation of this discussion closed due to 3-days of my inactivity. Guy Macon said that I'm able to open up a new request. Unfortunately I'm out of internet permanently due to my schedule so please do not close this discussion so quickly if it's possible.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

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

"Zh.Mike has been trying for over a year to insert Soviet propaganda", "Mike initially edited as 195.26.84.250, back in April 2011" (by Parsecboy, June, 22). This is a lie and slander. All the records by 195.26.84.250 (except one) are signed by Arthur. My name can be translated as Michael and Dolphin  is absolutely right - I was signed up 3 month ago. Parsecboy's fantasies about me and propaganda insertion became offensive. I demand an public apology.

(Offtopic) "Soviet war logs are notoriously unreliable" (June, 22). As well as German, as well as British (by Parsecboy, April 1, 2012). Сitation:

1. "the Germans would have recorded the maintenance done to repair the alleged damage, as they did in every other instance" (by Parsecboy, April 10, 2011)

2. "Rudders can be damaged by all manner of things, without documentation of why the rudder was replaced, you only have irrelevant speculation. Drop it" (by Parsecboy, April 3, 2012)

Up to now Parsecboy can not tell stories about the reason to full rudder replace after the K-21+Tirpitz incident. So why my claim (that Tirpitz log is incomplete - with proofs and scans) has been called "nonsence"? Parsecboy knows...

"There is one secondary source that says two torpedoes were fired, and there are a couple that say four... All are from reputable naval historians"

How reputable historians could obtain different figures from the sole primary source!? Do not draw an analogy with casualty figures - we have one source. And there is one figure, no more. But reputable historians can not be wrong - only the Soviets can be! Therefore we shall insert all the figures written by historians! (sarcasm <- remarks for Parsecboy).

"That the Soviet crewmen claimed to have heard two explosions and claimed to have made two hits on the ship are effectively the same thing"

"Effectively the same thing" has never been claimed by the Soviet crewmen and their command - they have claimed sound of explosions only.

Now in the article: "K-21 fired two or four torpedoes at the ship, all of which missed. The Soviets claimed two hits on the battleship". Why? Does anyone know why the Soviets have claimed two hits (according to the article) while all torpedoes missed? The conclusion can only be like that: "soviets faked documents or forced people to tell fake stories, it may also have been a project to raise national morale" (by Denniss, March 29, 2012). I've cited the secondary source about contents of K-21 report. This source also says that the commander of submarine brigade (Northern Fleet) captain of the 1st rank Vinogradov waited a whole month (for recon, intelligence etc) and wrote that the attack's results can not be determined exactly! Is that propaganda to rise the morale: can not be?! But the article says that the Soviets: 1. knew the torpedoes missed; 2. decided to lie for the sake of propaganda. This is not true and there are no sources with that (below) - it's compilation.

Books deal with the incident (by Parsecboy):

1. Garzke's & Dulin's Battleships - K-21 fired two torpedoes, but missed: the only authors being fully confident that there were two torpedoes (in contrary to others and to the primary source).

2. Polmar's & Noot's Submarines of the Russian and Soviet Navies - the best review of the incident with all the details.

3. Zetterling's & Tamelander's Tirpitz - also it's a review with the details.

4, 5. Blair's Hitler's U-Boats and Compton-Hall's Submarines at War 1939-45 - there are allusions in correct form (K-21 have reported, but the Germans haven't confirmed).

6. Jurgen Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939-1945 is unable to view on-line

7. Evans' Great World War II Battles in the Arctic - the sole author talking about no torpedoes were fired and even K-21 wasn't anywhere near Tirpitz. In contrary to author's opinion - "it was later revealed..." Lunin was awarded the Order of the British Empire (1944). So it was not only Soviet, it was Soviet and British "propaganda"


 * How do you think we can help?

This article says:

''Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.'' (Also note the third example.)

But the disputed text is a combination of three books and gives the opportunity to make a false conclusion about the Soviets Navy and the use of the incident for propaganda purposes.

Therefore I suggest using the review of the incident from the Polmar's & Noot's book given by Parsecboy.

Zh.Mike (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

Judging from what's at Talk:German battleship Tirpitz, it appears that you're trying to insert your personal interpretation of primary sources into the article, despite multiple high quality secondary sources not supporting this view. That obviously violates the Wikipedia policy WP:OR. The article's current wording on this topic ("Shortly after Tirpitz left Norway, the Soviet submarine K-21 fired two or four torpedoes at the ship, all of which missed") appears to be in line with what's in the secondary sources - some say four torpedoes were fired, others say two, none say there were any hits. When different reliable sources give different accounts of events, we need to cover all the main views, and wording like what's in the article now is a good example of how to do this. It's unclear to me why you're bringing this up on this forum seeing as the discussion on the talk page has been dormant since April - this appears to be a case of WP:DEADHORSE. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur that this needs more talk page discussion before being brought up here, considering the amount of time which has passed since the last discussion of it at the article talk page. I'll also note that while I've not waded through the wall-o-text above in detail, there appears to be some attempt to analyze what is said in sources in order to figure out which one is right. We don't do that here at Wikipedia, as Nick-D notes above. I will close this thread unless someone makes a good case for leaving it open within the next 24 hours from 13:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Additional suggestion: While this is not, in my opinion, a proper topic at the present time for this noticeboard, I believe that the sourcing issue could be raised at the reliable sources noticeboard. They have had extensive discussions there about the proper sourcing for historical articles and I believe that at least one of the regular contributors there, Fifelfoo, has particular competence in dealing with sourcing of military history articles. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Flyer22 feels that I have been stalking her. The reason I keep posting her name on wikipedia is because she has been talking about topic banning me and reporting me but will not let me interact with her so I had to find another use to discuss the sitation with and find one who might support me. I would like to resolve the issues between us here instead of her unilaterally reporting me. I acknowledge that I was rude to her and I should have found one user to discuss the situation I had with her with instead of posting her name on a bunch of talk pages so I am at fault. But I do not think she has been very civil to me and I think she should try dispute resolution before reporting me. She won't let me use her talk page so I cannot interact with her directly about the matter. And I know I put another dispute resolution notice about this matter but I was basically ignored and told to shut down the dispute resolution. I think this is necessary because otherwise this dispute will get out of hand. I acknowledge that I am at fault for being rude to her. But I feel that she has constantly had an obsession with correcting my edits because of some animosity towards, because from the moment I started editing here, she has almost always only said bad things about my edits. There have been a handful of times she has said good things about them, but they were very rare and at least one of them was merely in response to my technically false claim that she said all my edits were bad, she then said some were good perhaps to disprove my claim.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

Not yet, because Flyer22 imposed a unilateral interaction ban on me. So I am not able to inform her.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

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

I have tried to discuss it with her and she unilaterally banned me from interacting with her. She asked me not to communicate with her on her talk page, and any other talk page would be an inapropriate place to discuss it with her, so I can't discuss it with her.


 * How do you think we can help?

By resolving the dispute so that Flyer22 and me can either become reconciled OR leave each other alone through a voluntary interaction ban.

RJR3333 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Bullying in Wikipedia Italy
I tried to help Wikipedia with my competence as historian in an Italian voice, I did it on the pages of discussions. A registered one has banned me for a month without any reason, without explanation. Now I can not contact any other administrators, I'm unfairly blocked by an unknown person called Vituzzu. I ask to be helped to communicate with serious admins in Wikipedia Italy. There are too many texts written without regard to the verification of sources, Wikipedia (and Wikipedia Italy) needs to expel these fascist omnipotent individual admin, It is not eligible to ban a professor of history like me, who seriously seeks to improve the system. My IP is banned, please contact a serious Italian admin for me, because I'd like explain what happened. For the glory of Wikipedia, serious people victims of bullying like me, need to be helped. Thank You. Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.183.238 (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, this is the English Wikipedia and we have no authority over the Italian Wikipedia. Second, please do not assume that we cannot get your posts there translated before coming here for help.   Ihe IP address you are using said that article about Hitler was disparaging.  You brought up the Jewish ancestry of one of the authors you didn't like, as if that matters to anyone except anti-Semites.  You objected to the information sourced to this article, which shocked you to the point of describing the news as ridiculous and insane over that.  You were hardly civil, calling those who had written the Italian Wikipedia article deranged thugs and kids.  So, no, we're not going to help you.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke


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

I started a discussion topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arthur_C._Clarke#Recent.2C_validly_sourced_content_about_Clark.27s_alleged_pedophilia

Recent, validly sourced content about Clark's alleged pedophilia

Graham Johnson's book Hack substantiates the claims against Clark. One alleged police investigation in Sri Lanka does not equal exoneration. A court of law does. Mr. Clark never took the case to court which he could have easily done to officially exonerate himself. I have an Independent (the newspaper) article and a published book that substantiate the claims of Clark's pedophilia, and as such the information rightly deserves to be published in the article, more or less as written (that is, factually, giving both sides to the issue and not simply removing the issue). As such, this is not hearsay or rumor, this has not been previously discussed (which is not a valid reason to remove the content), and the source is completely valid; all reasons given for removing the content. In any event there should be no removal of validly sourced content without discussion

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

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

Started a discussion page.


 * How do you think we can help?

Third party to mediate.

204.195.73.31 (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

As yet, I see no evidence of a 'dispute'. You have posted a comment on the relevant talk page, to which there has as yet been no response - though it was only posted a few hours ago. What exactly is anyone supposed to be 'mediating'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Fry1989, User:DrKiernan
Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

DrKiernan has had now a long history of removing the personal monograms of various members of royal families when the file doesn't meet his personal approval. It can be something as simple as a minor colour variation. If he doesn't like it, he'll remove it from the page and say "no source for that colour" or something to the effect. the problem is these files ARE sourced on their pages. DrKiernan simply doesn't like these sources when they don't appeal to him. This has gone on for over a year. Recent examples are the monarchs of Greece. He thinks the crowns in the monograms should be blue, and refuses to allow them to be on the page unless they are. He even went to Commons to try and force the crowns to be blue, and after that left them on the articles for months on end, but the second the files' creator on Commons reverted back to a coloured crown, DrKiernan removed them. He is absuing his admin powers to control these articles and their content to his personal approval, it's obnoxious and needs to stop. He never provides counter-sources for anything, he simply just removes stuff if he feels it should be different then it is. He wont approach this collegially, he wont try and work on the files with us on Commons if he thinks they should be different, he just removes stuff if he doesn't like it.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

This infantile personal war needs to stop. If the files are sourced (which they are), DrKiernan should be forced to stop removing them from their rightful articles without first providing counter-sources for how he feels they "shoud be", or contacting the files' creator and working with them to change it to how he feels it should be. He should no longer be allowed to treat these articles like property, and cotrol their content down to the tiniest detail on personal whim.


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

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

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

I've contacted him and tried to reason many many times over the years, both on his talk page and on article talk pages. Reasoning with this person is impossible.


 * How do you think we can help?

Make it clear that sources are king, not personal opinions and claims, and that to work here you have to be collegial in dealing with problems, not just remove content the second you don't like it.

 Fry1989  eh? 19:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Fry1989, User:DrKiernan discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''


 * DrKiernan has always had a variety of options to deal with this. He could contact the files' creator on Commons and talk with them about editing the files to make them better (he has only exercised this once, a year and a half ago). He could also go to Commons and do it himself. He could even put in a Graphic Lab request to have them altered. However, his first and only instinct has always been to remove these images if they don't match exactly how he feels they should, and then walk away leaving the article missing this important content. This shows that DrKiernan not only has a distaste for these monograms in general (sourced or not), but also that he cares more about depriving Wikipedia of this content than actually doing a tiny bit of work to make them accurate if he feels they are not. That makes him a dis-service to Wikipedia, not an asset. A true contributer would want to include valid content, and if there's a minor problem with it, that person would rather elect to correct it than deprive us of it all together.  Fry1989  eh?   20:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That is demonstrably untrue. I asked Glasshouse to correct the files; he refused. I asked Fry1989 to correct the files; he refused. I did correct all the files on commons myself. Everyone of my changes was reverted (e.g. ).

Fry was put under 1RR per week and strict civility parole by User:Toddst1 in April. Since then he has:
 * edit-warred at Coat of arms of Iceland
 * edit warred at File:OUTtv logo.png
 * edit-warred at File:MD-XX proposal.jpg and File:Proposed MD-XX.jpg  (both since deleted -- links accessible by admins only)
 * edit-warred at Constantine I of Greece
 * broken civility guidelines

He says above "sources are king": I've asked him repeatedly to provide sources that back up his claims (and I'm not the only one -- see for example a discussion blanked by Fry). He has never provided one. DrKiernan (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a 1 revision a week restriction yes, however I actually haven't revert-warred on Coat of arms of Iceland, or Constantine I of Greece, both which I only reverted once a week, the other times I put images back on those articles was a proper edit, and while I did revert-war on File:OUTtv logo.png and File:MD-XX proposal.jpg, those were my own personal contributions to Wikipedia and it was not made clear that the revision restriction was to include my personal contributions. I also didn't break civility guidelines, "hypocrite" is an accurate term for someone who demands one thing from others but doesn't do it himself, which is true about DrKiernan, he asks for sources but never bothers to give his own on this matter when they're asked for from him. On a subnote of that, I don't have to give sources DrKiernan, they're already provided on the files' infoboxes, all you have to do is click the links.


 * None of that however is relevant to this dispute, nor does it change the fact that DrKiernan's choice of action has (almost) always been to just remove the content, rather than do anything about it so it can stay. I already said that he contacted Glasshouse on Commons, but he only did it once. a year and a half ago. But that's not his only choice of action, I've lined out atleast two others he has, but he would still rather deprive the article of the image than take a little extra effort and correct it. I view that as detrimental to the project. I've tried reasoning with him multiple times, he wont budge an inch, so it had to come here because it's become rediculous. He simply wont allow a sourced image on it's rightful article unless every tiny detail meets his expectations, but at the same time he doesn't do anything pro-active about it. The images are sourced, that's not a problem despite multiple edit summaries by DrKiernan claiming they're unsourced. His only problem are colours, which can be corrected almost instantly with SVG files. Glasshouse doesn't own his files on Commons, DrKiernan could easily edit them himself or ask someone else to for him, and it would be done. But he wont. He's the problem, his lack of effort in correcting the issue rather than just removing the image all-together, is the problem. Not me, not Glasshouse, and not anybody else. He has choices, he has decided to ignore them.  Fry1989  eh?   21:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is really rediculous is that DrKiernan "allowed" the Greek royal monograms on their articles while the crowns were blue for months! But the second Glasshouse reverted his files to a coloured crown, DrKiernan just removed the images from the articles. He didn't go back to Commons and revert to blue crowns, and he didn't go to Commons and talk to Glasshouse (for all he knows, Glasshouse could have found a new source with a coloured crown). He just doesn't care, he'll take any excuse to exclude these files. He doesn't like them, he doesn't want them on the articles, and he's using "inaccuracy" as an excuse to hide behind, because if he truly cared, he would take the effort to fix it. He's also trying to use my revert restriction to steer away this discussion from being about him, which doesn't really matter because I haven't broken that restriction in the first place.  Fry1989  eh?   22:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have revert warred. I have given my sources. The sources given on the file page do not match the uploaded file. I have approached the uploader. I have compromised. I have corrected the files myself. I have been pro-active. But all you do is revert to your favored version and ignore any evidence or arguments to the contrary.
 * Look at the source at File:Royal Monogram of King Constantine II of Greece.svg: the crown is clearly blue. The file should match the source. The crown should be blue. I fixed the color but was reverted. The corrected file is acceptable; the incorrect, unsourced file is not. DrKiernan (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Twice now you have overlooked my comments. First was when I already had said you contacted Glasshouse, but you felt the need to say you did as if I was denying that. Now you're saying I revert-warred, when I also didn't deny that. Instead, I was very specific in addressing it with the fact that the only revert-wars I have been involved in were my own contributions, which were not specifically included, I was under the impression it applied to articles. And the fact is that on articles, I have obeyed my 1-revert-per-week restriction.
 * Now, about File:Royal Monogram of King Constantine II of Greece.svg, yes the source shows the crown in blue. However when you removed it from the article, you made a very bold statement that the monogram was "unsourced" (sic). But it IS sourced, and just because it has a minor difference such as the crown being a different colour doesn't make the entire source invalid, like you are treating it. And as I just said above, you could have gone to Commons and reverted back to the blue crown. You could have gone to Commons and contacted Glasshouse asking why he changed back to a coloured crown. You could have asked me or someone else to revert back to a blue crown. All these things you could have done, but you consistantly prefer to just remove the images from the article and deprive them of valid and sourced content over such a minor and easily changed difference. And then when others like myself or Peeperman return the monogram, you come along and remove them again, refusing to allow them to be on the article, but at the same time not contacting any of us on how you would prefer it so that it can stay. You do not do ANYTHING proactive, and that's why I see this as a personal war against the images. If you didn't despise them so much (atleast, that's how your actions appear to others), then you would take the effort to correct things. You don't, that's the fact of this dispute and it's also the problem.  Fry1989  eh?   22:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have clearly edit-warred and broken your restriction. For example, at Coat of arms of Iceland:


 * Edit on 21 June
 * 1st revert 29 June 04:34
 * 2nd revert 29 June 19:26
 * 3rd revert 30 June 18:22

On Constantine's monogram, I already took the effort to discuss at length and correct them. You refused to listen and refused to accept any changes. Please revert to the blue crown, as shown in the source. If the files match the sources, they can be included. DrKiernan (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't, if you read my above posts as clearly as I read yours, you would see that I said that I have maintained my 1-revert per week restriction, and any other edits did NOT involve the revert button, which was what my restriction applies to. Also, I didn't edit-war, because it has neither been a long-standing conflict nor have I broken 3RR. Toddst1 was very specific that my restriction was to only use the revert button once a week, that I have obeyed. Get your facts right. Now for Constantine, you can babble all you want, but the fact is that as soon as something on these images changes that you don't like, you simply remove the image from the article. You don't contact me, you don't contact Glasshouse, you didn't contact Peeperman, you didn't start a discussion on the article's take page, and you didn't go to Commons to revert back to the version you feel is accurate. FACT. Not one single proactive effort have you taken on regarding this in over a year. Just remove the images wi0th nonsense claims of "unsourced" when they clearly DO have sources, and then remove them again whenever anybody tries to add them back, refusing to allow them on the article. You are the problem. No me, and not my editing restrictions which are completely and utterly irrelevant to whether or not these images should be on the article and your methods of approaching their inclusion/exclusion.  Fry1989  eh?   22:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Fry1989 and DrKiernan. I'm Mr. Stradivarius, a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Sorry, but I've collapsed your comments above - I understand that you are both feeling frustrated with this situation, but I'm afraid that arguing back and forth like this isn't really going to help matters. I think the bet thing to do here would be to wait until a volunteer is able to deal with this. (I would try and help now, but I'm a bit busy.) Does this sound reasonable to both of you? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 22:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Too late. I have moved this behavioral issue to WP:ANI. DrKiernan (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And how is this a behavioural issue about me, when YOU'RE the one removing sourced content as "unsoourced" and not allowing others to re-add the sourced content? You're the one causing the problem and all you've done is try and make it about me!  Fry1989  eh?   23:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The content issue is simple: Please revert to the blue crown, as shown in the source. If the files match the sources, they can be included. DrKiernan (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Was it realllllly that hard to ask me to do that? Why did it have to take a year and a half, and two dispute boards for you to ask me that? Why is it so damn hard for you to do such a simple proactive thing? Jesus christ it's like playing tug of war with the rope tied to a wall. Thank you, I will happily do it, if you will from now on be pro-active and try and solve the problem rather than just remove the content like you have in the past.  Fry1989  eh?   23:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was pro-active. I did it. I asked you. Many, many times. DrKiernan (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Show me! You haven't contacted me in atleast 8 months, and all your edit summaries ever say is "unsourced" or "wrong colour", none of them ask "please revert/edit the colour and then the image can come back".  Fry1989  eh?   23:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, If you could just find one and show us

Please change the colors to match the source that I provided, or provide a source that matches the file You have graphic programs, so fix the files You need to show that the monogram is blue...Or remove the color You need to show that the monogram is blue...Or remove the color, etc. DrKiernan (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, you haven't in over a year! And they weren't requests, they were commands. I don't do commands.  Fry1989  eh?   23:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)