Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 39

Sikorsky S-76
Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The s-76 is a Sikorsky helicopter created at the same time (a year later) that Sikorsky built the S-70. The S-76 uses the same general drivetrain, although owing to it's civilian focus it doesn't have the armor or crashability features of the s-70, so it can use shorter rotors, smaller engines. While the editors patrolling the article allow vague mentions of similarities between the two helicopters, they will revert any mention that the blades are of the same composition, and airfoil, the rotor head is the same, the bearing of both the main and tail rotor is the same, and the transmission is of the same design. This information is supported by references, but they refuse any mention of the information, and insist that the references do not support the information... I cannot reconcile the contents of the references, and any statement denying facts about the composition of the rotor, the air foil of the rotor, the main rotor head, the main rotor bearing, the transmission, or the bearingless tail rotor.

An impasse has been reached.

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?


 * How do you think we can help?

Break the impasse

TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-76 discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''


 * The comment under discussion on the talk page was that the S-76 was a civil version of the S-70 which the dispute overview doesnt mention, none of the other editors agreed with User:TeeTylerToe that the S-76 is a civil version of S-70 but nobody was disputing that some of the technology is the same as would be expected from the same manufacturer. User:TeeTylerToe added a statement to the article which was not that clear but stated that the two did not have the same engines, rotors and engines, the changes were reverted hence the talk page discussion. No reliable sources were provided that state the S-76 is a civil S-70 and original research by looking at photographs will show they are different helicopters. I dont see any impasse or a dispute. MilborneOne (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute or impasse to be resolved. User:TeeTylerToe proposed changes to the article and provided references that showed that his proposed changes were factually incorrect. The unanimous consensus of the other editors working on the page was to not include his content as per WP:V, but he included it anyway and was reverted. He seems unable to accept that his counter-factual POV is not acceptable in an encyclopedia, refused to accept consensus and has also refused to drop the matter. Even after the Talk:Sikorsky S-76 discussion was closed he tried to continue it on his own talk page and when that resulted in an admin threatening to block him for POV-pushing, here we are now. This has now gone from mere POV pushing to Tendentious editing against an established consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The above says it much better than I could ever. This is a case of an editor who refuses to listen and is tendentiously editing to push his point of view, based on original research, against verifiabile reality. TTT, WP:CONSENSUS does not mean "agreeing with me". Please drop the stick before you are blocked for being disruptive. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not know why I have been listed as "involved in a dispute". A discussion was being held on the talk page, I provided my (civil) opinion on this issue once, and have not returned since - I have not fought for a perspective, nor have I participated in the discussion but on that one instance - Providing an opinion on the issue to help achieve a healthy level of participation towards consensus is not, in my opinion, a dispute, unless having an opinion that isn't entirely identical to one other editor's is now grounds for labelling as disputing. Kyteto (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Contrary to MilborneOne's assertion, my edits were factually supported by references. Also "they look different" has no bearing on the similarities in the drivetrain of the two helicopters.

Contrary to Ahunt's assertion, the edits were factually supported by the reference.

None of the editors arguing against the edit seem willing to make any counter-argument that details any one fact that is not supported by the references, yet they repeatedly insist that there is a disagreement of fact. What exact factual error is there in the edit?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * COMMENT: Uninvolved third party here, pointing out for TeeTylerToe to read WP:Synthesis, which states that "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. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. (Jimmy Wales has said of synthesized historical theories: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 6, 2004) "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." The general consensus amongst the regular editor has spoken up, we all agree that you have a case of your own original research to argue here, even the history books is against you. What you represent is nothing short of WP:Fringe theories. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 01:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no synthesis. The sikorskyarchives reference is the source of everything in the edit.  The second source is simply there as a secondary source.  Other editors keep disputing the facts of that edit which is why there are two references.TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * TTT, when everybody else is saying you're wrong, you might want to at least consider that maybe the problem isn't them. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You've read both the sikorskyarchives page and my edit. Are you now for the first time entering a claim that the edit represents a synthesis between the two links?  Maybe the reason that I still make my argument is because I know that 2+2 isn't 5, that the edit doesn't represent synthesis between the two sources, and that the edit isn't contradicted by the reference.
 * If you ask several people from different religions how the universe was created or something like that, the truth isn't some amalgamation of each of those responses.TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "the edit isn't contradicted by the reference." That's not the problem though, the issue is that you're trying to insert a conclusion that isn't stated or wholley supported by the reference. Simply because the reference "doesn't disagree" isn't enough, it actually has to agree/state the fact you are trying to place in the article, else you would be stretching what it is actually saying. And considering that is direct quotes from the company's CEO that DO contradict this stance, there are sounces that have a direct opinion contrary to what you have concluded. Kyteto (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "the edit isn't contradicted by the reference." - is a completely fallacious argument. If that were valid you could insert the text "the S-76 and S-70 are the same aircraft" and cite a book on the subject of Elephant Taxonomy using that argument. As per WP:V you need to cite a reference that supports what you are adding, not one that doesn't contradict it. As it stands we have references cited here that do contradict what you are trying to insert. - Ahunt (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) The background to this dispute seems to be that TeeTylerToe doesn't want to acknowledge that the two helicopters are completely different, which is patently obvious to all except for him. He has fixated on similarities between the drivetrains of the two types as being proof that they are the same type, whereas even if the drivetrains were identical, that fundamentally does not make them the same because the airframes are completely different - a fact which he seems determined to ignore, or doesn't understand. I suspect the latter because of a comment he makes on his talk page: "If the only difference between the ch-53 and the ch-54 is the fuselage, I would say they should be considered variants of the same type of helicopter". This is the wrong end of the stick - if the only thing the CH-53 and CH-54 have in common is the drivetrain, they must be treated as distinct types.

The actual text of the particular edit (leaving out the refs) is as follows: ''The mechanical differences between the s-70 and s-76 include weaker engines, smaller rotors, and the orientation of the tail rotor was changed. While they share transmissions of the same design, it's unknown if the s-76's with less powerful engines share the exact same model of the s-70, though with the increases in engine power the s-76 has gotten, it's possible that if there were differences in the transmission model, those differences no longer exist''.

The sentence "The mechanical differences between the s-70 and s-76 include weaker engines, smaller rotors, and the orientation of the tail rotor was changed" is absolutely true. "Weaker engines" means "different engines produced by different manufacturers"; in the case of the S-70 General Electric and in the case of the S-76 four different engines of much less horsepower by three different manufacturers, none of which are General Electric. So, not the same. "Smaller rotors" is self explanatory; so, not the same. "The orientation of the tail rotor was changed" means that on one helicopter it's on the right side of the tail rotor pylon and on the other it's on the left; which means they are fundamentally different because, with the rotor turning in the same direction for both types, the tail rotor gearboxes must turn in opposite directions (in the same sense that the wheels on the left side of your car turn in the opposite direction to those on the right side); so, not the same.

The sentence "while they share transmissions of the same design, it's unknown if the s-76's with less powerful engines share the exact same model of the s-70, though with the increases in engine power the s-76 has gotten, it's possible that if there were differences in the transmission model, those differences no longer exist" is a mixture of falsehood, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. "While they share transmissions of the same design" is incorrect; for the reason stated above for the tail rotor gearbox, while for the main rotor gearbox it is not true because of the different power absorption requirements and because the S-70 transmission is designed to run without oil for 30 minutes and the S-76's is not; so, not the same. "It's unknown if the s-76's with less powerful engines share the exact same model of the s-70" just means that TeeTylerToe doesn't know; while "with the increases in engine power the s-76 has gotten, it's possible that if there were differences in the transmission model, those differences no longer exist" is OR and SYNTH, in that TeeTylerToe thinks it's possible the differences no longer exist.

It is pointless to include the two sentences in question in the S-76 article, unless one is pushing the POV that the two types are the same, otherwise why mention the information at all? The S-76 article clearly states that it was derived from the S-70, so there is no need for the two sentences. There is no impasse. YSSYguy (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A "weaker engine" says nothing about the manufacturer of the engine, only that the engine is less powerful. It is factually correct to say that the s-76A has weaker engines.  It is also factually correct to say that the s-76A has smaller/shorter rotors.

What I meant with my edit with respect to the transmission is meant to convey that both the s-70 and the s-76A use a bull head main transmission rather than a more traditional planetary gear transmission. That said, I believe YSSYguy is overstated the changes required to move the tail rotor from one side to the other. Whether the transmissions were the same, or are the same now or not does not change that they use the same design.

I don't know why editors like YSSYguy are pushing an agenda of suppressing information about similarities between the S-76 and the S-70 whether one is derived from the other, or whether one is a variant of the other.TeeTylerToe (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument is that since they use the same engine and drivetrain, they are related. This is textbook WP:SYNTH. By that logic, I could say that a 1969 Chevrolet pickup is the same thing as a 1969 Chevrolet Nova, since they both use the 350 small-block Chevy engine and a four-speed manual transmission. The opinion of everyone here but you is that you are editing the article, including the statements of the helicopters using similar/identical drivetrains, to push your POV that these are related models of helicopters. Please listen, drop the stick, and stop pushing this issue, as there comes a point where POV pushing becomes disruptive, and disruptive editing leads to blocks. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That does not relate to the edit in question.TeeTylerToe (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For more than a week, in an article and on four different Talk Pages you have put forth the opinion that the S-70 and S-76 are one and the same, starting with the inclusion of the S-76 (and S-92) in a list of S-70 models (this edit marking my first involvement) and then the suggestion that the two types' articles be merged. Then you initiate the whole rigmarole here on this page, and eventually state that all you wanted to do was say that both "use a bull head main transmission" instead of another transmission design. If that's all you wanted to say, why didn't you say it? YSSYguy (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see what bearing that has on this discussion, but I wanted to create a single article discussing the mechanical design of the s-70. The rotor composition, and airfoil, the forged aluminium rotor head, the elastometric main rotor bearing, the bull head transmission, and the bearingless tail rotor.  Because there were 6-9 articles all covering variants or derivatives of the s-70, and all of the covered the same shallow overview, and none of them had any decent depth, and if any one article did have decent depth, it would have been information that belonged in each of those 6-9 articles.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment from (involved) editor. That the S-76 uses technology first used on the S-70 is not in doubt. This does not make one a version or derivative of the other however. Reliable sources all treat the S-70 and S-76 as completly different types, while there is a statement on the S-76 talk page from the then Sikorsky president that the S-76 "...is not a derivative aircraft in any sense of the word". Reliable sources do not refer to the S-76 as the civil version of the S-70, and neither should the articles in question.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is this even an issue? Look at these two web pages:

http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/sik_s-70.php

http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/sik_s-76.php

Pretty clear, I would say. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Er: WP:AVIASTAR. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The standard for a link used in a talk page discussion is not the same as the standard for a citation in an article. In fact, External links tells us to discuss links that may violate copyright on talk pages. You can't do that without telling people what the link links to. For the purpose of this discussion all that matters is whether the pictures at aviastar.org are pictures of the rotorcraft in question. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Judging by the different way references have been interpreted by parties in this case, it probably would be worth clarifying what you mean by Pretty clear.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point. I mean that they are about as alike as Chaka Khan and Jackie Chan. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What bearing does the matter of the type certification of the s-70 and the type certification of the s-76, or the matter of whether the S-76 is a derivative of the S-70 or a variant of it have to do with this edit?TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because this whole thing started as your insistence that the S-70 and the S-76 are the same helicopter, that you continued insisting for quite some length. Due to this your edits stating that the S-76 uses the same drivetrain as the S-70 can only be seen as the same thing. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have just made this edit, which re-arranged some of the existing copy and which includes the following new material: Sikorsky's design work on the UH-60 Black Hawk was utilised when developing the S-76, which employed the same design- and construction techniques; and aerodynamic features; for its main and tail rotor systems as the UH-60. I believe this is no mre than a re-wording of the information in the source used (here) and gives an appropriate amount of weight to the limited similarities between the two types. YSSYguy (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * User:TeeTylerToe - you can note that it is considered very bad form to bring a dispute here and then when this doesn't seem to be going your way to try to edit war on the article page to get your own way. If you keep this up you will likely be blocked from further editting. - Ahunt (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Participants can note that User:TeeTylerToe was blocked 31 hours for edit warring. - Ahunt (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

There is disagreement about how much we can say about why the SPLC considers Focus on the Family to be anti-gay. My view is that our citations support the three stated reasons, while those who disagree claim that synthesis is involved. Note that the issue isn't whether the text belongs there in general, just whether the citations are sufficient.

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?

It's been discussed on the talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

It would be helpful if someone neutral would comment on whether the citations support the statements.

Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Focus on the Family discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

"It is listed as an anti-gay group by the Southern Poverty Law Center due to its promotion of discrimination against LGBT people, promotion of scientific ignorance, and misrepresentation of research." A quick check of the source will show that this statement cannot be defended without doing OR or without a new source, and certainly not via a direct quote of the present source.
 * Editor Still-24-45-42-125 (and also as his IP, 24.45.42.125) is borderline edit-warring to defend this sentence from the lead of the article:

Still-24-45-42-125 maintains that this is a well-cited summary, and evidently is not familiar with what constitutes OR or SYNTH, or CONSENSUS, and ironically has "decided it would be interesting to learn how Wikipedia resolves conflicts caused by people who blatantly ignore citations."

Per discussion and pending promulgation of new sources, the consensus version of the sentence is "It is listed as an anti-gay group by the Southern Poverty Law Center due to its promotion of discrimination against LGBT people," based on WP:MOSINTRO and WP:MOSBEGIN. While there may be support for Still's version further down in the article, without a valid inline citation the allegations of "promotion of scientific ignorance, and misrepresentation of research" should not be stated in the lead. Efforts to explain policy on the Talk page have failed, and now we are here.

Admins should also be aware that Still (under his IP) was reported for edit-warring in the last 48 hours (but was not blocked), and that I was the editor who reported him(?). Belchfire (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Quotes? - Can some editor provide quotes from the source(s) which discuss the SPLC's view/categorization of FOTF?  --Noleander (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry... forgot to give you a reflist tag. Belchfire (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is what the major source (the SPLC) says:


 * "Below are profiles of a dozen of today's most influential anti-gay groups. Groups designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are marked with an asterisk: … Focus on the Family [does not have an asterisk] ..... No one has spread the anti-gay gospel as widely, or with as much political impact, as James Dobson .... On Focus' 47-acre campus in Colorado Springs, some 1,300 employees battle against gay rights, sex education and women's rights ... Dobson's radio show, dispensing homespun parenting advice along with jabs at "the militant homosexual agenda,"  ... As early as 1989, Dobson came under attack from a fellow conservative evangelical, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who accused him of "reprehensible" and "homophobic" use of false information about how AIDS is transmitted. But Focus began to really flex its anti-gay political muscles in 1992, when Dobson used his radio show to turn Colorado's anti-gay Amendment 2 (see Holy War) into a fundamentalist cause célèbre .... Among the scores of anti-gay commentaries, stories and products on FOF's Web site is a Dobson essay that strikes a typical note: "Moms and Dads, are you listening? This movement is the greatest threat to your children. It is of particular danger to your wide-eyed boys, who have no idea what demoralization is planned for them." Another article claims that "the homosexual agenda is a beast. It wants our kids." .... According to a 1997 book by former FOF staffer Gil Alexander-Moegerle, Dobson once said, "Communities do not let prostitutes, pedophiles, voyeurs, adulterers and those who sexually prefer animals to publicly celebrate their lifestyle, so why should homosexuals get such privileges?"  ....But none of this cut into Dobson's effectiveness as he successfully spearheaded the national campaign against gay marriage in 2003 and 2004 (see Holy War)."
 * --Noleander (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why I wasn't included in the list of involved editors, as I've been involved both in editing the page and in the discussion on the Talk page. What the source listed here shows is that, yes, Focus is listed as an anti-gay group (the source itself is a list of "profiles of a dozen of today's most influential anti-gay groups"). But it presents a lot of statements about Focus, and does not state which subset of these facts is responsible for the inclusion. I don't even see any claim of misrepresentation of research by Focus on this page; there is a mention of false facts regarding AIDS, but I don't see any claim that it was incorrectly attributed to research. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the material from SPLC above (in yellow quote box), I think the sentence in the lead is not very accurate.  There is no discussion of research; and the material about false information about AIDS is from Koop, not SPLC.  My suggestion would be (1) to remove the specific mention of SPLC from the lead; (2) the lead should have a broader statement that "several groups consider FOTF to be anti-gay" or similar;  and (3) the existing material about SPLC down in the body should be reworded to more accurately paraphrase the SPLC source. --Noleander (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Eeeerm...I believe posting that large a quote is probably a copyright violation. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If anyone wishes to replace that long quote with a link, here it is:


 * http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/spring/a-mighty-army#10


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have some vague POV opinions in this area, but I don't think that they impinge on this discussion. To see my opinions re resolution of this discussion, see . Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In that link provided immediately above by Wtmitchell, the IP editor says "Thanks. I'm not opposed to moving some of the details a bit lower in the article, but like you, I'd rather let the more regular editors tackle it. I just saw that it was deleted for lack of citations, so I provided the citation. " So maybe there is consensus that the SPLC-specific material can be removed from the lead, and just left in the body (where it already is).   If that is done, however, it should be replaced (in the lead) with a brief summary of what critics say about the organization  (based on WP:LEAD's requirement that the lead summarize the entire article; plus WP:BALANCE etc).   --Noleander (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We should only mention what the SPLC says specifically on FoF, or uses in its definition of anti-gay groups. However it should be mentioned in the lead, because tghe SPLC is the most authoritative source for categorizing these types of groups.  TFD (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the SPLC has a monopoly on identifying anti-gay groups. But even if it were the foremost authority, that kind of specificity is best done in the body of the article.   So, the lead should be generic:  "FOTF is considered to be anti-gay by several organizations".  Then, in the body:  "SPLC considers FOTF to be ....  Group A considers FOTF to be ...  Group B considers ....".  --Noleander (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I took out the wording "promotion of scientific ignorance, and misrepresentation of research" because the reference does not state that. It identified FOTF as an anti-gay group so I left that.  That phrase should either have a reference that supports it without synthesis and OR, or it should be removed.  Also, one organization identifying as anti-gay probably should not be in the lede, anyway. 72Dino (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this entire conversation after first starting it because I didn't have a watch list set up. I generally agree with Noleander's solution, in which we mention that it's "considered anti-gay by several organizations" up top and then go into the SPLC's views later on. That appears to be the consensus here, as well. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, we've got Belchfire edit-warring against the consensus we've built here. I'm too busy with the real world to report him. If someone wants to deal with him, feel free. If not, I'll wait until the smoke is clear and then restore the version we all agreed on. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Eh? Looks from here that anything more than the SPLC opinion sourced to the SPLC and with none of the added SYNTH is all that remotely has consensus for inclusion.  Collect (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, actually, it doesn't. I encourage anyone reading this to see for themselves. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I think the major issues in this DRN have been resolved: (a) the SPLC's views were misrepresented in the article, and that has been remedied;  (b) the SPLC was singled out in the lead, and that has been replaced with a more generic statement. The remaining task, I think, is to improve the lead to conform to WP:LEAD and make it very balanced and very encyclopedic. Work towards that end is happening in the article Talk page now. If no one posts any new issues here (in the DRN) in the next couple of days, I'd recommend that this DRN be closed, and the work continues in the article Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Bane in other media, Bane (comics)


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

In short, the editor below, who has been active since the 22nd of this month and has made hundreds of edits focusing almost entirely on the topics above and related articles, sometimes massive edits without discussion or consensus. He has consistently reverted changes and refused to discuss before reverting any changes to his preferred version. He is also involved in a similar and lengthy discussion around another related topic where he appears unwilling to accept consensus.

Finally, another user left he and I a warning for edit warring (which I find questionable since I did not break 3RR and tried to initiate discussion) while I was creating this, so I'll include that person as well.

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".)

Oops - yes, I informed them immediately after posting this.


 * 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 discussed on his page and explained my position in my edit summaries.


 * How do you think we can help?

I'd like to come to a consensus on the overly long and detailed sections in Bane in other media, as well as the other editors overall attitude of his way or no way.

Williamsburgland (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Bane in other media, Bane (comics) discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Most of what you say above refers to conduct issues which are not handled at this noticeboard, please try WP:WQA, WP:RFCU, or WP:SPI for those. As for the "overly long and detailed sections in Bane in other media," I can find no discussion of that topic at either article's talk page or at the other editor's user talk page and this noticeboard (and all other forms of content dispute resolution) requires talk page discussion before listing a request for DR. Please discuss the issues at the article talk page(s) and if you cannot come to a resolution, then please feel free to re-list here. I'll leave this open for awhile so you can point us to a discussion if I've missed it. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Bane in other media
I'm not sure what is going on here, but I think I know what to say. Let me start by informing you all that I was the one who created the Bane in other media article in the first place, seeing as how it was being said that that article was being too lengthy. So before anyone says that my methods are "too lengthy," remember that my incentive was to fix that in the first place, while still being informative. Secondly, I suppose the DKR section of Bane in other media is overly long, but it may just seem that way because his character arc in that film is obviously very significant. Nonetheless, is character arc is explained in full in all of the other sections of the article, from Bane's first appearance to his defeat. So the film section should be no exception. Thirdly, the Bane in other media article follows the exact same format of the Joker in other media article, and if you look at that article, it is just as lengthy as the Bane in other media article, if not even more lengthy. Not only that, but the Joker in other media article has been that way for years, if I am not mistaken, since TDK was released. So I do not think proceeding by massively trimming down Bane's character arc explanation in the film sections while the Joker's article hasn't been trimmed down is appropriate. Lastly, I do not know what the Lazarus Pit has to do with this, or why it was brought up here. I haven't continued to undo reverts of that page, if that is what this is about. I was doing it before, but I stopped, because I decided that consensus is more important, even though I feel consensus is faulty over that issue. Farhadpersia (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Water fluoridation


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

I am trying to add content about a National Institute of Health analysis review paper regarding adverse effects of fluoride on childrens' neurodevelopment. A few other users have noted problems with the content that I added, and I was open to compromise so I complied and changed the content that I added. Now they are saying that they need to wait for "expert published commentary", when the review I posted is, in fact, expert published commentary on a number of studies. The following is the content I am trying to add: In July 2012, a review of various studies was conducted by Harvard University researchers and was published in support of the notion that increased fluoride exposure can have adverse effects on the neurodevelopment of children. The review compared the IQs of children in areas with abnormally high fluoride content to the IQs of children in areas with normal fluoride content, and found that "children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas". On July 20th, 2012, it was published online in a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' journal called Environmental Health Perspectives.

Here is the source since it is showing up incorrectly: Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

Franamax has continued to nag me about how I overlooked the fact that the initial source I provided was not reliable (it was a source cited within a reliable source, so it was not hard to miss). I have since changed my source to a more reliable source, but Franamax still brings it up and has even threatened to seek removal of my privileges over this mistake.


 * 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?

Discussed on talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

You can help by helping to establish consensus and/or compromise, and provide outsiders' opinions.

Gold   Standard  22:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Water fluoridation discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * Quick note: the paper is in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, which is published by (a branch of) NIH but the content itself (articles and their underlying underlying research) are not specifically NIH work, and they explicitly disclaim any endorsement or any other judgment of the content. DMacks (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, but the researchers are supposedly (I say this because it comes from the initial source that is unreliable) university researchers at a reputable university.  Gold   Standard  23:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, just found this article that isn't a press release and states that the researchers are university researchers: Fluoride May Lower Your IQ Gold   Standard  23:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The study only appears to support a correlation of IQ vs water fluoridation (the quote you give from the article), which is quite weaker than what your content says. DMacks (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What if I changed it to say something like, "the study found a correlation between fluoride concentration and IQ"?  Gold   Standard  23:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I never make the claim in my content that fluoride does affect the neurodevelopment of children, I say that the study was "published in support of the notion".  Gold   Standard  23:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, to address the "nagging" first off, the "threat" was just a courtesy notice that I will (or may) be seeking removal of GS's reviewer privilege based on their uncritical acceptance of a really quite obvious PR piece as a reliable source. I find that incompatible with the ability to approve edits by others making the same "mistake", but that is quite apart from the outcome of this particular discussion and is a behavioural rather than content issue. The other part of the "nagging" though is that GS is patently still relying on the PR piece as a guide for their editing, even though they no longer wish to cite it directly in the article, they wish to regurgitate the essence of the press release with such minimal rewriting as to squeeze it into the article. Look just above here, where at 23:23 GS proposes a source that regurgitates the same damn [Struck] press release! AND the web page even says "send us your press release"!
 * Take another look at the two links, as they are not the same. One (the bad one) is written by   NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc., the other one is written by Sarah Glynn, copyright of Medical News Today.  This leads me to believe that NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. obtained use permission from medical news today and changed some of the content. Also, just because the website accepts press releases doesn't meant that the article is a press release.  The article doesn't indicate that it is a press release anywhere.  Also, in regards to your point about me not rewording enough from the original article, I would be more than happy to reword my content.  Lastly, this discussion is getting fairly heated, so let's keep cool and avoid curse words, etc.  Thanks,  Gold   Standard  01:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I may have had more wiki-experience than you at comparing and evaluating texts and webpages, so I'll defer to others comments on how very probable the direction of copying is here - even if you ignore the dates. Franamax (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, you are totally right about the dates. The medical news article is most definitely a reworded copy of the initial source.  You are completely right, I apologize.   Gold   Standard  04:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But now to the substance: I think the desirable compromise here is that the material not appear in the article unless and until it has been commented on by neutral, high-quality, secondary sources in accordance with WP:MEDRS. I did consider ways in which a possible effect on IQ could be briefly mentioned as one of several possible adverse effects of excessive levels of dietary fluoride - but there are hundreds of these studies, why give this one any particular WEIGHT? It concentrates almost wholly on the Chinese studies of (presumably) poor people trapped in areas of the country with naturally occurring fluoride levels far in excess of anything close to municipal fluoridation, and even there, look at Yobol's analysis on the talk page, it hedges itself here, there and everywhere. The recommendation is for further study. Also I object to the specific wording of "significant", as this is a word commonly misinterpreted by the public to mean "meaningful", when in fact it is closer to "the smallest possible amount that could matter at all". There is just not enough weight to this study to include a discussion of it. Franamax (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I gave this "study" any weight is that it is not a study at all, it is a review/analysis of a number of studies. Also, I would accept this as a fair compromise if you wish to proceed with it: "I did consider ways in which a possible effect on IQ could be briefly mentioned as one of several possible adverse effects of excessive levels of dietary fluoride".   Gold   Standard  01:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is certainly a meta-analysis, but see at EHP's Author info page under "About your Manuscript", Substantive vs. Quantitative Reviews, so it's not necessarily a grand summary of the current state of knowledge in the field (which is what I tend to associate the term with, as in a Nature Review).
 * Yes, I am definitely not as savvy on the terminology as you are.  Gold   Standard  04:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I considered adding a phrase in the [Safety] -> "Fluoride can occur naturally" sentence, but what to say? Why is this study groundbreaking, what game is it a changer of? Why in this article, rather than fluoride toxicity where there is already a paragraph of prior work? Which I do think would be a good place for mention of this study too, so long as the language was non-prejudicial, not trying to boost up on academic affiliations, explaining with proper caveats, etc. At some point, the increasing weight there might get summarized into this article specifically about municipal fluoridation, and if so, I think I've picked the right spot, right before the bit about when they set the controls wrong. Franamax (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I definitely like the spot you chose, maybe we could just add it to the list of symptoms in the "Fluoride can occur naturally" sentence. We'll change this: "including severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and weakened bones." to this: "including severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, weakened bones, and impeded neurological development in children."  We could follow it with a sentence on the study itself afterwards if you wish, as long as we explain with proper caveats, like you said.   Gold   Standard  04:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (Comments deleted through edit conflict) While not posing any judgement on RS suitability, what about "was published in support of the notion that increased fluoride exposure is correlated with reduced neurodevelopment of children." From what I can tell, it presents the findings without implying causation that isn't supported by the actual study results. VanIsaacWScontribs 00:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That works for me Gold   Standard  00:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! This topic is now featured on Cracked.com!

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/fluoride-lowers-your-iq-b.s.-headline-week/

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a number of problems with the edit proposed by Gold Standard, but the main one is that the meta-analysis was done on studies which had much higher doses of fluoride than what is used with artificial water fluoridation, and studied mainly water that was naturally high in fluoride rather than what is administered in the water supply. It therefore does not belong in the water fluoridation article as that article explicitly discusses artificial addition of fluoride. It probably belongs in the fluoride toxicity article as suggested (which already has a paragraph discussing IQ and high fluoride levels), though in a much different form to better summarize the conclusion of the authors (rather than what the fringe anti-fluoride groups want it to say). Yobol (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yobol is absolutely right, I should have looked at the fluoride toxicity page earlier. I hereby concede.  Feel free to close this thread.   Gold   Standard  17:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell


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

The editors are trying to remove a Media Matters source (diff) based on their POV and are trying to justify it on WP:Undue and consensus. The reasoning fails since it's minimally used once in the entire article so it can't possibly be considered Undue unless it also happens to not be an RS.

To give some background, we had a dispute resolution discussion about this same source earlier to which it was found that Media Matters is a reliable source and yet editors are trying to remove it on baseless grounds. (diff).

It's worth noting that removal of MMfA based on POV is not uncommon in the article (diff, diff, diff, diff).

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?

Discussed it in talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

By determining:


 * 1) If using the MMfA source constitutes Undue
 * 2) If the editors are trying to exclude it based on POV and baselessly trying to use policies to justify it.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

This is the third time he's tried this, and he's already got two arbitration requests that have been declined. There is no consensus to add the information whatsoever, and CartoonDiablo is simply trying to use dispute resolution as a bludgeon to eventually get editors he disagrees with sanctioned. CartoonDiablo disengages from the talk page when he doesn't like the questions being asked, and does nothing to even demonstrate that the information he wants to put in is viable, never mind build any consensus. Compromise was attempted and didn't work. Enough is enough. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So I was disengaged (diff, diff)? And there is no comprimise between removing something for POV and not removing it; what you Arzel, Lionelt and others are doing is removing material because it doesn't fit your POV and are trying to find any baseless reason possible to do so (and might I add violating WP:NPOV). The fact is consensus doesn't give editors the license to violate Wikipedia policies. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You were disengaged for weeks, yes. As noted in the talk page.  You've consistently violated policies in re-adding the information without discussion or consensus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Media Matters is a reliable source for facts and certainly a reliable source for its own opinions. However, if we want to say Sowell's comment "has been criticized by liberal groups such as...", we need a source that makes that observation. The DNC btw is not a "liberal group". This really belongs in the Thomas Sowell section, where we can combine praise and criticism. We need to avoid long criticism sections filled with anecdotes in all BLP articles. TFD (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How is MMfA reliable, as it's a self-published, highly-partisan group? Furthermore, even if it is reliable, there is no consensus to include the criticisms by them and them alone, so why are we even having this discussion?  Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See the for example reliable sources noticeboard "Media matters (25th time asked)". You might also want to read the first 24 discussion threads and any ones that have been brought up since.  TFD (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That link does not say that MMfA is a RS for factual information. One banned editor makes the stupid artgument that MMfA is equatable to FNC, it is not.  MMfA, by it's own admission is currently dedicated to the destruction of FNC, there is simply no way in hell that such a source could ever be considered a reliable source for factual information.  Arzel (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually I forgot to include Hugetim but with his input there is no consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No consensus to add, yes. You've been trying to add it for a year and a half and have gotten pushback from countless editors.  You still haven't quite gotten the hint. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When did this dispute start and what was the state of the article then? If a third party affirmed it's inclusion, wouldn't you need consensus to remove the information, not to add it? Thing is that "countless" POV edits don't override policy, which is what we should be talking about. Hugetim (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that CD first started trying to add MMfA in January 2011, and was reverted within a couple days. This has been a slow burn since then, with a couple flareups, and you actually appear to be the first person in 18 months to back him up on this at the article.  Multiple users have argued against its inclusion, and CD, to this point, refuses to justify its inclusion per policy.  I have asked him a series of questions regarding the content at the talk page, and he refuses to answer them.  He's fighting a lonely battle and is actively forum-shopping to get the result he wants at this stage. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's also worth noting that Thargor has done disruptive edits that violate reverting due to no consensus (diff, diff) which hold no validity outside of being POV edits. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is "worth noting" at all. The purpose of this noticeboard is not to help resolve disputes about the behavior of editors. There are other noticeboards for that. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's done in the context of whether or not these are POV edits done with baseless justifications. As far as I can tell it's the only explanation for that as all. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of context, it is not appropriate to use this noticeboard to label Thargor Orlando's edits as "disruptive" in order to make your case in a content dispute. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just an attempt to try and get users he disagrees with sanctioned. This is not an honest attempt to resolve the dispute, but a means to an end.  We only need to assume good faith until there's evidence to the contrary, and when a user comes into a talk page and says "it will result in sanctions" if we don't bend to his will, well... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thargor Orlando (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 July 2012
 * The MMfA website is a valid source for the opinions of MMfA. TFD (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. That doesn't make them a valid, noteworthy, or reliable source for criticism of anyone in particular.  Especially when the consensus is overwhelmingly against using it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The point of taking issues to this board is to get the views of experienced editors. That you and a few other editors who do not understand policies have formed a "consensus" is of no interest to me.  And as explained, editors like you have challenged MMfA countless times and have failed to persuade anyone.  TFD (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That you assume I do not understand policies has not been proven even a little bit. Even if MMfA is a worthwhile source to use - something that has not been established, mind you - that does not mean we have the consensus to use it here.  This is not a discussion in good faith, regardless, as CartoonDiablo believes DR to be about building a case for sanctions against editors, not to resolve a dispute. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MMfA has been declared a "valid, noteworthy, or reliable source" 25 times now. The issue at hand is whether or not the source constitutes Undue weight or whether the editors are simply using POV exclusion. As of yet, none of the editors have even tried to justify why it would be considered undue weight. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're seeing any consensus of any kind for your point of view there. It's undue weight because it's the bulk of criticism coming from one unreliable, hyper-partisan, self-published group.   You lack the consensus to add it, nor have you justified why criticism from MMfA is noteworthy for inclusion in this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is your personal opinion but MMfA has been proven to be a reliable source 25 times now, unless you have another argument for why its undue then there is no validity to the claim of undue weight. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's hyperbole, actually, but there doesn't actually seem to be consensus there that it's reliable. And you still haven't shown the consensus for using it at the Sowell article, either.  Or why it's noteworthy enough for inclusion.  You avoid those questions constantly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised this is even an issue, quite frankly. The use of Media Matters for America as a reference is perfectly acceptable when used as an attributed primary source. Moreover, I think in this case the opinion of the organization is valid and useful, and doesn't fall foul of WP:NPOV. Sowell's views are very much outside the mainstream, and MMfA offers a useful critique to draw from. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't calling Sowell's views "outside the mainstream" POV in itself? Furthermore, if we can note the criticism without using poor or blatantly partisan sources, shouldn't we?  Because we can on one of the MMfA sections CD keeps re-adding.  Furthermore, if only MMfA is criticizing something, is it worth noting even if the consensus at the page is that it's not? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No it is not POV to call Sowell's views outside the mainstream, since NPOV requires us to distinguish between mainstream and non-mainstream opinion. TFD (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And how is Sowell outside the mainstream? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And MMfA isn't "poor" or "blatantly partisan". All it basically does is report on right-wing media. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the definition of blatantly partisan! That's literally partisanship! Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sowell's writings have been ignored in the academic community - he is not even mentioned in any of the economics textbooks I have seen. If his views reflected the mainstream then there would be no need for a Tea Party, etc., because the main parties would already embrace these ideas.  The comparison with MMfA is wrong btw, the opinions of a writer and the factual nature of his writing are mutually exclusive.  TFD (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see what being "ignored" by the academic community has to do with much, but I'm unaware of him offering anything novel that would be published in such a way, either. You've not actually mentioned anything non-mainstream about his ideas, but I agree - the comparison with MMfA isn't the issue here, it's whether MMfA is a good source for the controversies in the Sowell article.  To bring it back around, there are two controversies in the article - one that is noted by multiple third party non-self-published neutral sources, one that is only sourced by MMfA.  We don't need the MMfA citation for the first controversy, and there's no disagreement that the controversy is worth noting.  The question, then, is why do we need a controversy noted only by MMfA at all?  What value is it?  Why is it noteworthy simply because a hyper-partisan, self-published group notes it?  Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MMfA is not the only source for the controversy, it's also cited by the DNC as well as well as Politico and the Washington Monthly. And even if MMfA was the only citation then it be warranted by its virtue as a reliable source. Again the only issue for whether it's undue weight (which is what this dispute resolution is about) would be if MMfA wasn't a reliable source. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Last things first, the dispute is about MMfA as a source period. That you're complaining about some of the arguments against using MMfA doesn't change the dispute.  As for the use of MMfA, there are two controversies listed: the Hitler comparison, which is sourced by plenty of neutral sources, and the race card comparison, sourced at the time of this dispute only by MMfA, but now also by PFAW, another hyper-partisan poor source.  There's no question from anyone that the Hitler thing can and should stay - it's clearly noteworthy and can be sourced properly.  The questions are: 1) why do we need MMfA for the Hitler comparison if we have neutral, reliable sources for it, and 2) why do we need the second criticism at all if only MMfA and extreme partisan groups notice it?  It's not noteworthy enough, and it's not sourced well enough for inclusion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you see it as a reliable source doesn't change the fact that it is and has been held as such for a long time; this also answers (2), because it is reliable the second criticism is warranted. If your only argument for undue weight is that it's not a reliable source then this discussion could have been over two years ago. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with CartoonDiablo on this. It's not a question of "why do we need MMfA" so much as MMfA is okay so we can use it. Thargor is suggesting MMfA be discarded as a source in preference to others because Thargor doesn't like MMfA. I'm sorry, but that just isn't a good enough reason to discard a notable reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to see where it's been held in any way shape or form. This "25th time" (which seems to be hyperbole) certainly doesn't show an consensus, and I'm suggesting MMfA not be used because there's no consensus for its use at the article and it's a poor source to use for unnoteworthy criticisms.  Where is this consensus that it's a reliable source and that their criticisms are automatically noteworthy? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(out) Thargor Orlando, your argument makes no sense. You say we should not mention comments by MMfA, which editors have agreed 25+ times is a reliable source, yet you do not complain about mentioning comments of the DNC, which is not a reliable source. You have turned the discussion into something irrelevant. TFD (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not using the DNC, we're using independent, reliable, neutral media to discuss what the DNC is saying. Their criticism is noteworthy.  No one, to this point, has explained why MMfA's is worthy of note, nor have they shown the consensus that MMfA is okay - it certainly isn't clear at the page initially linked, and if "25 times" is not hyperbole, that it's a question so often should be a massive red flag that it's not actually a good source.  Even if we assume MMfA is a good source, that doesn't answer why their criticisms are automatically noteworthy or demonstrate consensus to use them on this page and in this context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MMfA is an often-quoted mainstream media source that has clearly won the approval of Wikipedia in terms of its reliability as a source. You don't want to see it used as a source because you perceive it has a "liberal bias". Well that's just too bad, Thargor. There's a clear consensus here that MMfA is fine as a source, and I suggest we can "port" this consensus over to Talk:Thomas Sewell where Arzel is busy carrying your torch. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice people are continuing to avoid the salient questions. Where has it "clearly won approval?"  It's not that it has a "liberal bias," MSNBC and the Guardian have a liberal bias and they're fine - it's that they're a blatantly partisan unreliable source who's simple act of criticism is not nearly enough to assume that it's worthy of inclusion.  Where is this consensus you speak of?  Simply repeating it time and time again doesn't make it true. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't it obvious? More people agree with CartoonDiablo's position in this thread than yours, and that position is backed-up by previous discussions about the quality of MMfA as a reliable source. Ergo, consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So his forum shopping worked, in other words. Can you stop avoiding the questions and answer them as to why you agree with CartoonDiablo, since he appears to be incapable of answering those questions himself? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I already said why I agree. I certainly think the opinion of MMfA on comments made by Sewell is at least as relevant as the opinion of Louie "more guns would've stopped the shooter in Aurora" Gohmert, who is clearly from the extreme right on the POV scale. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, so MMfA, a hard-left partisan organization is "at least as relevant" a sitting Congressman speaking on the house floor? This is really your comparison?  That's where you go with this instead of answering the questions posed?  If you think you've answered them, show me where.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MMfA is not a "hard-left partisan organization", and Louie Gohmert is definitely a hard-right partisan individual. You are letting your personal point of view affect your judgement in this matter. I can understand now why a frustrated CartoonDiablo brought the dispute to this noticeboard! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MMfA is not a hard-left partisan organization? Per their own website, they describe themselves as "progressive," and they aim to deal with what they believe is "conservative misinformation."  What part of that is not hard-left or partisan?  The NYT calls it a "highly partisan research organization", so it's fairly clear on an objective level.  It's not a personal point of view thing - if someone was trying to add NewsBusters to an article about, say, Keith Olbermann, I'd have the same position, as they're a hard-right partisan organization of self-published people.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Progressive" isn't "hard left". Learn: Progressivism in the United States. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Progressives are the far left of the Democratic party and any source that has a dedicated objective of destroying conservative figures (as does MMfA) is not a reliable source, end of story. There is simply no way to logically argue that MMfA and their dedicated objective of destruction of conservative figures and FNC can be considered to be a reliable source for anything except their own opinion, especially within BLP articles. Now if an event recieves considerable coverage by actual reliable sources one could argue that you could pile on the MMfA critcism as well. However, if MMfA is the only one doing the criticism then it is not that notable for sufficient weight concerns. Arzel (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said. But if we can have a criticism without having MMfA sourced to it, why use MMfA?  The MMfA-only criticism was rightly removed by one of the editors on the opposite side of this, so we're making progress, but I see no need to continue using MMfA for the Hitler thing when we have plenty of indisputably mainstream, credible, neutral sources to use instead. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no point in continuing to discuss this with either of you. You're so blinded by your right-wing ideology you are no longer open to reasonable arguments or discussion. It's clear you'll do anything or say anything to scrub the Sowell article of criticism (including resorting to edit warring) and I don't want to get mixed up in that sort of behavior. Enjoy your time in the echo chamber. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with criticism, as long as it's well-sourced. Your need to resort to personal attacks is duly noted, however. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

MMfA and consensus
Let's take a look at the supposed consensus here. While the search function is less than stellar, a search at the reliable sources noticeboard brings up a number of discussions that talk about MMfA specifically. They are as follows:


 * Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters: This is from 2010, and is probably the most detailed discussion. Clearly, there are a lot of feelings and beliefs about MMfA (and other groups like it), and there was actually an end discussion/vote that doesn't show much in the way of consensus for including anything like MMfA.  In fact, a strict vote count shows the plurality saying to "exclude."  Clearly, there's no consensus on the matter here.
 * Media Matters (25th time asked): Not really the 25th time by any real count, it appears to be hyperbole as I suspected, but this discussion notes a few things, such as how MMfA was removed from a Fox News controversy article at the time for a lot of the same reasons I've opposed its inclusion above. The discussion certainly shows a consensus at that time that MMfA is not self-published (a point of view I disagree with, but it's in black and white), but not much of any consensus about its use overall.  No conclusion appears to have been reached the way the conclusion appears to be reached regarding its status as to whether it's self-published or not, for comparison.
 * Media Matters Blogs: Begins with one editor asserting a consensus that doesn't exist from my previous link above, and the discussion goes on from there. A lot of derailing from one editor asserting consensus over and over (sound familiar?) but there doesn't appear to be consensus there either.
 * Media Matters and News Hounds: A short one noting the similarities between the two groups. The discussion is short, and thus of limited value, but the weight of the arguments again doesn't appear to be showing any significant consensus in either direction.
 * Reliability of Media Matters: From a few months ago, a four comment discussion that dissolved very quickly into attacks. Another unproven assertion of consensus, nothing much of value to add.
 * MMFA - Media Matters for America: This is from 2008, and outside of the WorldNetDaily derailment (and WND is a terrible source), the weight of consensus from this, at least, would indicate MMfA not being a good source. That's why we're not cherry-picking our boards here, though.
 * Media Matters yet again: A short one from 2010, with limited input and no real consensus to speak of.
 * User-generated blog posts and an unattributed Media Matters post as criticism of a peer-reviewed journal article: From 2010, one complaint with one piece of input referring back to previous discussions and the supposed consensus that doesn't appear to exist.
 * Media Matters for America: From 2010, no responses.
 * Media Matters for America, Huffington Post, and Newshounds: From 2009, most of this gets delegated to HuffPo's status more than MMfA, but I don't see a MMfA consensus here, either.
 * Do these sources qualify as reliable sources?: From 2011. MMfA barely discussed, "editorial decision" comes up a few times.

That's all the section headings specifically about MMfA. There are other mentions here and there, but few that actually discuss MMfA as a viable/nonviable source in more than a passing statement. One place I decided to check afterward when doing this was the Biography of Living People Noticeboard. Some relevant findings there:


 * Mocking a BLP at Media Matters for America: From 2008. More about an issue with Stephen Colbert than MMfA, but there are examples here of people's distrust of MMfA on BLPs and some editorial decisions not to use them (such as at The Obama Nation at that time).
 * John Gibson (political commentator): From 2010, this actually mirrors the Sowell dispute quite well in many ways. One editor makes a good point that a bunch of involved people talking does not necessarily create a sitewide consensus, but the lean on this discussion appears to significantly want to treat these sorts of blatantly partisan "watchdog"-type groups the same and exclude them.
 * Carl Cameron: From 2009, this appears to have a significant problem with using MMfA based on their blatant partisanship, using examples of other partisan-type sources.
 * Coatrack, or valid criticism: From 2009, at least gives the appearance of being careful with MMfA as it's a primary source for criticism.
 * Use of sources such as mediamatters and newsbusters In bios: From 2008, derailed early as the person in question was a banned user's sock, but the discussion seems to be against partisan sources in criticism pages (with a lot of dislike of criticism pages period, to be fair).
 * Pamela Geller: 2010, a comment saying that MMfA shouldn't be used went unchallenged.

That's all the stuff that deals with MMfA specifically, and while I don't think this demonstrates a consensus for MMfA and BLP, the arguments at least seem to lean against MMfA. One thing to note, however, is that many times people were referred to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. CartoonDiablo tried to get the change approved there first and got stonewalled, thus the continued forum shopping, but not much of anything useful beyond that.

So at this point, the issue of consensus seems to be in significant contention. That there specifically does not appear to be a consensus one way or the other certainly doesn't mean that it's been proven time and time again as asserted above. That there seems to be significant issue with its use in BLPs is definitely worthy of attention. One thing that does keep coming up is the use of editorial discretion, and the consensus at the talk page for Sowell, even with CartoonDiablo's forum shopping, definitely doesn't show consensus for including MMfA as a source and may actually show consensus against doing so at that page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The question isn't whether MMFA is RS, the question is whether MMFA passes WP:UNDUE in the Thomas Sowell article. We're certainly not going to include every RS that has dicsussed Sowell. We have to choose which RS sources to include and exclude. That is the purpose of the article talk page. And IMO MMFA represents such a tiny itty bitty position that is does not pass WP:UNDUE.– Lionel (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is both, really. If MMfA isn't a good source, it's certainly not going to pass undue, but people seem to think that because it's supposedly a good source, it obviously passes undue.  The purpose of this is more to note the flaw in that argument. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, whether MMfA is sometimes a reliable source is not part of this particular dispute. That's because no one denies that MMfA can be a reliable source for the views of MMfA. Rather, it seems like the argument you want to make (and which Lionelt is making) is that only the DNC's views on Sowell's column raising the specter of Nazism should be cited in the article - or that, whoever should be cited, it shouldn't be MMfA. (But I do appreciate your helpful summary of the history of Wikipedia RS debate over MMfA - and I agree with you that the "25 times" claim doesn't hold up.) Would you be willing to agree that whether MMfA is an RS is not the issue, at least in this particular case? I think that could help us move toward agreement. -Hugetim (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're late to the dispute, you weren't originally part of it, so you may be confused as to what it's about - the reliability of MMfA is also in dispute in the context of this article. With that said, it's not the most relevant part since it appears CD is the only person still hung up on Rwanda, and I was the one who originally put the Nazism-without-MMfA compromise in the article.  I have no issue whatsoever with the Hitler controversy being there, as it's well-sourced by neutral, independent observers as well as criticized by noteworthy organizations that are not blatantly partisan (as opposed to political like the DNC, who would be expected to respond and would be appropriate to add). Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the DNC is literally the definition of a partisan organization, so I'm not sure where you are going with that distinction. Do you have any other ways to explain what it is about MMfA that should exclude its views from ever being cited in an article about a conservative figure? Could you also be more specific about why MMfA should not be considered a reliable source for the views of MMfA? (Or, let's set those questions aside and discuss whether MMfA's view is worth citing in this particular instance, and I'm beginning to think maybe not.) -Hugetim (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The DNC is a political organization, and a noteworthy one at that. My issue is not so much that MMfA is not reliable for its own views, as even the most unnoteworthy conspiracy theorist would be, but that MMfA noting something is not, in and of itself, noteworthy.  The DNC noting something, however?  That's a different story, especially in response to a criticism/complaint/smear on the President, and especially one handled by nonpartisan sources with (theoretically) no axes to grind.  I actually think we're all in agreement on this basic point, CD excluded. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The irony of this discussion (and I do appreciate the research and history for it) is that it excludes the most specific and most recent one, the one that is about this dispute and has had explicitly it is reliable:


 * This is the same reasoning I used for the Rwanda criticism. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did miss that, thanks for highlighting it. As Debbie W is a banned sockpuppeter, as the discussion was not about reliable sources and/or NPOV (which would have had volunteers skilled and interested in those areas), and the uninvolved person who is not currently banned referred it to those places?  I wouldn't hang your hat on it.  Even if we threw it into the pile, it still doesn't show a consensus in either direction for your position. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Debbie W wasn't banned for making that decision so the consensus is valid, as far as I can tell blocks do not disqualify consensus in dispute resolution etc. as long as it wasn't related to that decision/consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but she's no longer part of the process, and you *still* haven't shown where that consensus is after being asked countless times. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So are the people in the earlier discussions a "part of the process" (which isn't how dispute resolution works anyway)? You and Arzel are the only people even trying to claim it's not reliable, this conclusion is as clear now as it was in the prior Sowell-MMfA dispute. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus proposal
I hope that these, taken together, are a set of principles we can all agree on and take back to the Sowell talk page to apply to the specific incidents in question. What do you think? -Hugetim (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) MMfA is a reliable source for the views of MMfA, which are admittedly progressive.
 * 2) MMfA's views are sometimes noteworthy enough to be included in an article and sometimes not.
 * 3) An incident only covered by MMfA is not noteworthy enough to be included in a BLP article, but coverage by MMfA can contribute to an incident being considered noteworthy.
 * 4) To determine whether MMfA's views on a given incident are sufficiently noteworthy to include/cite, we take into account whether MMfA was mentioned in other coverage of the incident in reliable sources, though this is not necessary if it is one of the best sources for an incident for some other reason.
 * 5) There is currently not consensus about whether MMfA is generally a reliable source or a questionable source for facts. It is not a self-published source.
 * I can't outright agree with number 2 mainly because of number 5. I'm not entirely sure number 5 is entirely accurate, but for the sake of compromise I wouldn't make noise about it.  I'd make it more concise with the following:
 * MMfA is a reliable source for the views of MMfA.
 * There is currently not consensus about whether MMfA is generally a reliable source or a questionable source for facts. It is not a self-published source.
 * An incident only covered by MMfA is not noteworthy enough to be included in a BLP article, but coverage by MMfA can contribute to an incident being considered noteworthy. This does not mean that we need to rely on MMfA citations to make the case.
 * 3 and 4 are basically saying the same thing, and since the crux of the problem is using MMfA when we have better sources, I'm not sure why we'd even need to leave those windows open period. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything suggested by Hugetim, although the fifth point seems to only be the case because of two involved users. Everyone else seems perfectly happy with it. - 76.124.173.41 (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (Using my original numbering) I don't see how you can disagree with #2 if you agree with #1. MMfA is a notable organization (which is why it has its own article). Thus it is at least conceivable that its views would be noteworthy in the context of another topic (at least as its opinion if not as fact). It seems like you reject my #4 for the same reason. Can you elaborate? -Hugetim (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Being a notable organization does not mean that everything they do is worthy of note, or that simple virtue of being noteworthy makes one also worthy of mention. I again contrast with NewsBusters, or NewsMax or WorldNetDaily, none of which would be considered acceptable as sources even though they are noteworthy organizations.  To open that can of worms means to allow a partisan echo chamber to repeat the same things to each other, thus making them noteworthy for inclusion?  Better to limit it to neutral, nonpartisan, reliable sources to avoid that trap. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The views of all those organizations are sometimes worth citing (though I agree they seem questionable as sources for facts, without endorsing the equivalence with MMfA you are implying). That's all I'm suggesting we agree on here in #2. While I can understand the desire for clarity and ease behind your proposal to just ban all citations of their views, that's not consistent with policy. We need to assess these things according to context. There may be some scope for specifying some category of topics on which we will not cite MMfA (e.g. conservative figures, though I do not agree with that proposal), but a blanket ban is definately not going to fly. -Hugetim (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, a blanket ban could never gain consensus simply by a little-viewed dispute board, either, and I'm more looking forward to getting to the end of this so I can go back to making my couple changes a week when necessary. Is it safe to say that, for this article, we're in agreement that MMfA alone should not be a basis for including a criticism, and that we shouldn't use MMfA if we don't need to? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Widely covered events which also have a response from MMfA can have the response that MMfA was also critical of the event.
 * There is no reason to use MMfA as a main source in almost any circumstance. If an event is noteworthy it will have recieved considerable attention in mainstream sources as to negate the need to even consider MMfA.
 * Some things that MMfA complains about will get picked up by mainstream sources, in which case (1) will apply.
 * MMfA itself is not sufficient to demonstrate weight for an event as they report on every minor conservative issue concievable. As a result MMfA must then either be considered reliable for one of the two scenarios (MMfA is reliable for everything, and conversely MMfA is reliable for nothing) or (Editors must use editorial judgement for what MMfA reports on as a noteworthy event, which falls back onto 1).


 * The simple solution is to not use sources like MMfA as a source, especially within BLP articles where they are predisposed to be critical of conservative figures regardless of the issue. To say that MMfA is critical of a conservative is like saying water is wet and adds nothing to the article other than to load up BLP articles with a bunch of undue criticsm from an organization which is doesn't like them anyway.  Arzel (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By that reckoning, to say Louie Gohmert is complimentary of a conservative is like saying fire is hot. I see a double standard here. A noteworthy organization has given a noteworthy opinion of a noteworthy person. Nobody would complain if it was the New York Times with the opinion, and MMfA is really no different. - 76.124.173.41 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that a sitting Congressman and the widely-considered "paper of record" is noteworthy in a way that a random highly-partisan website is not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As was covered earlier, MMfA is considered a reliable source so the only distinction is that the New York Times is a more reliable source but both count as reliable.

My proposal is this regarding the noteworthiness of MMfA:
 * 1) MMfA is a reliable source for the views of MMfA, which are admittedly progressive.
 * 2) An incident only covered by MMfA is not noteworthy enough to be included in a BLP article, but coverage by MMfA can contribute to an incident being considered noteworthy.
 * 3) The consensus is that MMfA is a reliable source for information in general but to be covered in a BLP it has to pass 2.

As far as I can tell, 2 3 and 4 are essentially the same and are covered sufficiently by (Hugetim's) 3 alone. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * CD, I think the research is clear that there is no consensus for MMfA being a reliable source. Since you're really the only person who still has substantive protest (as far as I can tell), are you okay with us removing Rwanda and leaving Hitler w/o the MMfA cite?  If so, we can move on. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm exhausted personally, and I'm going to try to stop responding awaiting third party mediation, but I do not want my silence to be misunderstood as agreement with the many unanswered points in this dispute, many of which I disagree with. I found this helpful for perspective: Consensus. -Hugetim (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm also awaiting a third party response but I'm not OK with either because MMfA was found to be a reliable source (per the Rwanda section) and (as far as I can tell) Thargor is the only person who wants to remove it from the Hitler comparison. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're still clinging to that even with the sitewide research showing a lack of consensus otherwise. At some point you'll have to accept the lack of consensus on this issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see many more editors taking a position opposing yours, Thargor. There's no clear consensus because you and Arzel have adopted an obstructionist position. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I welcome you to show where such a consensus exists that MMfA is reliable, then - I've done the legwork research-wise, after all. Meanwhile, it doesn't seem like anyone has an argument as to why we need the MMfA citation for the Hitler issue, and you'd think that would be a worthwhile compromise for some. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would argue that a majority of editors in this very thread say that MMfA is a reliable source. That's good enough for me. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, consensus is not supposed to be by majority vote, but by rational and well-founded arguments. I'm not entirely certain what you guys are arguing for and against in looking over a summary of the thread here. No publisher can be called 100% reliable for all purposes and uses. They are self-admittedly biased, and that bias should be recognized when using MMfA as a source for published material, but are they generally inaccurate or over the top? -- Avanu (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In this specific thread, perhaps - you'd then have to explain how the selection of 6 editors that have chimed in at some point a) trump those who have not, such as the folks CD attempted to drag into arbitration, and b) trump the numerous discussions that clearly show a lack of consensus on the matter. You cannot do either of those things. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Reiterating the consensus
The dispute right now is whether MMfA is given undue weight which is based on whether or not it is a reliable source. To reiterate the consensus which seemed to have been missed, It was said to be reliable source by the former MMfA-Sowell dispute:

The arguments against this are that user was banned for an unrelated reason, however since his/her block had nothing to do with the dispute resolution decision the argument of illegitimacy is not valid.

For others that didn't notice, Scjessey is an outside opinion that assists dispute resolution and came with the same conclusion. Thus since it's an RS, the undue argument fails. For the sake of WP:Exhaust this dispute seems to have been over a long time ago. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that MMfA is a reliable third-party direct publisher of analysis that can be included in a Wikipedia article? Or are you saying that some other reliable sources can include commentary from MMfA and those bits of commentary can be included in a Wikipedia article? -- Avanu (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say either is fine. MMfA is frequently quoted by other news organizations and Wikipedia often uses it as a reference for both primary and secondary sourcing. When citing MMfA opinion, the usual form is something along the lines of "liberal organization Media Matters for America noted..." so there's no doubt about a potential bias. The problem here is that two editors evidently seem to think it isn't appropriate for an article to include critical commentary from an organization on the opposite side of the political spectrum from the subject, even when it is a notable opinion from a notable organization about a notable comment made by that subject. Not only is that a minority opinion, but it is against the usual Wikipedia conventions in issues like this. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At least be honest - we're more than fine with critical information from opposing viewpoints, just not certain groups that are not reliable or noteworthy in and of themselves. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's rather disingenuous. Media Matters for America is reliable as a source and offers noteworthy opinion of the subject. Repeatedly stating your non-conforming position will not magically make it prevail. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is true, where's the evidence? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On the question of reliability for facts, a starting point is Media_Matters_for_America. There are multiple examples there of news organizations and others using information from MMfA. On the other hand, I don't see any examples there of third-party sources pointing out specific misinformation or other mistakes in MMfA's information, though some commentators call it biased. (I can't help myself.) -Hugetim (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * CD, can you please explain why one banned editor's opinion trumps literally years of discussion on reliable sourcing and BLP boards? The dispute was truly over before it began - you still lack consensus for including MMfA, and we don't need it to source the claim that we all agree should remain.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This discussion has gone WAY off track. The dispute resolution does not address conduct matters - and this discussion has been very unproductive. If a discussion has taken place regarding the use of a source on the RSN and a clear result was not achieved, you can ask for more input with a community RFC. Yelling at each other is not the way to resolve this. From the discussion here, it appears that the reliability of a the MMfA source has been confirmed - so the key here is attributing the point of view to MMfA - you cannot exclude a significant viewpoint from an article just because you don't like it. That's not how Wikipedia works, and is a serious conduct matter. I suggest that the discussed material be included as long as it is attributed to MMfA, and everyone here gets on with their lives and does something more productive. Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 02:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This is PiL


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

All album wiki articles have a critical reception field that deals with both positive and negative reviews. Adding negative reviews from reputable sources is indispensable : indeed, the critical reception is balanced for this cd. It is only (65/100) on Metacritic (. see here). Henceforward, I consider that Paste's review is notable along with The Independent : two negative reviews are enough here. Note that Metacritic considers Paste as one of the most important magazines/sites for reviews. Indeed, Metacritic's "2011 Music Critic Top Ten Lists" lists Paste in the best Music magazines along with NME and Mojo : see here the list of the best "Music magazines" for Metacritic here. An excerpt of this Paste review must appear in the article where as it is constantly erased. At the opposite, The barely notable "musicOMH" must be removed in the text as it doesn't appear on Metacritic's "2011 Music Critic Top Ten Lists" which means that musicOMH is not considered as important in the media. I wrote it many times, wiki isn't a fan site but other people don't share this point of view : see here. These users distort facts and only want to make good reviews appear : they don't explain, they don't write comments and refuse to post their point of view in the talk page of this article. All the points of view must appear in the scores and in the text. For this cd, here's my vote for the Review Scores : YES for Paste Magazine. To me, the list of ten reviews must include : Allmusic, Drowned In Sound, The Guardian, The Independent, Mojo, NME, Paste, Pitchfork Media, Slant and Spin. These ten reviews reflect all the diversity of opinions in a objective way and equitably, respecting what critic reviews said about the album.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

LongLivePunkRock refuses to argue : he always erases the negative reviews. his/her first time was on 12 June, 14 June, 27 June...


 * 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 put many comments in the history of the article, explaining that wiki is not a fan site. I invited LongLivePunkRock to write his/her opinion on the talk page of the article. No reaction, no comment from this user.


 * How do you think we can help?

I need people to convince LongLivePunkRock that wiki is not a fan site and that a wiki album studio article has to show at least two negative when the critical reception is balanced. This has been going on for 6 weeks : this user obviously tries to gain time. One has to force him/her to stop reverting. He/she must let an excerpt of this Paste review in the article (where as it is constantly erased) and let Paste appearing in the review scores.

Woovee (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is PiL discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

This might be useful.

[|This version] is the right one. Obviously, per WP:NPOV articles about albums should not be sanitised by excluding mention of negative or lukewarm reviews. There is no real guidance about how to pick publications for the review table, beyond using reliable sources and ensuring balance, so there's no reason why the exact list of publications given above would need to be stuck to, if there's a good reason to change it.
 * Former IP, You share my point of view. This is the one I want to let online. I let "Paste" and "The Independent" appearing in the scores : I put excerpts of both reviews in the article. I erased the barely notable MusicOMH review that is garlands in the text.
 * Woovee (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

LLPR's most recent edits seem to have not removed the bad reviews, but changed the order. Perhaps this is a dispute that is already over (?). Formerip (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Woovee, regarding what you wrote above about an album article needing at least two critical reviews. That's not right. Some albums may have won near-universal praise and that can then be reflected in the table. We need to achieve a fair reflection of reality, not seek out bad reviews for the sake of it. Formerip (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point of view because you're for my version as you just wrote previously. Two negative reviews, three... it is normal to put them when the critical reception is balanced (65/100). It is not 80/100 ! : so, there's no universal praise in this case ! "Fair reflection of reality", you wrote: I'm for it. This is what I said.
 * Woovee (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor unclear thing there, I think. FormerIP agrees that negative reviews should be included in this case. They're just saying that we don't need to go looking for them in every case, because there are some where reception is much more positive. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The article already goes beyond what is required with this 'Track-by-track commentary by John Lydon (2012)' and that does not need to be on Wiki, I'd chop it out and put it as a ref or external link detailing the songs themselves rather then due the entire album after the 'critical response section'. As for the negative reviews, Metacritic is not some bastion of fairness. The reviews themselves from notable resources should stay and be added to the table. For positive and negative (and neutral) I'd pick most recognized names with the best comment to reflect their position on the album. One each, Rolling Stone is a good choice to include. I'd take Paste's as the negative comment, its a lot better then the Independents for describing why they didn't like it. As for the positives, I'd cut it down to two or one, clearly too many positives are on here which offer little input and come across as a wall o text. Just to be clear this is for the comments, not the review box scores, those scores should remain good or bad as long as the source is recognized and reputable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with those suggestions, but I'd point out that the guidance sets a maximum of ten reviews, so if editors decide they want to take full advantage of that then they can. I agree with your point about Metacritic, but unfortunately the guidance actually suggests using it. ETA: I missed your comment "this is for the comments, not the review box scores", so that changes things. Apologies. Formerip (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ChrisGualtieri's suggestion to chop the 'Track-by-track commentary by John Lydon (2012)' out is relevant to me. Adding this in 'external link' would be a good option as all these sources are available online. I note that Formerip also finds this idea interesting.
 * For the 'review box scores', I see that three of us agree to keep Paste and The Independent for the negatives. So, let's stick to this selection of ten reviews for the box.
 * Concerning the 'comments', I also agree with Chris. There's no need to put plenty of positives. At the moment, there are six positives : so, one could reduce this number to two (let's keep The Guardian and Mojo). Plus one neutral (Pitchfork seems to me better than Rolling Stone) and one negative (Paste's). Woovee (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The preceding is an excellent discussion, but there's one thing wrong with it: It ought to be happening as part of the RFC at the article talk page, not here, since there has been no discussion of this issue there (despite Woovee's best, and good faith, efforts to get the other editor to engage). This must be closed here and continued there and I would ask the other editors who have joined in here to please continue the discussion there. I have taken the liberty of copying the foregoing discussion over to that talk page so it can be easily continued. Thank you all very, very much. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaving this open for a day or two so everyone can see the foregoing, but please continue the discussion at the article talk page, not here. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Die Roten Punkte are a musical comedy duo, operating under a fictitious backstory according to which they are German orphan siblings. According to reliable sources, they are actually unrelated Australian comedians. Two SPA accounts persist in removing their real identities from the article, leaving only the in-universe fiction, despite my attempts to prevent this. I am getting close to 3RR on this and in any case would appreciate additional neutral opinions.

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?

I've taken this to user talk and the article talk. So far, that has at least created a dialogue, but no change of positions.


 * How do you think we can help?

Currently, there are too few people editing the article to build a real consensus. More editors weighing in would help determine the appropriate content to include or not include in the article.

—David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Die Roten Punkte discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * You seem to be correct here. If this was OR, it would be inappropriate, but you obviously know the policies, and if it's based on reliables sources, you're right. Electric Catfish 20:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a conduct issue, and thus more appropriate for WP:ANI. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with having their real names used. The 'Rots' are clearly stage name and are part of the 'story', its like saying WWE wrestlers names and stories are real. We don't say 'Terry Gene Bollea' when we refer to 'Hulk Hogan' for purposes of WWE, but Terry Gene Bollea is the proper name. Sources about Die Roten Punkte's names come from their acts and press releases. [www.bellaunion.com.au/pdf/DieRotenPunkte.pdf]   I could go on, but do I need to? The background and in-character of the group is fine, but their real names are no secret. It is different from the fictitious background of the band, which is obviously ridiculous. Its not WP:OR or even remotely 'a secret', its pretty common knowledge. Removing such content is wrong according to policies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Having their real names in is fine, if it's in reliable sources. It's in The Age, a major Australian newspaper. If the content continues to be removed, you can take it to the admin noticeboard. Closing this one off as resolved. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 03:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by beer consumption per capita


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

Anyone's comments are welcomed here. Basically there is a debate on a little-edited page's talk page about what the default sort should be. Should we have it setup alphabetically or by number? My position is stated on the talk page, but to restate it here -- the article is about the per capita consumption (a number) of beer. It seems reasonable that rather than sort the list of countries by where they fall in an alphabetical listing, it should be done by the number reflected in the wiki's content. That's how it's been for six years, until this week. In addition one of the other editors involved has now included a mini "help document" within the article to help the poor average reader sort the information properly. As you can see here and here  there seem to be some ownership issues going on here. I invite anyone willing to please comment. Thanks.

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?

I invite people to weigh in on the article and to help explain how changes are applied. WP:BRD isn't being followed and the clear examples of ownership I listed above are making it very difficult to discuss the issue rationally.
 * How do you think we can help?

Erikeltic ( Talk ) 23:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by beer consumption per capita discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

I think the list should be ordered by per capita consumption when the reader first opens the page, because that is what he will expect to see. And I don't see why the list would be any harder to maintain in this order than it would be in alphabetical order. Wahrmund (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a remarkably premature resort to dispute resolution, regarding an issue of very little concern to anyone. The user who has called for resolution here was the only person writing on the article's talk page in favor of his position. So far, I've seen no evidence (there or here) that he has grasped the logic of the arguments being advanced against his position. If bringing the discussion over here can somehow cause more substantive discussion over on the article's talk page, then so much the better. But I've already articulated on the article's talk page what I think is the shared position of Timeshifter and myself, so I see no need to reiterate it here. Jbening (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you missed the part where you should have read that Wikipedia isn't a democracy. The bottom line (and this is why we have the ANI open to combat the other issues) is that between you and Timeshifter taking turns reverting 1-2-1, the consensus, which has stood for six years, can't be restored without engaging in the edit war you guys started two days ago.  That's it. (period)  So, while you can call these "drama boards" and what not, the basic reason I came here is to request additional third party editors to comment on the discussion.   Erikeltic ( Talk ) 01:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong forum for opinions on content. Try WP:3O Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:30, "If more than two editors are involved, 3O is not appropriate. Please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard." We have more than two editors involved in this issue, so that's why I came here.   Erikeltic ( Talk ) 01:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You know when I saw the headline of this DR I thought it was someone not happy that their country was not listed! My immediate thought was simply have to 2 tables one by per capita and then another by country a-z, as soon as I got to the article page, I soon realised I could order the columns by clicking on the little headers in the top row, I really dont see a problem as it can be reorded a-z if desired. As Wahrmund said above, the reader expects to see the breakdown by per capita as that is what the article is titled, same problem could exist either way depending how the article was titled but you can sort by clicking in the header row so I see no issue here, leave it as is and if needs be, put a note that it can be reordered by clicking on the header row for those that dont know or see what the little arrows indicate. Webwidget (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Arranging a list alphabetically without rankings is much easier to maintain than a list with rankings. It is sometimes a huge pain to update numerical lists, especially large ones. The problem with using an alphabetical list is that readers tend to prefer having a numerical list. We do have a method of sorting the table numerically by pressing the sort button but most readers from what I've seen are unaware that they can sort numerically. There is no indication that such a feature exists. Elockid  ( Talk ) 21:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me, Elockid, that you just answered the question yourself. If it's sortable, but it's not intuitively obvious that it's sortable, add a note (before or after) that informs readers that it's sortable. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am a volunteer here at DRN. This one has been quiet for a few days. Is this one all sorted now? Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 10:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems so.  Ebe  123  → report 00:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing as resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

War on Women


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

The dispute is over whether it's an "attack" phrase or used as a "pejorative" in the lead. As it currently stands there are no reliable sources calling the phrase an "attack" phrase nor a pejorative. The editors' reasoning is that because it can be used to attack people (as an RS would say) that the lead it should say it is "used as an attack."

This violates WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV because it infers that the phrase is used solely to attack people when no RS makes such a claim. By that logic the phrase can mean policies that "attack women." The obvious mainstream interpretation is that it's simply a phrase used to describe policies. As well the editors have claimed consensus which cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policies.

For comparison, the phrase Feminazi has four sources claiming it's a pejorative and doesn't claim to be an "attack" phrase or "used to attack" feminists. This by comparison has no sources for either. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:35, 18 July 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?

Discussed it on the talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

Helping to decide whether or not the phrase can adequately be called an "attack" phrase, a "pejorative" etc. or whether its just a description of policies.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

War on Women discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

Note: The thread in question is Talk:War_on_Women. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just for reference the lead that I proposed would say:
 * The War on Women is a political phrase used to describe Republican Party initiatives in federal and state legislatures to restrict women, especially with regard to reproductive rights.
 * Right now the consensus is to add that it's a "pejorative" that's "used to attack" without any RS for either claim. The fact is no reliable source has ever claimed that it's a pejorative or that it's solely used to attack Republicans. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll note that CartoonDiablo removes the qualifier that specifies this is an opinion, suggesting as a statement of fact that the initiatives restrict women. Of course, opponents would argue that they promote life, protect religious freedom, and that the entire thing is fabricated.  Right or wrong, point is, it's an opinion that needs to be qualified.   Morphh   (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that sources have been provided and the majority of sources use the term as a charge against Republican policies. This is, however, not good enough for CartoonDiablo, as they don't specify that the term can be used "solely", "only", "exclusively" to attack the policies.  As if one side proudly proclaims they voted for the "War on Women", which CartoonDiablo argues just describes a group of policies.  I'm open to other language.  I'm not married to the exact terms "attack" or "pejorative", but I do think we have to describe the combative charge implied by the term's use, which is supported by such use in reliable sources.  The term by itself charges wrongdoing against women and Republicans are the recipients of that charge.  In the vast majority of cases, someone invoking this term in political discourse is attacking certain policies as wrong.   Morphh   (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The overwhelming majority of the sources say its done to restrict or limit women; including the pro-life and religious arguments would be under WP:Due and WP:Fringe, obviously there's a place for them but they are not the mainstream definition of the phrase.


 * That aside, sources do not call it an "attack" anymore then they say the policies are an "attack" on women, to show either you would need sources just like how the Feminazi article has four sources for the claim that it's a pejorative. What they say is it's a description of policies, you can "attack" someone with that description or it can be used to "attack" women but neither supersedes the intention to describe the policies.. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I briefly stated my position on the talk page where a rough consensus seems to be emerging and don't intend to add much to it here. The term is usually used by Democrats to criticize Republicans, and sometimes used by non-Democrats or to criticize non-Republicans. Despite CartoonDiablo's protestations, I have still never seen the term used to portray whoever is alleged to be waging the war in a positive or neutral light. I don't much care which sources are used (several have been suggested on the talk page) and am open to negotiation on the exact wording so long as it doesn't misrepresent the typical usage as attested by multiple sources. Kilopi (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * None of the sources for the lead, (UniteWomen, NOW, Melinda Gates, GOP women etc.) are Democrats, claiming such would be WP:NPOV. That aside, that would be your (Kilopi's) interpretation of the phrase but there is not a single reliable source claiming that the War on Women is a pejorative or used solely to attack Republicans which is what the lead is claiming.


 * As far as I can tell, the lead now is a misrepresentation of the phrase. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo claims there are no sources to support calling "War on Women" a pejorative or attack phrase, but The Hill, National Journal, Politifact and FactCheck sources provided on the Talk page all characterize the phrase that way. CartoonDiablo dismisses these claiming that War on Women is not used exclusively in a pejorative context but I have yet to see any other usage (to clarify: I recall hearing other usage but it was still as a pejorative and it was not regarding the issues the rest of the lede discusses) and regardless this is by far the main use.

CartoonDiablo's proposed version biases (diff) the page. As I remarked on the Talk:, the context of the phrase being a pejorative is extremely important to maintaining a NPOV. CartoonDiablo later went on the claim on the Talk: that "I don't think that would be proper because it's almost universally accepted that they are policies that restrict women, not just "charged" with doing it" which is quite non-neutral.

This has gone round and round and the consensus from the Talk page is that the phrase should be characterized in the lede as a pejorative and/or attack phrase. OSborn arfcontribs. 20:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * None of those sources claims the phrase is pejorative or that it's solely used to attack women, what it claims is that the phrase has been used in the action of attacking someone which isn't any kind of justification since any phrase can be used to attack anyone.
 * By that logic these sources would warrant defining the phrase as an "attack on women":


 * What's Behind the Conservative Attack on Women? - The New Yorker
 * Reproductive Health Laws Prove GOP 'War on Women' Is No Fiction - U.S. News & World Report
 * The Campaign Against Women - The New York Times
 * War Over Women Comes to White House - ABC News
 * GOP 'War On Women' Loses Momentum In The States - Huffington Post
 * Melinda Gates hits out at 'war on women' on eve of summit - The Guardian (this source is actually used)


 * Does that mean the War on Women should be defined as an "attack on women"? No it doesn't, but neither should it be defined as an "attack" on Republicans or a pejorative especially when there's less evidence for doing so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And secondly, consensus doesn't allow for violating Wikipedia policies and by defining it in the NPOV way it is right now that's exactly what the editors are doing. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken, those articles are using the phrase as a pejorative. They are instances of the pejorative being used. Incidentally, those are opinions pieces rather AFAIK more journalistic pieces like the Politifact source. OSborn arfcontribs. 20:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The ABC News, Huffington Post and Guardian articles are not opinion pieces and none of the sources you cited claim it's "pejorative"; that is your interpretation of how the articles are "using the phrase" which would amount to WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV.


 * Likewise in none of the articles I posted can it be deduced that it is an "attack on women." What the obvious mainstream opinion of the sources is that it's a description of the policies, it's neither an "attack" on Republicans nor is it an "attack" on women; to use either is to use WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Even in the sources that are not directly using the phrase (the non-opinion ones) the sources are reporting on others using the phrase in a pejorative fashion. As I stated on the Talk, the Politifact source mentions "... the left’s "War on Women" attacks against Republican [Romney]". At this point we are simply rehashing the discussion that has already taken place on Talk:. OSborn arfcontribs. 21:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What "fashion" the sources are reporting on it is based on your (OSborn's) interpretation, not the actual sources. By that logic, the other non-opinion ones are using it in a "fashion" which says that it amounts to an "attack on women." Unless a reliable source explicitly calls it a pejorative or says it's primarily used to "attack" Republicans then your interpretation of it isn't any better than mine. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do the sources contradict the phrase being a pejorative? They are simply the other half of the lede sentence, "[pejorative phrase] argued to [restrict women]". OSborn arfcontribs. 21:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's obviously an accusation being made. There's nothing biased in stating that fact. It's also an accurate accusation, as revealed by even three female GOP politicians objecting to their own party's restrictions on women's rights. There are plenty of sources to use for such wording. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To OSborn, do the sources contradict that it's an "attack on women"? The fact is it's a judgement call on your part, not on the source. Unless a source explicitly states it's a pejorative or an "attack" then your engaging in WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV.


 * To Brangifer, any phrase can be used to accuse anyone in a given context but that doesn't mean its exclusively used as such. If you were to infer from a source that it's a pejorative based on that (as opposed to it explicitly saying that), then it would be your interpretation not the source's. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As has been demonstrated several times now, reliable sources do characterize the phrase as an "attack" and as nobody is coming forward with sources which contradict, I think we've settled that the phrase is in fact an attack and/or pejorative. There is no synthesis here. This is a claim which has been clearly stated in several sources. OSborn arfcontribs. 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * CD, I'm not sure what your objections really are here. Your arguments are confusing, as if there's a hidden agenda, or am I missing something? I'll AGF and assume you've got a good explanation. I don't want to misunderstand you, so I'll just ask you.


 * Are your objections purely based in policy, i.e. to avoid a SYNTH violation? Fine! Then all we need is to find how RS describe the use of the phrase. It really make no difference if it's objective fact or an opinion, since we document opinions here. We can even attribute it if that will help. Right? There are many descriptions, including "attack" and "accusation", and numerous variations that are synonyms. We can just pick a couple good quotes from RS (using the words) and be done with it. If you disagree, then say so. In the mean time other editors can start searching for good examples and proposing them after you reply.


 * ....or is your disagreement based on an attempt to somehow shield the Democrats (I voted for Obama, and likely will again) from appearing to "attack" their rightful opponents, the GOP? There is no point in that. Avoiding that makes the Dems look like cowards. Tell it like it is. The GOP is up to no good when they attack women's rights in their attempts to take us back a couple hundred years. It's just a matter of how it's described, so don't be afraid to document that the Democrats are defending women by attacking the GOP's war on women, because that's what it is, and even female GOP senators agree.


 * ....or is it some other problem? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To OSborn, no they do not (and no they haven't). Reliable sources say it's both an "attack" on women and an "attack" on Republicans, that is because the action of how the phrase is used is not necessarily the definition. You could "attack" anyone using any phrase but that would not change the definition of it.


 * To Brangifer let me rephrase myself, there is not a single RS that defines the phrase as either a pejorative or an attack, editors are using SYNTH by interpreting the action of how the phrase is used as the definition when it clearly isn't. For War on Women to be considered an attack or pejorative it would need to be like the Feminazi article where it is defined by reliable sources as a pejorative or attack, and not just used in the context of one. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. I am a volunteer here at DRN. Please note that the purpose of this noticeboard is to request dispute resolution and seek assistance from outside editors -it's not an extension of the article talk page. You are all free to continue discussing the issue on the talk page until a volunteer opens the discussion - if it hasn't been looked at in a few hours I'll do it myself, but please cease discussion for the time being. It makes things difficult for us because we have to read through a wall of text to understand the dispute and this takes longer. Thanks for your patience. Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 07:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Question - I'd be willing to help get consensus on this. Starting with the word  "pejorative":  that is a very loaded word, and it does need reliable sources to justify its use, particularly in the first sentence of the lead. At first glance, it looks like the lead would read just fine without that word: "The "War on Women" is a pejorative  political phrase used to describe Republican Party initiatives ...". So, editors that want to include "pejorative" need to provide some strong sources that use that word or a close synonym. If the sources are few or weak, it is better to omit the word from the lead, and instead go into detail about that issue (that is, is it pejorative or not?) in the body of the article. Could some editor please post quotes from sources that use "pejorative" (or a close synonym) to describe WoW? --Noleander (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I'm talking about. As the sources currently state, the phrase is just a description with no mention of it being a pejorative or an "attack" outside of being used as one (which is done for different reasons on both sides). My point with SYNTH is editors are trying to use sources which do not define the phrase is pejorative or an attack but use it in the context of one to try and show it as an attack or pejorative.


 * As far as I can tell, no RS has ever defined War on Women as an attack phrase or pejorative. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first couple sentences of any article are typically used to define the topic of the article, so any descriptive adjectives need to be strongly rooted in reliable sources. Absent that, the "pejoartiveness" of the WoW phrase should be discussed in the body, not the lead.  But let's wait a couple of days and see if any sources turn up.   --Noleander (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Synonyms that demonstrate (quotes) the way the term is used
There is no need for editorial synthesis to find the descriptions used in RS. Here are some references which contain such descriptive words (bold emphasis added): -- Brangifer (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * An accusation:


 * Accusations of GOP's war on women are not 'for no reason', The Rachel Maddow Show, NBC News, April 14, 2012


 * Dispatches From the War on Contraception, Slate, Amanda Marcotte, July 18, 2012


 * "With all the angry denials earlier this year from Republicans who have been accused of conducting a war on women, you might think that those same Republicans might just lay off that war until after the election, if only to suck the momentum out of their critics' narrative."


 * A description:


 * John McCain: 'War On Women' Is 'Imaginary,' 'Conjured' By Democrats, The Huffington Post, Laura Bassett, 04/26/2012


 * "Democrats have increasingly referred to the "War on Women" over the past several months to describe the GOP's sustained legislative focus on issues that affect women's health and rights. An amendment to a sweeping transportation bill pushed by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) would have allowed employers to deny women contraception coverage for any moral reason. Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) vetoed funding for rape crisis centers last week, and several GOP governors supported legislation that mandates medically unnecessary ultrasound procedures for women who are seeking abortions. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), meanwhile, recently repealed the state's equal pay law."


 * (The one above lists several of the various ways in which the GOP have been attacking "women's health and rights".)


 * The War on Sex: The Contraception Controversy's Hidden Agenda, Ruth Bettelheim, Ph.D., The Huffington Post, 03/6/2012


 * "This controversy has been described as a war on women. It may be that, but it is also, and perhaps more effectively, a war against sexuality itself."


 * GOP tried to make most of supermajority, Alia Beard Rau, USA Today, 5/6/2012


 * "Abortion-rights and women's-rights groups rallied against what they described as a war on women at the Arizona Legislature -- and nationwide."

On another note, who started using the phrase? The answer is here! -- Brangifer (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Brangifer: Could you explain the purpose of the lower sources under "Descriptions"?    (The "accusations" examples do support the notion of pejorative a bit, so I'm not questioning them).  Is the purpose of the Descriptive examples to show that sometimes the WoW term is used in a non-pejorative sense?  --Noleander (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not exactly. They are used as examples of it being called a "description". It's a very neutral term that doesn't really serve any purpose, in the sense that it doesn't describe the motivation for using the phrase. It's obviously a term that's being used to attack GOP legislation. It's a direct accusation. In that sense it's obviously a pejorative term, but we don't need to use the word "pejorative", when we already have RS that use the term "accusation". We don't have to use it in the lead, although the lead would be rather "duh" without it. The motivation for using the phrase needs to be stated in the lead, and "accusation" and "attack" are found in RS. (I still don't get why CD is talking about "defining" the term. That's unnecessary. We can safely ignore that, or at least treat it as another issue unrelated to this one. In that sense it's become a straw man which successfully sidetracks us from dealing with this matter at hand.) -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Copying from talk, 24dot provided: The Hill, July 2, 2012—"The [Nancy Pelosi] memo is just the latest part of the Democrats' long-running attack on what they consider the Republicans' "war on women."" National Journal, July 10, 2012—"When it comes to waging the "war on women" attack on Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the Obama campaign is pushing the envelope."

Kilopi provided Politifact Democrats and labor leaders are giving this a high profile, mirroring the left’s "War on Women" attacks against Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. and FactCheck It was Romney who first attacked the president’s economic policies as a “war on women,” citing specifically the fact that 92 percent of the jobs lost under Obama were lost by women.

Only the National Journal source has ever been disputed (as an opinion piece.) I have yet to see a source which directly contradicts these sources. OSborn arfcontribs. 17:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct. We could use the word "attack", using RS. The phrase is indeed used as an attack on the GOP's War on Women. So we could say "attack" or "accusation". Either one is backed by RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The only reliable source that supports it being an "accusation" is the slate article but again that's not a definition, it's an action or context in which the word is being used.


 * And again to OSborn, Politifact and FactCheck are not defining the phrase as an attack, it's mentioning the action that some are using it as. By that logic we would have to include this:

Attack on Women
 * War Over Women Comes to White House - ABC News
 * "Lisa Murkowski, speaking about reproductive rights, telling a Chamber of Commerce crowd in Alaska that "it makes no sense to make this attack on women."


 * GOP 'War On Women' Loses Momentum In The States - Huffington Post
 * "This year, the legislators here have seen a huge increase in vocal opposition to some of the things they're doing to attack women's health care and their access to it," he told HuffPost.


 * Melinda Gates hits out at 'war on women' on eve of summit - The Guardian (this source is actually used)
 * Anti-abortion campaigners in the US have seized on comments by a Harvard professor, Lant Pritchett, who attacked Gates for counting women who have not expressed a desire for contraception as needing it.


 * "War on Women" - American Civil Liberties Union
 * The "War on Women" describes the legislative and rhetorical attacks on women and women’s rights taking place across the nation.


 * My point with this is not that it is an attack on women, it's that it follows the same logic, unless an RS explicitly defines it as an "attack" or pejorative (of which none have) then we are to assume it is a description. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Forget about "defining the phrase". That's irrelevant to this discussion. We're seeking to find words that describe the motivation behind the use of the phrase. It's used to accuse and attack (both pejorative terms) the GOP, first by Democrats, and it's been picked up by others. It was started by a very high-ranking Democrat.


 * Secondly, you're mixing the GOP's counter attack (using the same Democratic phrase, which is the subject of this article) into this discussion. That will only confuse things. If you want to deal with that, start a new thread. They use it in a totally different way, but also as an attack/response, and because the Dems used it first, it's a counter attack. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Idea - How about rephrasing the lead to something like:

That removes the "pejorative" from the encyclopedias voice, and uses "attack" in a manner that is more consistent with the sources. --Noleander (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That would also require putting in the opinion that it's seen as an "attack" on women. It's why I think the best solution is for using a neutral description:


 * CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course we can just state that the Dems say the GOP is waging a war on women, but that says nothing about the spirit in which they're doing it. They are justifiably upset and created the phrase as an attack on the GOP. Read this article which describes its creation and history. It was started by a Democratic Representative, and then became widely known when Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz became the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. It became THE attack phrase used by the party against the GOP's legislative actions that attacked women's health and rights.


 * I favor that the lead (after inclusion in the body) uses descriptive word(s) that show RS consider it an "attack" and "accusation". -- Brangifer (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What we end up with is:

""The "War on Women" is a political slogan used by Democrats asserting that Republican policies are contrary to the interests of women with regard to "reproductive rights."'' Close enough? Collect (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That catches the essence of its use very neutrally. We could make it even more descriptive, assuming the body of the article already has such content:


 * "The phrase War on Women is a political slogan first used by Democrats in response to Republican statements and legislation which they believed attacked women's sexuality and reproductive rights, as well as limited their access to healthcare. It became a popular catchphrase used by women's rights groups, and even some female GOP politicians, to criticize such GOP legislation."


 * Brangifer (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To Brangifer, that wouldn't work because:


 * Neither the Slate article you cited nor any other source calls it an "attack" or "pejorative"
 * Unless you consider virtually every women's group in the US the Democratic Party its not exclusively used by them.
 * The intro says how it became popular and how its used (as well as the background in the article), the lead is meant to give a contemporary definition, not a timeline. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There are sources above which use the word "attack" and "accusation". We don't need to use the word "pejorative", but it's easy to find RS which use words like "attack" and "accusation", which clearly demonstrate that WoW is used in a pejorative sense. (It is not used to flatter the GOP!)


 * The lead is meant to sum up the article, starting with a definition, which necessarily involves a few words (or even single word) that reveal the motivation for the use of the phrase. It's a political attack phrase. All parties do it, and the Dems aren't cowards. They're attacking the GOP for their attacks on women, IOW the Dems are defending women against the GOP's attacks on them. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I could go for Collect's wording but note that the term is not limited to reproductive rights. There's still terms like Anti-choice, Pro-birth, etc. for that. The War on Women term is interesting in that it also encompasses non-reproductive aspects of women's health (breast cancer, maybe osteoporosis), various aspects of employment law, funding anti-domestic violence programs, and probably a few other things considered as a unified agenda. Kilopi (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are quite right. It is a phrase that responds to many aspects related to women. One source above calls it (the GOP's legislation) an attack on women's sexuality. The many areas related to women that are under attack seem to be an attempt to roll back the clock to a time when women had no rights, with Rush Limbaugh calling giving women the right to vote a bad move. My wording includes more than reproductive rights. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again. This thread looks like it has quietened down - does this still need our assistance? Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 13:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we have consensus for Collect's proposal at 18:53. Let's close. – Lionel (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Awesome, I'll close this off. Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 11:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Alan Chambers (Exodus International)


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

An editor is adding a LGBT category to Alan Chambers. Chambers has not self-identified as LGBT and this is a violation of WP:BLPCAT. The editor has violated WP:BRD and seems determined to edit war. On the other hand, even though I can claim the 3RR exemption I will not edit war with the editor.

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?

Pointed out the BLP violation to the editor on the article talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

Remove the LGBT category and warn the editor in no uncertain terms that BLP violations will not be tolerated.

– Lionel (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Alan Chambers (Exodus International) discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' I am a dispute resolution volunteer. Adding a category like LGBT to a person who has not openly identified themselves as such is a violation of WP:BLPCAT, part of the WP:BLP policy. But it seems to me that the place this should be going is to the BLP noticeboard, where you can get more eyes on it to specifically deal with any violations of the BLP policy. If there's some other content dispute going on, we'll be happy to help with it, but a BLP issue is what they specialize in. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 12:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am also a DRN volunteer. It seems that there are 2 citations regarding the LBGT statement. There is one that is reliable and one that is not. On Wikipedia, we must be very careful with what we say about living people in BLPs. If it was no sourced properly, it would be a violation of WP: BLPCAT and it would be removed. However, it is fine to put that in if it is reliably sourced. Also, I see edit warring going on. I have issued warnings to the editors involved, but if the reverts continue, I will report them to WP: ANEW and the editors who reverted will likely be blocked. Electric Catfish 13:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm also a regular DRN volunteer. From what I can tell, Chambers concedes, agrees, or admits (the first chapter of his most recent book can be viewed at Amazon) that:
 * he once considered himself gay and actively engaged in the homosexual lifestyle,
 * sexual attraction to members of the same sex is not a choice and may be, in whole or in part, genetic,
 * that such attraction cannot be "cured" and that a person may not become "ex-gay", and
 * that he himself is still sexually attracted to men.
 * What he seems to be saying now is that individuals who have such a sexual attraction may choose not to act upon it just as one may choose not to act upon any other tendency or temptation and may choose instead to live a heterosexual lifestyle, which is what he has done. The guidelines set out in Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality say in the "Other considerations" section that "People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of a category; if they do not fit, they simply should not be added to it." (Emphasis added.) In light of that statement, I see three logical possibilities here:
 * Chambers unequivocally self-identifies in reliable sources as a gay man living a heterosexual lifestyle, in which case listing him under LGBT labels, categories, or lists would be acceptable.
 * Chambers unequivocally self-identifies in reliable sources as a heterosexual man who has homosexual attractions, in which case listing him under LGBT labels, categories, or lists would be inappropriate. (Why? Because one's self-labeling should always win the day here at Wikipedia insofar as lists, categories, and labels are concerned. It's certainly acceptable to note in the text of an article (if it can be shown through reliable sources and does not give inappropriate weight to the issue) any contradiction between one's self-labeling and the actual facts, but for purposes of labels, categories, and lists here one's own self-labeling should control.)
 * Chambers does not unequivocally self-identify in either of those ways, or his self-identification cannot be established through reliable sources, in which case listing him under LGBT labels, categories, or lists would also be inappropriate.
 * The issue is, for Chambers, ultimately definitional (and this could be stated in a couple of different ways, but this is the simplest): Is a person gay because he has homosexual attractions or is he gay because he leads a homosexual lifestyle? His rejection of the term "ex-gay" would seem to indicate the former, but he may be simply rejecting that term because of his belief that one cannot be "cured" of homosexual attractions. For that reason, I believe that unless a reliable source can be found in which Chambers expressly and unequivocally, without any need for analysis or interpretation, self-labels himself as currently being gay that he should not be categorized or listed in any LGBT category or list despite the fact that he self-identifies himself as once having been gay. (Indeed, I note that he is currently still categorized under "People self-identified as ex-gay". Since there are reliable sources such as this which say that he now rejects that term, I think that it ought to also be removed from the article. I do not feel the same way about the "Ex-gay movement" category, by the way; if it can be reliably sourced that he was once part of that movement that category can remain even though he is no longer a part of it, since that's not self-identification about who or what he is.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Addendum: After reading and searching more of Chambers' book "Leaving Homosexuality", I'm more convinced — and I'm the first to admit that what I'm about to say involves original research and could not be included in an article — that my foregoing analysis of the possibilities of how he might or might not self-identify is correct. In his book, most notably at page 133, he talks about part of leaving homosexuality being a rejection of self-identification as being homosexual and substituting for it an identity in Christ: "Whether a male homosexual or a lesbian, there is a push to identify yourself as gay. Life becomes ordered around that. There are gay newspapers, gay magazines, gay television channels, gay tourist attractions, gay jargon, gay churches, and so on. ... For that reason, a large part of 'staying the course' after leaving homosexuality is becoming rooted in your new identity in Christ." On page 143 he refers to "minister[ing] to gay-identified people" (emphasis added) and on page 23 he says, "As I often say, the opposite of homosexuality isn't heterosexuality; it's holiness. God wants you to pursue His holiness not heterosexuality." (Emphasis in original.) I'm not suggesting that a search for reliable sources in which he clearly and unequivocally identifies himself as either homosexual or heterosexual shouldn't be undertaken, but from what he says in his book, I strongly suspect that he is taking a nuanced position which at the very least rejects self-identification as a homosexual and may also reject self-identification as a heterosexual. For the reasons I gave above, unless an unequivocal reliable source can be found to prove my analysis wrong, he should not be categorized or listed in LGBT categories. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 27, 2012 at 15:24 (UTC) Reason: Appears to be stale or resolved. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Deftones


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

Disagreement on wither or not post-metal should be included in the infobox to the article. As it stands, there are only two sources that support post-metal in any way but they are weak supports (Creative Loathing describes one album as "shoegaze-metal" while Hololulu Weekly states they have only dabbled in sub-genres such as post-metal). Three other sources are also in the article. However, two of them do not make any mention of post-metal while another is not considered a reliable source for a genre discussion. It should be noted that the genre is included already in the article in the musical style section. The editor argues that there is more weight to post-metal than the other genres already in the infobox, but has yet to provide any strong evidence to support his claim. There had also been a previous discussion on the topic with the same editor involved.

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?

Posted on the user's talk page. A discussion was later started on the article talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

Helping to decide wither or not it should be included in the infobox. At this point, the discussion just seems to be going in circles. And looks likely to continue that way.

HrZ (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Deftones discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

This dispute actually originated in April 2012 when Trascendence submitted the same sources for the same reason. This wasn't supported back then by myself or HrZ. It seems that we're having a communication issue explaining: what defines a reliable source, that claims need to be directly supported by sources provided and that a band's genre field in the infobox should be general and only include a few commonly and widely accepted genres that describe a band's overall sound. Based on the evidence provided by Trascendence and my own research, this genre doesn't seem widely supported by the media enough to warrant inclusion—it merely gets mentioned here or there. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it has to be this of a big problem to put it up, it's simple, in the infobox "experimental rock" is included, and it has only one full-reliable source, post-metal has two (and one is the same source used to include experimental rock) and there are more sources backing post-metal up, but for some reason or other opositors claims these sources unreliable, even thought they rarely uses that highly demanding criteria in the rest of the article, or their wikipedia edits at all. In the infobox also appears the genre "nu metal" despite it being a rather controversial genre, that the band haven't played anything close enough to be confused with it in 12 years, the band themselves opposing to be labeled as such and having several proffesional writers denying that the band has ever been it. Nobody sees these kind of active disregard towards post-metal, wich being a genre actually played by the band has more right to be in the infobox. I'll put a link to Deftones' talk page here 3#Edit_war_over_post-metal_in_infobox Trascendence (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are not more reliable sources. One has been deemed unreliable by the reliable sources noticeboard while two more don't make any mention of post-metal. If we were to be picky, one actually states "shoegaze-metal" and not post-metal. Trascendence argues that "music is refered as post-metal more often than experimental rock" (on the article talk page), yet fails to provide evidence (feeling he doesn't have to) while the sources that do make mention post-metal do not support his statement that their music is referred to that more often. HrZ (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As a DRN volunteer, I think that the infobox should only contain the most general genres, but a link to the Deftones section may be included in the infobox. Then readers may go directly to that section that has the list. Removing all the genres from the infobox and replacing them by "See " might be a solution to this.  Ebe  123  → report 00:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wheel Hub Motor


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

the wheel hub motor article as it stands is providing a misleading perspective that is effectively scientifically-uninformed "wishful thinking" on the part of its former contributors. the former contributors desperately want direct-drive wheel hub motors to be successful when used in larger EVs (1000kg+ vehicles) and to bring all of the benefits to EVs that such a product would, if actually successful, genuinely bring. however: engineering science, basic physics and actual evidence in the form of many failed companies and attempted EV hub motor products is against them. this leaves a bit of a problem: even finding any evidence in the form of real-world products that show that large EV hub motors are completely impractical, or even online "authoritative" articles on the subject showing the same, are extremely hard to find (i.e. practically non-existent or paywalled). the reason why such products do not exist and so are hard to find examples of in the real-world is precisely because they *are* impractical and not achievable with current scientific and engineering techniques, and so do not exist! Ebikeguy is unfortunately a known individual who deploys rather fascist wikipedia "policy" rules to destroy any contributions made to wikipedia where evidence is hard to find, as well as failing to allow people time to develop the article whilst actually looking for such evidence. it's got to stop!

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

this is not a "negative comment" *about* Ebikeguy, the person. it is a simple statement of the unfortunate actions and the consequences and disruption of his continued actions. non-negative and accurate statement begins: Ebikeguy has a general policy of reverting entire sections - entire contributions - that do not conform to a very specific subset of wikipedia policies, of which he has extensive knowledge. there is no flexibility; there is no discussion; there is no inclusion, nothing: just revert, revert, revert. an article may be being edited and improved, and right in the middle of that editing, all of a sudden the commit does not work. investigation leads to find that, just as improvements and references were being added, an *entire* section has been removed. this is completely intolerable and he has done it several times: i have encountered him before and this is not the first time that he has deployed this kind of policy. rather than work with the contributors who may have less experience and knowledge of wikipedia policy, he sees fit to "lay down the law" in what can only be described as an extremely fascist manner, disrupting the editing process and making it difficult to do research and ongoing improvements. rather than take this advice he then calls in *additional* people with whom he has, i assume, worked before, who of course back him up rather than work towards the *actual* improvement of the article.


 * 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?

discussed on talk page. talk page ignored, as was previous discussions on other articles to which Ebikeguy also deployed the same fascist reversion policies. i did not take any further steps on those other pages, choosing instead to abandon efforts to improve the article, but as this is at least the second time he's done it and he has not improved since, i cannot leave this alone because he is actively destroying wikipedia article contributions and leaving those articles providing *misleading* information to wikipedia readers. this is highly irresponsible.


 * How do you think we can help?

there are a number of ways. the first would be to bring in some additional much more experienced people who recognise that this article is: g* ) just has some useful suggestions on how best to proceed with this rather challenging area, given that it is an area where the current modern science and engineering techniques is heavily against the chances of success, and how best to express that in a wikipedia page *without* it getting deleted as "opinion" by people such as Ebikeguy.
 * a) in development
 * b) is in need of improvement
 * c) is a particularly challenging technical area, requiring signficant experience in maths, physics, engineering and electronics
 * d) that the failure even of people *with* expertise to actually create a successful wheel hub product actually makes it difficult to find the references that are being quotes demanded quotes under wikipedia policy.
 * e) appreciates what best appropriate warnings can be added to the top of the page
 * f) has sufficient authority within wikipedia to monitor Ebikeguy's contributions and to mentor him on more appropriate and more inclusive editorial contributions that do not make people feel like they should just abandon wikipedia entirely.

86.131.167.23 (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wheel Hub Motor discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * The person behind and  and whatever other IPs they use has said "due to previous experience with fascist deployment of wikipedia policy by Ebikeguy i am choosing to remain anonymous rather than log in with my usual account." This is sock puppetry, "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address". It's clear they intend to use anonymity to make personal attacks in every post, and so there is no point in attempting to resolve the content disupte with them. Any necessary changes to Wheel hub motor or any other article can wait for a different editor who is capable of working in a collaborative environment. I don't intend to engage with this person, and hopefully page protection and blocks of the IPs they use will be sufficient to put a stop to this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dennis this is total bullshit, and pure speculation on your part. If you are an experienced Wikipedia Editor you should know better than to make accusations like this, which *are* personal, yet you have been claiming completely incorrectly and hypocritically in this case that *my* comments are "personal attacks".  You clearly do not know the difference between criticising a person directly and criticising their actions.   I am happy to provide arbitration individuals with my IP address and account details, and they will find that I am a long-term wikipedia contributor, but i will NOT provide those details in such a way that the person known as "EBikeguy" can find out who I am.  I feel extremely intimidated by his behaviour and by the policies that he deploys in an extremely fascist manner, which he has done on both this article *and* other articles which are similarly factually incorrect and quite technically obscure areas, and thus i wish to remain anonymous.  If you cannot respect that and instead feel that I have some "agenda" to push then I feel extremely sorry for you and would advise you to cease editing of wikipedia.  It is also clear that you not understand that the deployment of technologies such as TOR and other proxies make it completely pointless to block IP address ranges.  It would also be equally pointless to force me to have to create a special account using an anonymous email address just to get round any "page protection".  So please cease and desist from *actual* personal attacks, which are providing evidence to arbitrators that you are acting in a wildly-inappropriate fashion for involvement in wikipedia, and take peoples' contributions at face value rather than assuming wild ulterior motives just because someone chooses to remain anonymous.  what actually happened was: i started out editing anonymously completely by mistake, you silly man, but when I saw Ebikeguy getting involved I went "uh-oh, here we go again", and decided to *stay* anonymous. all right??  86.131.167.23 (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidently you do not understand the difference between criticizing a person vs. their actions if you keep calling them a fascist. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  16:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * i did no such thing! i used phrases such as "fascist actions".  at *no* point did i *ever* say "this person is a fascist".  that would be unbelievably rude, wildly inappropriate, self-defeating and also factually inaccurate.  the use of the word "fascist" as a noun has a completely different connotation and meaning from its use as an adverb or adjective as used to describe *actions*.  i have made a study of the different ways in which people confuse the distinction between themselves and their actions, because as a prominent free software specialist with over a decade of involvement in public forums i've been forced to learn. so.  from your phrase, unfortunately "evidently", it is you who does not a) read plain english b) understand plain english c) understand the difference between criticising a person by using a noun and criticising their actions by using the exact same word as an adjective.  i trust that Jprg1966's comments will be disregarded entirely, in the evaluation and arbitration of this page 86.131.167.23 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC).


 * You were originally reported to WP: ANEW for edit warring, after multiple messages to stop. Unless you are reverting obvious vandalism or BLP violations, an editor may not revert more than 3 ties in any given 24 hour period. Elockid protected the page and only Ebikeguy (who is autoconfirmed) may edit it. Electric Catfish 16:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * hi Electric, thank you for explaining this. if you read what i have written above, you will see that i wrote that Ebikeguy's "reversion" policies were to destroy *entire* sections that i was in the process of improving at the time.  this was extremely disruptive to have entire sections removed out from under you whilst actually working in good faith to improve an article's quality.  so yes, absolutely, i viewed Ebikeguy's actions as quite obvious vandalism.  he's done this before.  i cannot now recall which article, and because my username under which i *may* have edited that other article may be associated with both that article's editing and also from there my realworld identity, i do not wish to identify publicly what that article was.  yes i feel that intimidated by ebikeguy's actions. 86.131.167.23 (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. I think anyone who reviews the page history will see that I have only restored the page to the form that editor consensus approves.  Sincerely, Ebikeguy (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * please point to this "consensus" which was pre-existing at the time that you reverted an ENTIRE section that i was working on. please also point to efforts made by you to communicate this fact to me, taking into account the fact that i was accidentally operating under an anonymous IP at the time.  please do not try to use the "welcome" message as justification: i am looking for actual factual evidence that you made an attempt to communicate and say "oi! what are you doing??" and "hey - um, do you know that there's a wikipedia policy on this which you're violating, would you like some help improving the article? can i help you to find references that are more appropriate, at all?" 86.131.167.23 (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that I welcomed this user to Wikipedia and was the first editor to send him/her links regarding properly referencing language inserted into articles. Since my initial welcome, many other editors have attempted to explain Wikipedia policies to this anonymous editor, at both of the IP addresses from which he/she is posting, but our efforts have been to no avail.  This IP editor insists on adding improperly-referenced, POV-pushing language to Wheel hub motor, and the rest of us insist on deleting this inappropriate language.  Any advice on how I could handle similar situations more smoothly in the future would be much appreciated.  Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * i take it that you are intending to hide behind a set of procedures, with this "welcome"? i didn't even see it, because i was focussed on editing and contributing to the page. i can only speculate that you intend to use the fact that you made a "welcome" as evidence of "good faith".  the most nastiest, vicious-minded individual in the world can issue a "welcome" with warm words over the internet just as well as someone else can do so.  i trust that this use of a "welcome" will be disregarded in an arbitration of this matter, and that we can get to the main issue which is that the article is factually misleading. 86.131.167.23 (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * also, btw: and i mean this absolutely and whole-heartedly: i am delighted to see that you have stated that you wish to improve handling of this and similar situations in the future. perhaps i have got through to you, after all, and made you pause for thought.  it's the lack of discussion and engagement, and the non-inclusive heavy-handed deployment of the wikipedia policies that you are familiar with, but that i am not, that has me so f*****g pissed off and irked about.  if you understand that then i think you'll do absolutely fine, and, most importantly, we will not clash again in the future. and i won't feel threatened and intimidated by your much greater experience and knowledge of wikipedia policy and deployment thereof, nor further feel a need to stay anonymous. 86.131.167.23 (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You handled yourself fine. It's just that the IP shouldn't have made personal attacks. Electric Catfish 16:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Catfish: no personal attacks were made. Ebikeguy's reversions were done without any consultation, without warning, and were extremely disruptive to an ongoing series of edits and technical improvements to the article.  and were probably also prejudiced by an accidental use of anonymous editing.  this i deemed to be "fascist", and if you can think of a more appropriate phrase which describes the exact same behaviour i will gladly use that instead. 86.131.167.23 (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, you cannot assume that another editor distrusted you because you edited as an IP. The reversion of good-faith edits could be considered "disruptive," "annoying," "against Wikipedia policy," etc., but it is never fascist. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. So far, everything in this discussion has been about user conduct. The "rules" for this noticeboard make it quite clear that this board is for content disputes, not conduct disputes. If there is any further discussion about user conduct, I will close this listing. If you want to talk about whether specific content is or is not appropriate for Wikipedia, please do so, but if you want to talk about conduct, take it to WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, or some specialty conduct noticeboard such as (if applicable) WP:3RRN, but no more here. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. To add my US$0.02, I see ebikeguy behaving in a reasonable manner in the face of a disruptive and abusive editor who is posting what mostly amounts to personal analysis / original research. So as far as the content goes I think he was right to remove it. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it very unusual that there are two people listed (Ebikeguy and Dennis Bratland), but only one of them is mentioned in the reporter's complaint. I don't want to derail this thread with user conduct, but I thought that needed to be pointed out. Is there some content that Dennis Bratland is adding that you disagree with, IP 86? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm taking this page off my watchlist. If something needs my attention, please let me know.  Thanks.  Ebikeguy (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone object to this being closed? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Chickfila, Winshape


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

Right now many keep trying to remove anything that shows Chickfila/Winshape in any negative light. I have posted in the TALK section asking why they have changed it from Anti-Gay to other words as over a dozen+ references show that Anti-gay is what is being used by many independent verifiable references. Even when some see they have no good references to support what they want, their POV, others come in and start the mess over again. Chickfila is locked now and I asked a Admin to lock Winshape. I think we will need the Admins of Wikipedia to decide what lang can be used as its never going to be settled until someone higher up rules what references and language is best fitting.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?



Just need someone higher up to look into, does not seem to be getting better and don't want to get banned.


 * 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./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?

Lots of TALK but very few new Referances


 * How do you think we can help?

Make the decision and tell everyone that is it.

216.81.81.85 (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Chickfila, Winshape discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' Although I have edited these articles, I do not believe I made any edits regarding the term "anti-gay". Also, IP editor, an administrator is not someone "higher up". They just have certain tools that other editors do not. 72Dino (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I'm afraid that what you are asking is not possible. This is not an adminstrator's forum and except for the occasional administrator who just happens to join in, none of us here are administrators. Moreover, administrators at Wikipedia have absolutely no power or authority to decide content questions. What goes into or stays out of Wikipedia is decided by the consensus of ordinary editors, partly that consensus which is reached in individual discussions, and partly that which is embodied in policy and guidelines. As for "its never going to be settled until someone higher up rules what references and language is best fitting," please see here for what happens when no agreement can be reached. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe this is why none of the editors listed were notified about this thread. 72Dino (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While the IPs request to "have an admin make a decision" is not possible, particularly in this forum, this forum may be an appropriate place to have a centralized and mediated discussion to help multiple parties come to an agreement about a discussion that has tended to spiral and repeat istelf across multiple sections of multiple articles and talk pages. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Red Pen, I don't disagree and that's the reason I left this open for the IP editor to supplement it if s/he cares to do so. I think it might be better if this was closed and a new case filed with a clearer statement of what the particular content issues may be rather than trying to patch up this listing, but feel free to do either if you would like for this to go forward. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The editor who initiated this is trying to push changes that have been reverted by five other editors. I offer that the best possible outcome here is that he come away with an understanding of the word "consensus".  He might also benefit if he could grok the policy WP:BIT.    Belchfire (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why I have been mentioned here at this point - I disengaged from posting about 'what to call the groups the article subject donates to' on Talk:WinShape Foundation back on July 20th. After Editor 216.81.94.75 posted this at "Talk:WinShape Foundation#Any thoughts on the word choice of the following at Support for anti-gay groups section", I posted the following on as a response:
 * "Again, I am sorry you feel that way, whatever you think that was not my intent. I think this discussion is veering off into discussing editors and not the content at hand so I will refrain from any further posts until a consensus is established whatever that might be."

Also, my only recent edits to Chick-fil-A have been to correct errant titles in refs, and to add sourced information re:Chick-Fil-A & the Mayor of Boston. My last post to Talk:Chick-fil-A was on July 20 when I ended with "All I care about in this case is that the article be as precise and as neutral with its word-choices as it can possibly be."

Whatever the consensus of the editorial community is at these two associated articles I am fine with. Shearonink (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not think this is needed we are working towards compromise as of recently we have not gotten the compromise exactly right but I think were close so my suggestion is that we give it a couple more days. Also just because we use a source does not mean we need to use it's polemics or unneutral language and narrative we should report it's facts and filter out it's bias same thing we would do with something from fox news or MsnbcAlgonquin7 (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Also the most uncompromising one in the debate was IP 216 who started this dispute resolution was blocked for block evasion without him thinking every editor who has the audacity to disagree with him is editing in bad faith then a resolution can be reached this is unnecessary even more now Algonquin7 (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to distract from the idle chit-chat, but there really are a dozen reliable sources that characterize Chik-fil-a and Winshape as "anti-gay", so the attempt to conceal this is quite problematic. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Those sources newsoulets can't help themselves to use polemics and subjective headlines to grab attention on a controversial issues like this since they need to make money, while wikipedia should be bland and neutral like encylopedia's always are they not the most interesting things but are necessary for spin-free information, the current header is that and has stayed for quite sometime so maybe fingers crossed consensus was reached. Algonquin7 (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These newspapers are reliable sources. You're not. Enough said. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure if I used the original wording in the Baptist Press Review (A Newspaper), or articles in the New York Post (Newscorp subsidarie) or other more decidly conservative newspapers you'd be whistling a differant tune. To say newspapers can't contain some bias in them or we have to include the bias if we referance the source is simply a mistaken notion that could harm wikipedia's overall neutrality. Algonquin7 (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given Talk:Chick-fil-A and the impossibility of acting on the initial request, i think this can be closed. -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

99 Flake


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

While reading recent changes I noticed that some of the facts in the article had been significantly changed without any citation or edit summary - I therefore reverted the edit and put an appropriate warning template on the user's talk page.

The user then made their edit again without an adit summary. This time I took it for vandalism and reverted again with the next level template warning on their user talk page.

The user made their edit a third time again without an edit summary. This time I assumed good faith and reverted the edit but with an explanatory edit summary and added a personal note on the user's talk page.

Another IP then made the same edit a fourth time, once more without an edit summary. I left it as it so as not to fall foul of the WP:3RR.

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?

Posted on the user's talk page three times and added an explanatory edit summary to the page in question.


 * How do you think we can help?

Give an opinion on whether the edits I reverted were vandalism or good faith and how the dispute should be resolved.

Lineslarge (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

99 Flake discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

This looks like straightforward vandalism. If the reversions continue, request semi-protection of the article. Formerip (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm a DRN volunteer and the edits appear to be vandalism. If the edit warring continues, please report in to WP: ANEW. I will also issue the IPs 3RR warnings. Electric Catfish 21:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, looks to be vandalism here as well. Though I would probably contact someone if you bounce back reverting any edits twice and the editor replaces it again without contact. Do not want to run afoul of edit warring, which can be imposed before 3RR. Though vandalism is vandalism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer here. Does anyone object to me closing this as resolved? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Closing as resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Speed Racer (film), Ninja Assassin


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

Articles for Ninja Assassin and Speed Racer provided inaccurate information regarding the credits given to those involved in the making of the films, namely Lana Wachowski. Her legal name is Lana Wachowski, and I have a hard time believing that they were credited with their prior name wherein their LEGAL NAME was changed in 2003. I am simply trying to adjust the articles to reflect the correct information for the sake of providing accurate information to Wikipedia readers.

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.


 * 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 speaking to the other editor and it resulted in my changes being reverted back to the incorrect information.


 * How do you think we can help?

I think it would be a good idea to lock the articles after the information on the articles is corrected to avoid future conflict. As these articles are not biographical in nature, there should be little need to alter them after the information is changed to be accurate.

50.141.130.38 (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Speed Racer (film), Ninja Assassin discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * Just want to make clear since the user is blanking his talk page, that he requested evidence that the 2009 film Ninja Assassin was credited to Larry Wachowski. I provided the evidence requested, a poster for the film which can be seen here that clearly lists Larry Wachowski. The same is true with Speed Racer. He ignored this, blanked his talk page, undid it and still said I was wrong, then did the same again with Speed Racer. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

I note that this question has been extensively discussed here. Would everyone involved be so kind as to read that discussion before commenting further? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Darkwarriorblake on this. 50.141.130.38 demanded evidence, was supplied the evidence, and chose to patently dismiss it by blanking their talk page twice and continued edit-warring. 50.141.130.38 has violated WP:3RR on Speed Racer (film), shows a patter of edit-warring on Ninja Assassin, and has accused those in disagreement of trolling and "nonsense". IMO the IP should be blocked and the articles semi-protected to prevent further disruption. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for directing me to that page, Guy Macon. On a side note, I noticed that --IllaZilla has extensively communicated with Darkwarriorblake in the past and therefore his suggestion that my IP be blocked in response to editing the articles discussed in the dispute may be a result of his familiarity with the other user involved in this dispute. I am a huge fan of looking impartially at disagreements no matter where I may have them and I feel that his judgement is likely clouded due to his familiarity with the other user involved in this dispute. I opted to take the disagreement here instead of continuing to edit the pages in question. In addition to that, I did not notice Darkwarriorblake's post on my Talk page when I deleted the content on it. Thank you, Darkwarriorblake, for providing me with the evidence I asked for. So far as my opinion on the matter at hand is concerned, however: While Lana Wachowski may have been incorrectly credited as Larry Wachowski, that is not their legal name, and I believe articles on Wikipedia should avoid the politics involved with why they were incorrectly credited to begin with. Lana Wachowski changed their name in 2003. The films in question were produced well after that. This is my stance on the matter. I thank all involved for taking part in this dispute.


 * After reviewing the page linked by Guy Macon, I think a very clear impasse can be found in the suggestion that we simply do "Lana Wachowski (then Larry Wachowski)" or vice versa. The former would definitely be kinder, but either one is fine. --50.141.130.38 —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * True, Darkwarriorblake and I have communicated quite a bit before, because we seem to edit a number of the same articles (mostly films IIRC). However that isn't what led me here; I saw the edit-war at Speed Racer (film), check your contribution history, & saw that you'd started this thread. Also FWIW Darkwarriorblake and I have, to my recollection, disagreed almost as often as we've agreed. I do not feel that my judgment in this matter is clouded or influenced by any past interactions with Darkwarriorblake. My opinion that your IP be blocked was based solely on the edit-warring. I am grateful that you'r engaging in discussion on the matter. Do you have proof that the person in question changed their name in 2003 (either legally or informally)? The sources cited at The Wachowskis indicate that the name change occurred after Speed Racer, and are dated 2008 or later. It is difficult to believe that they would be "incorrectly credited" in the credits of their own films. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * IllaZilla, Have you read the page I linked to above? What do you think about the arguments on that page?


 * To all: please stop talking about other editors and focus on the content of the page. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for discussing article content, not user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * larger discussion there but brunt of the argument is that the work is credited to an individual name and name changes for whatever reason do not revise that history. The wikilink itself will lead to the accurate place if someone wants to learn more, the wording of the link however reflects the reality. I pointed this out to the IP and provided evidence that I do not "think" I am correct as an intervening user would later claim, but that I am very much actually, factually, love actually correct. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Volunteer here again. I think that it has become clear that this is not a content dispute which can be resolved here, but rather a policy question which needs to be addressed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I am going to ask that one of you bring it up there and post a link to it here, at which point I will close this entry. Make sure that when you bring it up at talk MOS you link to the two discussions above as well as this one. I also suggest that you insist upon an answer rather than letting it peter out without a clear result. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've restarted the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style, for anyone who is interested. It seems fairly straightforward, I really don't see why there is so much dispute over it to be honest. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Female disciples of Jesus


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

Immediately after I hit save page my work was deleted. I had returned to text that I originally wrote and saw citation needed and attempted to reference the material but only got blank white or blank black pages. Unable to edit the Citation box,I spent hours finding and adding references, external links and internal references too. But my efforts were deleted immediately before I could review them. I had some of this digitally backed up and had to recover some by memory, some was lost. This is not due process and it undermines the very nature of Wikipedia. It is disheartening and motivates authors to not bother to contribute.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

Tuvok wrote my adding of biblical references, external links d quotes and exegesis of Gnostic Apocrypha is vandalism. Yet,I am the originator of the article and I was taking nothing away only substantiating it !


 * 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.


 * 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?

discussed on talk pages of both users


 * How do you think we can help?

enforce policy

Catherine Curran (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Female disciples of Jesus discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

I, as my signature shows, am the "Tuvok" named in the list of users above, though my current username is (I usurped Tuvok a while ago because of my signature, before I renamed my account from Voyagerfan5761.).

Ms. Curran states that she "discussed on talk pages of both users" this dispute before bringing it here. However, my talk page edit history shows no edits from her account prior to the notification about this thread opening.

Ms. Curran appears to have posted to Orthoepy's talk page about the issue, but there was no discussion.

To Ms. Curran's point about losing some of her work, I must point out that everything she posted, including the reverted edits, are preserved in the article history. Nothing has been permanently lost or destroyed.

Additionally, Orthoepy and myself each reverted only one edit of Ms. Curran's, hardly a quantity of "dispute" proportions.

Mistaken reversions are an unfortunate consequence of the way we patrol Wikipedia for vandalism. Often, large additions or deletions (a category of edits that Ms. Curran's fall into) appear to be vandalism at first glance and the patrolling user neglects to take a second, deeper look before reverting. We are, of course, human, and these things happen.

While I deeply apologize to Ms. Curran for the undue aggravation she has experienced as a result of this situation, I do not believe it is a serious enough issue for dispute resolution. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 07:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this was an honest mistake on the part of Dgw - but at the very least all disputes should be discussed on the article talk page. I don't think that's necessary here as Dgw has commented - it was a mistake. I'm going to close this one as resolved. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 07:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I have been trying for many months, to get the Northwestern HS article in question, reassessed in both WikiProject Schools & WikiProject Maryland. It makes no sense that it's taken almost a year of effort, to try and get someone from either projects to reassess the article. I regularly check the Assessment sections on both WikiProjects, and I'm seeing completed reassessments on a daily basis. I asked someone to reassess Northwester about a good FOUR or FIVE times, in just one of the projects, alone. I was blatantly ignored.

I finally contacted Wikipedia and asked them what steps I had to take, to request a reassessment. Wikipedia responded to me on two separate occasions, in regards to my inquiry. BOTH times, I was told that Wikipedia recommended I—myself—reassess the article, since no one else seemed to be willing to do so. Furthermore, Wikipedia stated the encouraged me to be an active member of WikiProject Schools and WikiProject Maryland. They said that I was the ideal person to do the reassessments. Upon reassessing the article, myself, my biggest fear ended up coming true: I was concerned that as soon as I conducted the reassessment, all of a sudden there would be a flurry of interest and participation for other editors, in regards to the article in question. Sure enough, less than 24 hours after I reassessed the article, the editor this dispute is about, went trigger happy with the flagging of photos to be deleted; practically wrote me thesis telling me about how I was out of line for doing the reassessment; and then lowered the articles rating back to a C-Class. The editor erroneous flagged many of my photos for deletion, many of the photos were identical to types of photos found in FEATURED ARTICLES from Stuyvesant High School and Baltimore City College.

He also said Wikipedia DOES NOT encourage people who have done extensive edits to an article, to do assessments on the same article. That one statement in its self took away any credibility.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have responded with comments to ALL of the photos which were erroneously flagged for deletion, as well as commenting on talk pages. I informed CT Cooper I'd be seeing a dispute resolution.

How do you think we can help?

I would like a third party to (A) make sure that that the editor in question is truly in a position to be a prominent editor, considering all of the erroneous claims made. (B) I'd like another editor, besides CT Cooper, to reassess the article, if it is determined I can not do the assessment myself. (C) It needs to be soundly determined that the editor in question, is thoroughly up-to-date with their understanding of United States copyright laws.

Opening comments by CT Cooper
''I've been asked to shorten my statement, which I'm happy to do. My original for the record is here, and the revised version is below at just under 2,000 characters:''

I do not accept Maryland Pride's description of past events, for reasons I have already explained at Talk:Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland).

I've been assessing articles for WikiProject Schools for five years and it is a fair point, for which I do not withdraw, that people tend to overestimate the quality of their own work and having an additional set of eyes is appropriate - and I'm far from the only person which believes that - see User talk:CT Cooper/Archive 1 for example. What Maryland Pride does not appear to understand is the need on this project to recognise ones own conflict of interest, and act as appropriate, and he should have interpreted my comment as advise not as a person criticism.

When I am assessing an article I always go through the images both locally and Commons, because I have lost count the number of cases in which I have encountered copyright problems with the school articles. The alternative is that I just ignore uploads and pretend it isn't an issue, but that would be irresponsible.

I do not accept Maryland Pride's claim that he has attempted to previously resolve this issue. This dispute has only flamed up in the last 24 hours, and Maryland Pride's comments have done little to help resolve it, given the abusive behaviour, including personal accusations about myself which lack evidence.

On Maryland Pride's requests, points (A) and (C) seem to be a demand for retribution rather than to resolve this dispute. Point (B) would be reasonable, except that Maryland Pride has not actually read my assessment beyond the first paragraph per his own claims - and hasn't indicated what parts of my justification for the current article rating are problematic. That said, I would be happy to see someone else review my assessment and find fault in it, if it resulted in Maryland Pride dropping the accusations against me and other editors, and dropping the demands for retribution. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) discussion
Hmm. Look. I think you need to take a deep breath.

As far as I can see, this dispute orbits around a couple of points: (a) You feel that the article should be assessed at B, and CT Cooper feels that it should be assessed at C; (b) You feel that your images at Commons were erroneously tagged for deletion.

In regards to the assessment of the article, you say that CT Cooper has suggested that editors who have been heavily involved in working up an article should not go on to assess the article. I agree with CT Cooper's position.

The purpose of assessment isn't to differentiate between whether the subject of an article is good or not, or whether the work on the article has been good or not or whatever. The purpose is to bring attention to things that can be further improved about the article's content. It's just a way to make sure that we keep improving our articles.

Rose Bay Secondary College is an article that I have worked on in the past, and needs to be assessed (it is currently unassessed), but I'm not going to do it because that wouldn't serve the purpose of assessment. Someone else will hopefully do it at some stage (or I could ask someone to go over it, but (a) there's still a few things I want to do with it; and (b) I wouldn't have time at the moment to act on anything suggested by an assessment at the moment). Someone could get to it eventually I suppose, no rush.

The tagging of the images over at Commons seems to be a misunderstanding, but you're culpable there. Looking at, CT Cooper explained why he tagged in quite a reasonable tone. Take what was said as advice instead of taking it personally.

In regards to what you want in terms of "how we can help"... There's just too much emotion there. But, in regards to (B), I agree with the recent comments made by CT Cooper on the article's talk page. There is a pretty good to-do list in terms of areas where the article should be improved to meet the requirements at B, being (and noting that I'm quoting CT Cooper and occasionally paraphrasing):
 * the school address in the infobox is over the top (city, county, state, and country is sufficient);
 * "rivalries" need to be sourced or removed as WP:SCHOOLCRUFT;
 * inappropriate formatting (i.e., bolding of yearbook, newsletter) in the infobox should be removed;
 * the Lead has to be a summary of the article with less focus on the school's achievemente per WP:LEAD;
 * The history and campus sections should be rewritten per WP:WPSCH/AG to be less fragmentary;
 * Further discussion on school uniform, as this is unusual for an American school (btw, wtf);
 * Academics section needs a rewrite (besides what CT Cooper has said, I also take issue with each of the academies having logos included in the article, and, if all the points of paragraph are from the same reference, put the ref at the end, not repeatedly all the way through, and it's also way too overly finegrained, not everything needs to be listed);
 * Performing arts should be briefer, with less promotional language, and inserted into Extracurricular;
 * The language of the article needs to be more neutral; and
 * There needs to be more referencing, particularly of interesting/contentious points, and, in fact, extant referencing has to be improved too.

None of the above to-do-list should be especially hard or contentious (because it's all based in wikipedia policy and guidelines). Uhh... Get to it?

As an aside... You really need to try to be a bit more civil. Be WP:CALMer. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 11:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Maryland Pride: I can see that you are passionate about this article and subject. You want the article to have a higher assessment grade: that is great! I've gotten several articles to WP:Featured article status, and that is quite rewarding. One thing I can suggest is that you go through a review process on the article. There are two processes that you can use: WP:PEER REVIEW  (PR) and Good article nominations (GAN). Both processes involve an independent editor evaluating the article and giving you constructive feedback. You can use PR anytime. If you use the GAN process, and achieve GA status, the article is automatically assessed at "GA" status (if you look at WikiProject_Schools, you can see that GA status is one level above B status). In other words, you can bypass the project assessors. The project people, I can see, are acting in good faith, and their criticisms are well-intentioned. But, project members do not own articles, and they cannot prevent you from getting the article to GA status. I suggest that you carefully absorb the constructive criticisms on the article you have gotten so far, implement as many as you can, and then nominate the article for WP:Good article status, using the WP:GAN process. Then the article will be assessed at the GA level. If you need help with the GAN process, let me know and I can help. (PS:  I concur with just about everything that user Danjel wrote immediately above ... my comments should be viewed as augmenting their comments). --Noleander (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * While I'm sure it well intentioned, I'm afraid I do take issue with treating project assessors, which spend hours and hours of time assessing articles and giving feedback, as some kind of obstruction. There has been a note at WP:WPSCH/A for years about WP:PR and the good/featured article processes. Project assessors do not own the article, and nobody has said that they do, but it is completely appropriate that action is taken to ensure that article quality ratings continue to mean something. If Maryland Pride wishes to skip C-class and go straight to GA then he can do so, although it is a far greater jump, and this will not necessarily "bypass" the project assessors. Anyone can be involved in a GA nomination process, and take an article to WP:GAR if it is felt that it has dropped below standards or has been promoted inappropriately. However, I should point out also that I and other editors that review articles have often encouraged editors to go for GA, usually once the article is at safe B-class level, and we have had some successes. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)