Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 4

Cus D'Amato


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

I am a writer and contributor who is new to Wikipedia. While looking over the Cus D'Amato page I noticed that two other authors who are writing about the same topic as I am had listed their related projects on the site, and so I added my own as well. Within a few hours my post was deleted. I urged the user on the talk page to discuss with me why he chose to delete my post and not the others. He refused to reply and just kept issuing warnings and threats to have me blocked and blacklisted. I see this as unfair and selective policing. He accuses me of doing something wrong and blocks me and at the same time promotes others. I would rather not police this page myself as it would be unprofessional of me to help shut down the two other contributors, "Knockout" and "Confusing the Enemy" who "advertise" their projects on the site. Can someone help? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cus_D%27Amato&action=history

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



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

I went to the talk page and asked the user to discuss the issue.


 * How do you think we can help?

Please direct the user to be fair. Either allow my contribution or remove the two others.

Damonackerman (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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

I'm sorry, but MikeWazowski's removals and warnings were entirely appropriate due to the promotional nature of your addition. Use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes is forbidden and your account is at risk to be blocked if you continue to add such material. Each editor's edit stands or dies on its own virtue, so complaints about comparative fairness carry little or no weight here. (At the same time, I will note that the other two promotional insertions in that article have now also been deleted.) Moreover, messages to users, such as you left for Wazowski, goes on their discussion page, not on their user page. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 01:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Rebel Legion


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

Article continually deleted by possible members of 501st out of spite... or because they do not understand we are a separate group with over 2500 world wide active members, more than half of that of the 501st.

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

We have a huge forum with over 6000 members, 2500+ active costumed members, you can see us in Star Wars publications and at Star Wars Weekends at Disney every year. Several of the sub-bases have their own forums and websites. We work along side the 501st and we are referenced on the 501st website. Officially sanctioned by Lucasfilms to do our costumed charity work. Raised thousands for charity this year alone.

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

attempted to contact users.


 * How do you think we can help?

reinstate entry

69.241.127.244 (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Fiona Graham


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

There is quite a lot of edit warring. In particular, there seems to be a strong bias in favour a negative information being left in the article whilst positive information is left out. The result is an article that does not conform to the standards of neutrality which Wikipedia requires.

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


 * (Used to be Simon-in-sagamihara)
 * (Used to be Simon-in-sagamihara)

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

Discussion on the talk page, page blocks, inclusion on the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard


 * How do you think we can help?

Some form of objective overview, or perhaps blocking certain users from editing the page

Mrceep (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Fiona Graham discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * Hi, I'm Your Lord and Master (formerly Simon-in-sagamihara), one of your defendants for the evening. I'll try to keep this as brief and as on-track as possible. If I mention something that seems off the point, please ask about it -- everything I'm about to write is relevant, so I probably just forgot to attach the reason!
 * I'll address the editor who listed this dispute as, but in doing so I also include the editors , , and the IP editors , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , and.
 * The reason I specifically list these editors is that I strongly believe they are all operated by the same person, and that that person is likely Fiona Graham herself. (The editor who originally created the Sayuki page in 2009, which was speedily deleted for being a cut and paste from Graham's Sayuki web site, was . Please note the initials.) I do understand that there is no rule against IP editing nor maintaining more than one account. However, Mrceep is attempting to paint and myself as opposing the opinions of "several people". These "several people" all happen to edit only the Graham article, the Liza Dalby article or related pages; share the same writing and emphasis and STRONG EMPHASIS style; and have the same beef with the same information (discussed below). In addition, if these accounts are all operated by Ms Graham -- which this diff implies, then she is not adhering to WP:COI. Statements implying they are different are made in the edit summaries of this diff, this diff and this diff.
 * Mrceep appears to have four problems with the article:


 * 1) She is adamant that Graham, and not Liza Dalby, is the "first Western geisha"
 * 2) She does not want Graham's birth year listed in the article
 * 3) She disagrees with sources describing Graham's disaffiliation from the Tokyo Asakusa Association and prefers to accuse the association of racism
 * 4) She believes that the article does not paint Graham in a flattering enough light.
 * I'll address each of these one by one.

There is no dispute that Graham "worked"/"works" as a geisha. The article reflects multiple editors' consensus that Liza Dalby trained and debuted as a geisha decades before Graham did and thus Graham is not "the world's first Western geisha".
 * 1) The references listed in Liza Dalby -- particularly this one, but also this page from Dalby's own book -- indicate that Liza Dalby trained and formally debuted in the 1970s, well before Graham did. Mrceep addressed this by creatively interpreting the verbs train and debut to be synonymous with "work", and then introduces WP:OR to explain why Dalby wasn't really a geisha because she didn't "work" as a geisha, while Graham is because she "works" as a geisha. No reference was ever provided to back up this claim. Mrceep has spent time and effort making this change to both this article and Liza Dalby.
 * 1) Mrceep has edited the article several times removing Graham's birth year. She does not dispute the accuracy of the year, but claims that it is in violation of WP:BLP since "geisha do not reveal their age". Mrceep is to be commended for her dedication to protecting the privacy rights of Graham, especially since Graham herself has revealed her age in the references provided! The main reason she gives, that Graham will "suffer" or "have harm inflicted on her geisha career" if her birth year is listed in the English Wikipedia, unfortunately, fail WP:NOTCENSORED, which state Nor will Wikipedia remove content because the internal bylaws of some organizations forbid that information to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.


 * 1) Although reliable English- and Japanese-language sources both verify the statement that Graham was asked to leave the association due to friction between her, the association and her fellow geishas, Mrceep continues to remove any and all references to same and replacing it with the unsourced, POV claim that the racist Tokyo Asakusa Association booted her out simply because she was a foreigner. See here and here for examples. Graham, in an interview in The Australian, did put forth her views as such, and that is reflected in the current version of the article, alongside the Association's views (which must be considered more objective than Graham's).
 * 2) Mrceep's multiple listings of this article at the BLP noticeboard, and finally this dispute lodgement, also claim that the version of the article currently under consensus by multiple editors is "negative", "attacking" Graham and "disrupting her career". Her most recent edits added language (since removed by another editor) promoting Graham's media appearances and charity works with weasel words. From time to time, she has dropped in on the talk page to lambast editors for adding "wrong" and "harmful" information and demanding that we conform to her views on the subject. There is clear consensus among all other participating editors that the article as it stands is neutral, factual, verifiable, objective and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on BLP as well as reliable sources.
 * With all due respect, I suggest that Mrceep spend some time reading WP:PROUD and less time fighting to remove cited sources and factual information that she feels is detrimental to or otherwise hurts Graham's feelings. With slightly less respect, I suggest that she look up the dictionary definition of "neutrality" and ponder on whether her actions reflect the neutrality she so badly craves. I also note that she implies that one of her attempted resolutions was "page blocking", while in actual fact it was another editor who requested the block to stop the IP editor(s)! Finally, given that her suggested solution to this dispute is "blocking certain users from editing the page", I would propose that the protection against IP editing is reinstated permanently and that Mrceep and her socks are topic-banned from the article.
 * Thank you for your time! It's late at night and I got progressively more tired as I went on so please don't hesitate to let me know if I missed a citation or two. I look forward to hearing your views on the matter. Your Lord and Master (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your responses to the issue. Please note that this is not a trial and you're not a defendant. Merely a party to the dispute.
 * Operating multiple accounts in a abusive manner is prohibited by Wikipedia (WP:SOCK). If you think that Mrceep/FiG8 is using both accounts simultaneously without declaring one as the alternate of the other and keeping them editing different topics, you may open a Sock Puppet Investigation (which I would be suprised if it didn't come back as anything less than Probable/Confirmed). Hasteur (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hasteur. (I should be in bed already.) I think at this point the DR filing should run its course -- iff necessary, the SPI can happen afterwards. No need to go nuclear at this stage, everything's civil :) Your Lord and Master (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppetry is not something to be taken lightly, and opening an investigation is not going "nuclear". It is also structurally independent of the issues related to the Graham article. I have therefore opened a report.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am un-archiving this as I think that having a new set of eyes on the dispute (beyond the BLPN) couldn't hurt the issue and very likeley would encourage the reporter to understand the consensus here. Hasteur (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, and I hope we can get this sorted out. I'll try and replying to each of the points, although first I'd like to state that I'm not Fiona Graham. I don't know how I can prove this, especially without breaking my anonymity, but if there is some verification process that's available I'd be happy to go through with it. This makes it quite hard to reply to some of your points directly, as they seem to be aimed at Fiona herself, but I can address some of the issues you've raised.

1. I do personally believe that Fiona Graham is the first Western geisha. However, I'm quite aware that what it means to be a geisha, and so what it means to be the 'first' is a contentious issue. That's why I've posted this here, to try and get a completely objective viewpoint on this all, and so to get a neutral article. I haven't changed the Liza Dalby page at any point. It's my opinion that to be a geisha, you need to work as a geisha, and I'm submitting that to the opinions and evaluation of a different audience to see what they think. The reference for Liza Dalby not working as a geisha is hard to obtain, because it's something she didn't do. From her works that I've read, I've not come across an instance of her working as a geisha, and so that's where this claim comes from.

2. I've not edited this myself, because I see it as quite a grey area. I've been trying to find other articles on wikipedia that have subjects in similar circumstances (preferably those who are also currently working geisha), but have yet to find any. My opinion was that this article should follow the precedent of as similar an article as possible. Any help with this would be much appreciated, if you agree of course.

3. I haven't removed anything about the association booting her out, because it's a sourced piece of news. I thought it was, however, a tad biased, so I decided to include the other side of the story. I worded it badly, and was corrected quite quickly, and was happy with the correction, as the talk page shows.

4. I've lodged this once, particularly hoping for an outsider to step in and give a neutral view. My evaluation of this is that most of those involved seem to have their views, and be quite adamant not to move from them. Because we seem to have very few people actively editing the article, this has led to a situation in which it's very difficult to achieve middle-ground between those involved simply through debate. I think, however, the article is much better now than when I first posted this dispute. In my opinion, when I first entered this section, the article was a bit biased. The addition of information about charity work and media appearances seemed quite appropriate, they were relatively big or important events.

I'm not too fussed about hurt feelings, just having the grey areas cleared up. I don't think blocking IPs is a good idea, I don't think it works all that well, which is why I didn't have it as the first option, but if it's what other people think is the best solution, then I'd agree with that action being taken. I hope this helps people understand my position, and I hope we get a solution. If in any future replies, users could refer to me as separate from Fiona Graham, that would make replying a lot easier, and make for easier debate. I'm happy for a sock puppet investigation to take place in order to clear any misunderstandings about this. Finally, sorry the reply took so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrceep (talk • contribs) 02:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think most of the issues have already been clearly addressed by "Your Lord and Master" above. Regarding point 4 about Mrceep's continued desire for "neutrality", while "Your Lord and Master" and myself appear to be the main active editors watching this article, I personally have no vested interest in the article subject other than to ensure that everything in it is properly sourced and does not degenerate into a promotional piece by and about Fiona Graham/Sayuki. As mentioned above, Mrceep and her past reincarnations have posted several requests to the BLP noticeboard which prompted other disinterested editors to check over the article and agree that there were no serious problems with it. It also prompted temporary page blocks to prevent repeated unilateral removal of "unflattering" details such as the sourced birth year by single-purpose IP accounts. --DAJF (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the interests of civility, Mrceep, I'll address you as Mrceep but I do not withdraw my concerns. Let me respond to your first point, as I think it's the most important one.


 * You've expressed your feelings and strong beliefs, but that is WP:OR -- we don't list subjective speculation, we need objective and verifiable facts. Now, I'll allow that there are a number of articles that trumpet "Japan's first Western geisha" but you'll notice that the majority of them are fluff pieces which spend their time quoting Graham rather than actually researching (or, heavens forbid, fact-checking) the things she's saying. Why don't we quote these articles to support "Graham is Japan's first western geisha" then? Because other reliable sources disprove that. It's like Weekly World News and those tabloid mags -- just because they say aliens landed on Earth, it doesn't mean it's true, even if it's a published source.


 * One more thing, could you explain this edit? You said "as I've pointed out earlier", yet that was your first contribution to the talk page, and virtually all of the previous IP-added comments appear to be from Graham. Is there a particular comment on that page that you are saying is yours? Cheers Your Lord and Master (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want the article to include both subjective sides of a debate, just objective and verifiable facts. I'll admit, I'm quite new to wikipedia (editing at least), so I've made some mistakes when sourcing and whatnot, but I've attempted to follow rules, and if I've been told about a mistake I've made, I've left the correction. In fact, I've left any corrections to avoid starting edit wars, and taken any qualms to talk pages or noticeboards instead. As for the comments about the sources used, we could take the sources used to source the line "In February 2011, Graham was disaffiliated from the Asakusa Geisha Association after repeated disputes with other geishas, who claimed she failed to follow customs and show proper deference to more experienced practitioners, spending too much time on self promotion." I can't read the Japanese article, but both English articles refer to Graham at least once on their pages as the 'first foreign geisha' or 'first western geisha' (without using the word 'claimed'). I believe these are reliable sources (the telegraph and the Wall Street Journal), and the fact that they're used in the article to source this information seems to imply that there is consensus that these are reliable sources. Therefore there are reliable sources that state that Graham was the first western/foreign geisha, and it isn't some 'tabloid magazine' that says it. Finally, "as I've pointed out earlier" refers to 'earlier in the paragraph'. I probably should have said "as I just pointed out" or something that implied that I was referring to that same paragraph, but at the time I didn't think I'd be thought to be Graham, so I thought it'd be quite obvious that I could only be referring to my own single edit. Mrceep (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Nader


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

I strongly disagree with the conclusion to retain the Atlantic Monthly quote in the lead of the Ralph Nader article. No other encyclopedia online or in print that I have encountered, e.g., Britannica, Americana, World Book, and all listings on Encyclopedia.com, which total over seven, includes POV editorial in a lead of an article, nor content that is a subtopic of the article in the lead of said article. I will be clear, it is not the Atlantic Monthly ranking mention that I am opposed to, but the editiorial POV, which is not appropriate to an encyclopedia article, especially in the lead of a biography of a subject.

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



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

Article discussion page, to no avail.


 * How do you think we can help?

I would recommend getting more members of the community involved, and watch for sockpuppets, meatpuppets and banned users. I would suggest strong impartiality.

99.25.218.98 (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

See here (Talk:Ralph Nader). In a nutshell, the dispute (as I perceive it) deals with how / where / whether to discuss claims that Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign did (or did not) take enough votes away from Al Gore to cause George W. Bush to win. The content dispute is intertwined with a claim that one of the editors involved here is a sock of a banned user. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Please also be aware that the IP editor who brought the dispute to DRN does not have a static IP address. It appears that all of the 99.*.*.* IP addresses in the recent discussion and edit history have been assigned dynamically to one and the same user. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Rutabaga


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

The language found in the |current version of the article under the heading "Halloween" is under discussion by myself and. We have tried to discuss this on the talk page (here), but things seem to be going nowhere. We previously discussed nearly identical language back in 2009 (here) and even got a WP:3O with User:GB fan stepping in to agree the section, as written by Gandydancer, was excessive in its detail of the description of the holiday. I contend the current description, favored by Gandydancer, provides too much detail on irrelevancies unrelated to rutabagas, such as a description of the progression of the holiday and what children who dressed up were called (and the derivation of the name). I proposed a pared-down version on the talk page that stuck to points immediately related to the use of rutabagas in the holiday festivities, but was shot down. Gandydancer will not accept any alternative other than his/her preferred language. Our reverts are getting out of hand and inching closer to WP:3RR. Assistance beyond a WP:3O would be appreciated. Rkitko (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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



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

Discussed on the talk page in 2009, again now (which seems to be going nowhere), and received a WP:3O during the 2009 discussion.


 * How do you think we can help?

Assist in the next step of discussion after a third opinion; review the current Halloween section and provide your own opinions.

Rkitko (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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

You forgot to notify the other user. I have remedied this. Hasteur (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but he did let me know on the talk page. Feeling that he did present our conflict fairly, I thought that someone from this board would read the talk page involved.  But perhaps I am expected to make a reply here?  If that is the case, I will write up my position. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We just want to make sure that both parties are aware (direct message to the party is preferred). I'll try reading through the debate later today to make suggestions. Hasteur (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'd appreciate it if you'd first read the Rutabaga article to see my information placement on the page with the lantern photo.  Also, note that I have removed the reference to "guisers" that was objected to. Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems to be going nowhere so perhaps it will help if I write a short summary here from my POV:

Reading the article for the first time two years ago I was fascinated to learn that rutabagas (or turnips as they are usually called outside of the U.S.) were the first jack-o-lanterns. I did some research and added the information that I have now added but it was argued then, as now, that it was excessive. It was pared down to only " Rutabagas commonly carved into decorative lanterns called jack-o'-lanterns for the Halloween season, remain popular throughout Britain and Ireland.[16]" and remained like that for about a year when another editor added, "Since inaugural Halloween festivals in Ireland and Scotland, turnips (rutabaga) have been carved out and used as candle lanterns.[15] At Samhain, candle lanterns carved from turnips — Samhnag — were part of the traditional Celtic festival. Large turnips were hollowed out, carved with faces and placed in windows, used to ward off harmful spirits.[15]" Rkitko then removed the second sentence saying that the reference did not include that information, even though the reference does include the information.

Rkitko has repeatedly suggested that I am not using good faith, however it seems to me that the only good faith I have not been using is faith that his interests in what is worthwhile to include in the article are more correct than mine. He has pointed out Wikipedia guidelines that he claims cover our disagreement, however they seem to me to actually cover how to decide if an article is worthy, not specific information in the article. When I have pointed out that the articles bat, apple, and pomegranate contain a great deal of mythological information he refuses my logic with "other stuff exists" guidelines, which I do not feel apply in this case.

At the time of our first long exchange from two years ago when I first attempted to include this information I asked for help. At that time I expected the "help" to be in the form of help in finding Wikipedia guidelines that showed I was wrong, not an opinion from another editor on whether or not they "liked" my addition. I am a hard-working and dedicated editor and strongly support the need to follow Wikipedia guidelines. I appreciate Rkitko's dedicated and expert help as well, but I do not believe that he should be the judge and jury of information that I find appropriate, educational, and enjoyable for Wikipedia. I have pared my halloween information down to the bare minimum of what I feel I need to explain how turnips came to be the first jack-o-lanterns, and I feel that it should be included in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To be fair, I have never suggested you weren't acting out of good faith. I have asked you for a show of good faith in reverting your additions as we discuss. The two are not the same. As for my earlier removal of the sentence you talk about, I could find no mention of the word "Samhnag," and the other phrases were copied word-for-word (WP:COPYVIO).
 * And to be clear, I am not against including mythological information in articles as long as it is well-sourced and directly related to the subject of the article. What I object to is the extensive discussion of other topics only tangentially connected to the subject. Mentioning other articles is irrelevant, as they may need to be cleaned up, too, which is why an "other stuff exists" argument is not usually a good one to make. Rkitko (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As usual, we are in complete disagreement. Rkitko did repeatedly ask me to show good faith, but to show good faith by reverting my addition was never in question since he reverted my edits as I attempted to justify them.  Then a year later when another editor attempted to include similar information he deleted it saying the ref did not include the information.  Actually the information was in the ref except for the Scottish word for halloween.  Then when the editor tried to fix his edit he came back with: "revert: reference is not a reliable scholarly publication, and it's not clear it refers specifically to rutabagas instead of turnips".  This Dept. of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee site is used at the Halloween, the turnip, the Samhain sites, and others and seems to be acceptable there.  And to again, after a previous lengthy discussion with me and many other editors regarding the fact that rutabaga is an American word and of course would not be used in the discussion of the history of rutabagas/turnips, to continue to dispute this reality causes me a great deal of frustration in my attempts to deal with Rkitko and assures me that he has a strong bias against information that is not related to his area of knowledge/belief system.  As an aside, I note that that editor did not again attempt to edit our encyclopedia.  I can't read his/her mind, but I can understand why some new editors may become frustrated. Gandydancer (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Back in our 2009 discussion, you had been making statements on my motivation, and saying that I was using WP:RS as a weapon. Because of this, I did feel it prudent to remind you to assume good faith and keep the discussion on our content dispute. Since then, I have not asked you assume good faith. Looking back at the reference in question, it could be a reliable source, I admit, but it mentions "turnips" only once. What I wouldn't give for one of these sources to use the taxon name! Please do not misunderstand my point on this - I am not an advocate for any particular common name of this plant, and I fully understand that many other people call this plant a swede or a turnip. However, without clarification, how do we know the source is discussing Brassica napobrassica (the rutabaga) and not Brassica rapa var. rapa (the turnip). (By the way, what do people in the UK call B. rapa var. rapa? Is it also a turnip?) I am not confused on this, I just think that without clarification in the sources, we don't know which taxon it's discussing! It's complicated by the fact that they share a common name and that they're so closely related. Perhaps an answer to the following question might help us here: Do you know when the rutabaga was being widely used in this manner? Prior to the late 1700s, it wasn't known in Scotland or England, except for maybe in the royal gardens. Perhaps finding out you can then edit the imprecise "Since early times" that starts off the section. Rkitko (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have to admit, a discussion about the use of rutabagas as Jack-O-Lanterns intrigues me, and I have a decent amount of experience as a mediator so I'd be willing to step in and try to work out a compromise. I'd be happy to do so on the talk page of the article. I'll leave a message on the talk pages of both editors to see if they are interested. --  At am a  頭 17:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Optical Express Page


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

Page editors are in violation of Wiki Community Standards guidelines: NPOV Accurately indicating the relative prominence of opposing views Neutrality Balance Reliability of sources/Questionable sources

This page was edited by Rotsmasher who by his contribution history appears to be affiliated with a direct competitor. The edits made were under the controversy section and are mainly based one one or two newspaper reports containing unsubstantiated allegations of negative conduct by OE. Beatthecyberhate has attempted to edit the page to sustain impartiality by adding positive and factual information. These edits have been repeatedly removed without just cause and Wiki contributers have blocked Beatthecyberhate on two occasions. Indeed contributer 'Iniced' admitted they did not know why. A Conflict of Interest exists from Beatthecyberhate, however the fact remains this page has not been updated from a Neutral point of view. Attempts to resolve via discussion pages has been ignored. Indeed MikeWazowski has deleted all discussion requests.

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



MikeWazowski - deleted discussions on his page on how to resolve matters. Blocked Beatthecyberhate, not following impartiality guideleines

JamesBWatson - deleting postive edits

Iniced - deleted edits, but could offer no explanation as to why positive, factual content was being repeatedly removed, but controversy section could remain.

Orange Mike - latest Wiki contributer to block Beatthecyberhate for trying to edit OE page, even though comments as to why have been added and no substantiated source given

Teapotgeorge - has been involved in adding content to the page to balance content and given advice to resolve, but has not responded to further discussion on either his talk page or the OE discussion page as suggested.

Rotsmasher - initial contributer, conflict of interest, direct violation of NPOV, accurately indicating the relevant prominence of opposing views, neutrality, balance and uses questinable sources. Edited postively on direct competitor page.

Beatthecyberhate - conflict of interest, but attempting to follow the guidelines and has requested guidance from aforementioned editors to no avail, with the execption of TeapotGeorge.

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

In discussions with editors for guidance on how to introduce impartiality on the OE discussion page. Followed advice from TeapotGeorge. Have instigated discussion on TeapotGeorge talk page which has been unanswered. Attempted to discuss on MikeWazowskis talk page, but he has deleted all conversations and offered no advice or guidance on how to resolve.


 * How do you think we can help?

Due to conflict of interest, would welcome an independent party rewriting the OE page from a neutral perspective under the common standards guidelines set out by Wiki. The opportunity to contribute factual, relevant and encyclopedic content that at the moment is being removed. Page protection to avoid personal attacks from editors with a grudge.

Beatthecyberhate2 (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Beatthecyberhate2 (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Optical Express Page discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * This DRN discussion has been created by a block-evading WP:SOCK with COI. From my reading, they disagree with the negative publicity that the company in question has received.  However, that negative is a) vital to the history/long term failure of the company, and b) published accordingly.  Perhaps it can be "toned down" a little to ensure this does not come across as a business review, but to remove published information on this needs to remain. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

America Invents Act Cont.


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

This report can be seen as a continuation of the issues raised in the previous discussion. Note that the previous thread was archived before a resolution could be reached.

The two threads are similar in the sense that issues regarding WP:QUOTEFARM continue to be a major point of dispute. I view the addition of lengthy quotes as a violation of WP:QUOTEFARM. User:LadyArguer disputes this, arguing that it is 'valuable information on Section 18 and interest groups (which were also included in the articles on the PRA of 2009 & 2007' . The second issue relates to the 'for/against' section which lists a series of organizations that hold some interest in the debate. I would dispute the relevance of this list, and believe that the information may be better suited to be integrated into the body of the article, or removed altogether. User:LadyArguer disputes this, stating that it is 'valuable for interested people and Congress to know that there is lots of opposition to this' . With this rationale, I would argue that the intent of this section may border the line of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Note that the addition of the quotes may also violate WP:UNDUE.

User:VivekVish, User:Ravensfire have also participated in the debate. -Cntras (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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



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

The issue has been discussed on the article talk page and on user talk pages. It has been largely unproductive.


 * How do you think we can help?

Discuss a compromise

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

The section in dispute has been brought up on the talk page, but there has been precious little participation from LadyArguer. After a single post on the talk page, they have just reverted their changes back in without discussion. The changes are two new sections. The first section is mostly a single massive quote with some additional unreliable sources thrown in for good measure. (this blog post for example) The quote itself is from an advocacy site (http://www.noonhr1249.org/ main site here) which does not meet the criteria for a RS. This is something that belongs on a blog, not an encyclopedia.

The other section is a for/against list that is severely biased towards LadyArguer's POV and needs better sourcing. As I commented on the talk page, this section would be much better off as a description of the types of groups that are for and against the bill and highlighting specific groups that gain notability for going against the trend. Partial lists like this are silly, generally unhelpful and easily balloon as more and more entries are added. As it's written, I don't see how this section provides any benefit to a WP article. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition to Ravensfire's point above, I would also like to point to the massive amount of text about advocacy in America_Invents_Act compared to the relative dearth of information about what exactly the provisions of the bill are. In addition to breaking NPOV, the advocacy really stretches the DUE guideline. I'd even argue for removing the entire advocacy section and focus the information on what precisely the bill's provisions are. VivekVish (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Gotta agree with that. There is a fair amount of duplication between "Proposed changes" and "Advocacy for and against" which needs to be removed.  Discussion about each change should be in the proposed change section.  The Advocacy section could be better used to describe any organized campaigns, summarize the groups on various sides, etc.  I think that would improve the overall readability of the article by giving the reader information about the change then the pro/con arguements about that change.  That's beyond this dispute though, and something I'll bring up on the talk page after this is done.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yadav


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

The articles concerning Yadav, an Indian caste, contains the sentence:

"However, their varna status is contested, as at times Yadavs have been labeled within the Shudra (cultivator) varna as "upper Shudra""

"Shudra" is a ritual classification in the Hindu varna system. It is apparently nowadays a deprecated word in the eyes of the government of India.

The statement is supported by four sources:



and both believe that the sentence should be removed and have done so several times, of which the more recent include here, here, and here.

It is the assertion of those contributors that the sentence is "misleading" and that consensus for removal has been obtained via this talk page thread. has produced various sources which they claim demonstrate that the caste belonged to a different ritual group & that this means the caste could not belong to the shudra group.

Three users involved in that thread -, &  - hold the opinion that the statement is reasonably sourced, that more sources could be forthcoming, that the sources for the alternative ritual group are far from perfect (SYNth, OR, unreliable, PRIMARY etc) and that there is no consensus for removal. They have also asked and  whether there is any preferred wording, and across various similar articles in which all of these users are involved it has been suggested that both classifications could be mentioned provided both are reliably sourced etc.

A game of ping-pong has ensued. - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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

This particular issue has recently existed on several other caste articles, notably Kurmi

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

Talk page


 * How do you think we can help?

Is the sentence suitably sourced? Is there consensus for its removal? Is it a reasonable depiction of the sources?

Sitush (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Request for clarification: Who said where that "consensus" for removal has been obtained?-MangoWong (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ... and we're off. Straight in with the lawyering & pedantry. See edit summary of 's removal referred to above. Plus, it is sort of implicit in your own removals of the content, which had existed in the article for some time prior to your involvement. Now, please can we concentrate on the matter at hand since even if neither of you had claimed consensus, I am asking whether there is consensus for your actions. Qwyrxian has said that there is no such consensus in a user talk page thread that you have responded to, and you have misrepresented my own point on the issue in the article talk page thread. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is the assertion of those contributors that the sentence is "misleading" and that consensus for removal has been obtained via this talk page thread. You are clearly saying that myself or User:Bill clinton history hold that consensus for removal has been obtained. I do not think that such a consensus has been obtained. Looking into Bill's edit summary, here I think User:Bill clinton history is saying that consensus has been obtained that the sentence needs some modification and is improper in its present form. That means, neither me not User:Bill clinton history thinks that consensus for removal has been obtained. As such, your claim that both of us assert that consensus for removal has been obtained is false. If you misrepresent other folks view, and would not allow requests for clarifications, and launch into accusations of lawyering & pedantry just because of a request for a clarification, it becomes hard to concentrate on the meaningful issues.  And I never misrepresented you. Trying to define what I make of what you said is not misrepresentation of your views.  Please hold back on your accusations for a while.-MangoWong (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems like both of you could use a cup of tea. Can we focus on the content issues? --Nuujinn (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hating to be disagreeable (and maybe this just isn't the place for behavioral issues), but the above comment from MW. There is no way to read Bill clinton history's edit summary as anything other than a direct statement that xe believes that there is consensus to remove. This type of statement is common, and is one of the key problems: someone makes a statement that is pretty clear and unambiguous, and then they or someone else says, "No that's not what we meant".
 * As for the content dispute, the broad issue is how to deal with deciding what to put in Wikipedia. The best examples of the back and forth can be seen in Talk:Yadav. Bill clinton has fundamentally rejected the entire line, but has provided very little specific concerns for what is wrong with the line or the sources that support it.  However, the only specific objection xe has raised is that each of the sources deals with only a part of India, even though the sources do collectively cover a very wide area and the statement in the article doesn't make any sort of dramatic, overall claims.  When Sitush has pressed the issue, Bch provide no further information to say why the sources are bad, don't meet RS, or whatever. MW has, generally, fallen back on "the claim is misleading", with little specifics. The issue is complicated by the fact that MW seems to believe (though with varying degrees of commitment) that we should be able to point to a single, specific quotation from an article to verify every point, even though that is not a WP requirement. In fact, it's very often better to take the whole of what a source says, in a paragraph, page, or chapter, and summarize that into encyclopedic level detail. This is especially true since MW and others have been known to pick out quotes from passages that say, "Person A said X is true", and then want to include X in the article, even though the rest of the source either says that A is unreliable, or that A's theories are no longer generally accepted, or whatever.
 * It has been quite difficult to make forward progress, because it seems very hard to pin down exactly what problems MW, Bch, or others have, even though they refuse to move past their claims that there are problems or that they've already fully explained. So I guess what we need is, here, for Bch and MW to explain very clearly and carefully why those 4 sources don't meet WP:RS, or WP:DUE, or are being improperly synthesized, or we're misinterpreting them, or whatever they think is wrong. It needs to be more specific than "its misleading" or "the conclusion is wrong".  And if they would like to re-raise their own sources, then we could, one more time, explain exactly what problems we find in those sources, and then (if those claims are valid), there would be no more recourse of "but we have lots of sources".  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sitush, Assume Good Faith unless you'd rather have it not be assumed on your behalf. Hasteur (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Please allow me to get to the content issues. The first of our sources is Bindeshwar Pathak. This guy does not seem to be a Professor and seems to be a social worker. In his book, there is a table about castes in Bihar and classifies Yadavs as Shu***. The book seems to give no reasons for concluding that Yadavs are S*****.  So, NOT professor, does NOT talk about Yadavs in general (is only talking about Yadavs in Bihar), does NOT establish what it says about Yadavs. I discount this source entirely for these reasons.


 * The second book is by Sandria B. Frietag. It is not about caste etc. at all. It is about Benaras, a city in India. It has a passing comment where it talks about a single Yadav person being associated with the Shu*** varna. And it says this within a bracket. The book is NOT “on topic”, does NOT go on to establish what it says about Yadavs, and only has a passing comment. I discount this source because of these reasons.


 * Nobody seems to know what the third book says. So let’s leave it.


 * The fourth book is by Sabyasachi Bhattacharya. This book is also off topic. It lists Yadavs in Andhra Pradesh (a state in India) as Shu*** 1901, 1911, 1921, 1931. The table is principally about literacy rates. So, this book too does NOT go on to establish what it says about Yadavs. Does NOT say anything about Yadavs in general, (only about Yadavs in Andhra Pradesh in various historical times.) I discount this source because of these reasons.


 * So, we do not have any “on topic” scholarly source which establishes that Yadavs as a community are S*****.


 * From these sources, we have drawn this generalization about all Yadavs…."However, their varna status is contested, as at times Yadavs have been labeled within the Shudra (cultivator) varna as "upper Shudra"…."


 * I think this is completely misleading because we do not have any scholarly source saying anything like this about Yadavs as a caste/community. What we have is passing comments/ baseless conclusions from off topic sources, about Yadavs in one or two places, and at some particular times. Our own material is talking about Yadavs in general. So, what we have is a giant generalization, i.e. a synthesis. Nothing else. There is no source which is talking about Yadavs in general. Yadavs are spread over a large number of states in India. Not just in Benaras(city)/ Andhra Pradesh(state). Secondly, I have already said that the first source is a non professor, and nobody seems to know what the third says. That leaves the second and the fourth source only. I have already said that both of these are off topic books. They do not say what the article says. Do not show any basis for what they say. What we have is a synthesis. It is misleading. It should be deleted.-MangoWong (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Pathak is a sociologist with a PhD who has spent the last few years working in the area of social reform. He has had at least one festchrift published in his honour and just take a look at GScholar.


 * Freitag is published by California University Press, the book in question is about a large place and over a long period of time (1800-1980). Her GScholar search shows this & she has been Executive Director of the American Historical Association, the announcement for which post gives a lot more background about her.


 * Bhattacharya is more difficult to pin down as the name is rather common, but GScholar for the name shows this, some of which are clearly irrelevant. The book in question was the outcome of a university conference. I am fairly sure that they are/ were a professor, given the dates of publication of various books shown at GBooks.


 * I & others have previously explained to you that we do not dismiss sources just because we do not have them. Barrier is obtainable. Indeed, I obtained a chapter from it only a couple of days ago via WP:RX. I know that the person who sent me that chapter actually has a copy of the book in their possession, so I can chase this up.


 * One of the beauties of this range of sources - which, by the way, appear to be only a small selection from the many available - is precisely the variety of academic angles which all are stating the same thing, ie: Yadav are/were shudra in the varna system. Yes, it is true that none of them cover the entire of India; but it is equally true that between them they cover different, disparate areas and I did suggest (but you ignored) perhaps changing the wording oh-so-slightly so that it said, for example, "at some times and in some places ..." I would rather not do that because it is vague but it seemed to be a possible solution.


 * It has been explained to you on several occasions that it is not necessary for reliable sources to be specifically devoted to the subject matter of the article, although it helps. In many cases, this is simply not possible and if we applied your rationale of strict topicality to every statement in every article then the number of words at Wikipedia would drop perhaps 80% and the articles would mostly be stubs.


 * You have for a long time admitted that your desire is to see the word "shudra" removed from every article on Wikipedia because "it is a lie". This POV is what is causing most of the problems, as you have been shown time and again numerous sources which use the term over a prolonged period and over a fair range of castes etc. The fact that it is a banned word in India (supposedly, although the government seem to use it) has no relevance to WP, which is not censored. You are allowing your dislike of the word - which was a formal ritual rank - to cloud your judgement even though you seem not to object to mentioning the other three ranks in the varna system.


 * Do you want me to list some more sources? I did this for you at Kurmi but you still refused to accept the point even though there were uninvolved people who thought it was clearly notable and clearly relevant. Can I assume that you will be more receptive to the weight of reliable opinion on this occasion? This, btw, Hasteur, is one reason why AGF is running a bit thin: people have bent over backwards to work with MW. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Three more, for your edification:
 * Note that this now brings Maharashtra into the picture, along with the existing Andra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Banares. And that the Maharashtra source is under the auspices of the Anthropological Survey of India. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that this now brings Maharashtra into the picture, along with the existing Andra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Banares. And that the Maharashtra source is under the auspices of the Anthropological Survey of India. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that this now brings Maharashtra into the picture, along with the existing Andra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Banares. And that the Maharashtra source is under the auspices of the Anthropological Survey of India. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that this now brings Maharashtra into the picture, along with the existing Andra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Banares. And that the Maharashtra source is under the auspices of the Anthropological Survey of India. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have done some further investigation on Bindeshwar Pathak. The life mission of Bindeshwar Pathak is around promoting some new type of TOILET design!!!! That he has a PhD does not make him an RS on anything. Being a professor is only a nursery hurdle, and this source does not pass that even.


 * That Frietag is an office bearer of AHA does not make her an RS on anything. Getting elected as an office bearer depends more on how energetic one is, social skills, etc. Most of her works are around communal/religious issues etc. not about caste at all. In any case, the particular book is about a CITY, i.e. off topic. What she is says is a passing comment, about a single individual in a single city, and occurs within a bracket. There is no way we can draw a giant generalization from it. The whole book and the particular phrase are trash grade source for that article and for the material in question.


 * If you are not even sure who this Sabyasachi Bhattacharya is, why are you even talking about him/her? Sabyasachi Bhattacharya too is only making a sort of passing comment, and it is only in a table of literacy rates in Andhra Pradesh in the period 1901-31. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya is saying something about LITERACY RATES. Caste is not his/her issue at all. Yadavs being x/y Varna is not his/her point. The book is also off topic. No chance of drawing a giant generalization from this source. Since we do not even know who this Sabyasachi Bhattacharya is, there is no way of knowing what his/her field may be. Just drop it. Don’t waste other people’s time talking about passing comments from off topic sources whose expertise is unknown.


 * Since the rest of the three sources are trash, it is good reason to assume that the fourth source must also be trash+ is being used for synthesis. Until you show what it says, it is trash. “Yes, it is true that none of them cover the entire of India; but it is equally true that between them they cover different, disparate areas…” That you say this much is enough to establish that you guys are doing synthesis. We cannot make an India wide generalization from disparate sources. End of matter. Beat it.


 * “Three more, for your edification.” This page is meant for discussions, not for teaching anything to anybody. I do not need to learn anything from googlers who can only do synthesis on passing comments from random sources with dubious/unproven credentials. If you want to teach, you should get yourself an assignment with some university. Otherwise, when you log onto WP, please keep your teaching instincts zipped up. You can delete the comment which you think can be edifying for me. I don’t need it.-MangoWong (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Statement by uninvolved user:Fowler&fowler: This dispute seems to be taking place on a number of Wikipedia Hindu caste related pages. Although at first I was dismissive of what Mango Wong and Thisthat2011 were saying, I am now more sympathetic to their point of view.  I feel that Sitush (and party) are not seeing the forest for the trees.   They have, to be sure, marshalled a few sources that seem to suggest that caste X is "shudra," but the citations are usually taken out of context.  A good example is Susan Bayly's book, which I have just finished reading (and which is still sitting on my desk as I type this).  Bayly says that the Kurmi (like the Yadav and many other communities) were free cultivators well into the early nineteenth century.  In the middle decades of the century, some land-owning upper classes attempted to label them "shudra" for various social, economic, and political reasons.  But it not was a label that the Kurmi ever accepted themselves.  (William Pinch (see below) makes the same point.) It is inaccurate to say that Susan Bayly says anywhere that the Kurmi are "shudra," which was the implication that Sitush (and party?) had inserted in the Kurmi lead (citing page 209!) until I removed it.  I am now reading William Pinch's Peasant's and monks in British India.  Although I have only read 70 odd pages, I can already tell that Pinch has been quoted out of context by Sitush (and party?) in the Kurmi article.   We live in an age in which there are sources for the most outlandish assertions.  We need to be careful with a topic like "caste."  It is a complicated and sensitive topic.  Finding a few sources doesn't prove anything.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PS Since we are talking about "edification," here is the first paragraph of the first chapter of Susan Bayly's book, Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. "Caste is not and never has been a fixed fact of Indian life. Both caste as varna (the fourfold scheme of idealised moral archetypes) and caste as jati (smaller-scale birth-groups) are best seen as composites of ideals and practices that have been made and remade into varying codes of moral order over hundreds or even thousands thousands of years. The context for this fluidity has been the subcontinent's remarkable diversity in culture and physical environment, and above all the diversity of its states and political systems.  Those conventions of rank and corporate essence that are often seen as the defining features of caste, have been shaped, critiqued and reconstituted in all sorts of ways, both century by century and region by region."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to make this clear: I have added no citations to either Kurmi or Yadav regarding the shudra position. I re-used one existing citation in Kurmi when MangoWong asked for a citation in its infobox but they are not my sources. I, too, have read many of the sources listed but have already stated that some of them (eg: Barrier) are not available to me. I maintain that numerous people have noted Yadavs as being of the shudra caste; I also maintain that this does not mean that any alternative points of view cannot be added also, if there are RS for these points.
 * I have always accepted that there is/was fluidity in varna and that, for example, there are even historic debates regarding what constitutes caste (eg: Crooke vs Risley); this does not alter specific examples if those specific examples are defined in the RS. Bayly's introduction is not a specific example but I have previously stated that it would be good in a general article on caste/varna.
 * Also note that I have pointed out that the phrase used in Yadav includes the words "at times" and I did suggest an amendment - repeated above - that should satisfy the synthesis issue that MangoWong claims to exist. Finally, MW, lay off the "googlers" accusations, please. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a question for Fowler&fowler: you state (quite fairly) that "finding a few sources doesn't prove anything". This is a sensitive subject, you're right.  However, Wikipedia's usual rule is to decide things based on what reliable sources say.  If looking at sources in detail, considering the context of those claims, and ensuring the sources used meet WP:RS, what then, is necessary to establish verification in this case, in your opinion?  I'm a little worried that in our desire to be "sensitive to complexities" we may instead end up saying nothing, which is not what we should be doing as an encyclopedia.  As a side note, I actually have never encountered an editor who reads sources in more detail and greater length then Sitush, so I think your claims about him aren't accurate; and his use of sources is far better than others in the caste articles who have literally said that they don't need to read anything other than the snippet view of something--no context is needed if an exact quote says something, even if a page later it says the exact opposite.  I'm not accusing any specific editor of that, because I honestly don't remember which caste/clan/jati articles specifically and which editors did this, but I do know if has been a very common problem facing Sitush and Matthewvanitas at many of these articles (that, and the desire to rely on primary sources or sources that have been subsequently rejected by modern historians).  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not suggesting that what was in place before you, Sitush and Matthew Vanitas ran a red pen through the articles was correct or should be brought back. I am also not suggesting that we should not use the word "shudra" or should censor what the predominance of sources say. I am (obviously) also not suggesting that the various editors who had edited the caste-related articles before Sitsh, MV and you were in the right.  Obviously, it is wrong to rely on primary sources (or very old secondary sources); obviously, it is wrong to claim that legendary origins need to be treated as any more than legend.  However, I am suggesting that you all have got both Susan Bayly and William Pinch wrong.  Sitush cited Susan Bayly (page 209) in his last reply to Mango Wong ("for your edification").  I am suggesting that he got it wrong, notwithstanding your assessment of him.  I am saying that one can't get three or four sources and make a blanket assertion about as complex a topic as caste and then stick it in the lead to balance exaggerated claims that have been put in there by other people.  I am saying that an article on an ethnic group should have all kinds of information (history, population, customs, language, ...); we can't make it about "caste" and then spend 3 months upping the ante, sort of like Hynkel and Napoloni at the barber shop in Chaplin's Great Dictator.  In other words, the best solution is to move the caste discussion out of the lead (and the infobox) into a section, or even a subsection.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Where it goes is not the point of this discussion. The point of this discussion is whether it exists. MW appears fundamentally to be saying that it should not exist at all, which is their usual position because any mention of "shudra" is wrong in their opinion; Bill clinton believed that there was consensus for removal. I think that you are aware of the reasons why it is positioned where it is, which is basically that it was inherited from past, totally unsubstantiated claims regarding Yadavs being in another varna classification altogether & which, as usual, were the subject of inter-caste edit warring over a prolonged period.
 * At the risk of sounding repetitive, I have read Bayly but I have not read all of Pinch because it is not all available to me. Since the words "caste", "varna" and "shudra" should be linked, any general discussion can be deferred to the article that deals with the generality. All of which, I am pretty sure, probably also need some solid input from people who are detached from the subject. I include you, F&f, in that category. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Stop lying. User:Bill clinton history never said that. And what I hold is for me to define. And I am going to edit these articles. These articles do need input from eds with an Indian background. You can't keep eds with Indian background away from India related articles. Its a stupid wish.-MangoWong (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then please will you define your position? As you have removed the content on several occasions and have in the recent past stated that the shudra term should not exist in any article, are you saying that is not a subtext here? In other words, if the sources are found to be reliable etc then will you be content? - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have already defined my views on the matter in my comment 07:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC). You can read it again if you want. The material in question is rubbish. If you find some other sources, they too are likely to get examined by myself. You can't extract any promises from me. If I make a promise now, it may be possible that someone might claim that their new set of sources (which are also all results of googling and are being used to perform synthesis on passing comments) are OK, but MW is breaking earlier promises by objection to them. If you can get proper sourcing and write something in keeping with other policies, we will see. Until then, this material should be deleted because it is a synthesis and is misleading.-MangoWong (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Another source, which is one of many that discuss how caste orthodoxy is being replaced by caste orthopraxy (to use the words of Myron Weiner): The author is/was of the Center for the Study of Social Systems, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University. I am not a great fan of quoting abstracts but the one for this is perhaps illuminating: "To integrate conceptually the relationship between caste and politics, one must appreciate that the pure ritual hierarchy operates only when backed by wealth and power. In fact, there are multiple hierarchies in the caste order because each caste overvalues itself in relation to others. This can be gauged from their origin tales, which, without exception, claim an exalted past regardless of the actual status a caste occupies on the ground."

With regard to the specific issue of Yadavs and the way in which they have become politically astute (or, at least, a few of their leaders have), the author points out that:"Also in North India, traditional peasant castes that were classified as lowly shudras, according to Brahmannical ranking, were forming their own associations to press for their rightful status under British rule. The Kurmi Caste Association, for example, was set up as early as 1890 in Lucknow, and the Ahir-Yadava Mahasabha began in 1919."

- Sitush (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, Qwyrxian, and MatthewVanitas: Have been a total time waste, and don't understand a squat about Hindu Castes. Their immediate priority is to put Shudra in certain castes articles in the lede. Till now everyone has been dealing with this humongous waste of time, but it's gone too far. Anyone else trying to correct these guys is either abused to the point of madness, or is labelled WP:Tendentious. I fail to understand why these guys are not getting topic banned from editing caste related articles. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please show me instances where I have put the varna stuff into the lede of any caste article, other than by reverting unexplained removals of cited content or removals that do not appear to have consensus. Even on Paravar, which I pretty much totally rewrote, the information was there prior to my editing the article. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * They are not going to be topic banned because nobody is going to take any action against them regardless of the number of misrepresentations, misleading statements, cherry picked statements they put into numerous articles and regardless of the number of articles which stink because of them and regardless of the number of policies they violate daily. And Sitush, you ARE responsible for everything you insert. And you ARE also responsible for everything you reinsert, even if you are not the original contributor of that material. You can't escape that responsibility.-MangoWong (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Topic banned? For supporting WP:NPOV and WP:RS?  Yes, that is unlikely.  However, if you can point to any specific place where I have broken policy, I will be happy to meet you in the forum (WP:ANI, WP:AN, etc.) of your choice.  Also, MangoWong, please don't attempt to remove the information from the article while discussion is on going here.  The whole point is that we have a dispute that we're trying to resolve; edit-warring during that process is, well, not really helping the resolution.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your view is not in keeping with NPOV and the sourcing policy is WP:V, not WP:RS, and the present sourcing is not in keeping with either of them. Why do you reinsert misleading information repeatedly? You still sure it is non-misleading? Please also see WP:DRNC. If you want to revert, please show something more meaningful than "no consensus".-MangoWong (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess it wasn't clear. Yes, I consider the information to not be misleading, as those sources do appear to pass muster to me, along with the additional ones that Sitush is providing.  Please self-revert; I don't know how we can have a civil discussion if you are going to edit war on the article at the same time. To clarify, for those not watching the article, MangoWong has used the mere existence of this DRN as grounds to remove the information from the article (or is perhaps asserting that the claims made here someone prove xyr point, which they do not).  So far, MangoWong has offered no alternative phrasing and has rejected RS on highly specious grounds.   My understanding is that this is because for MangoWong, it is prima facie true that Yadav were not Shudra, and that the term Shudra should never be used any more under any circumstance. In other words, I don't believe that it is possible to satisify MW's concerns, since, by definition, any source which uses the term must be unreliable by xyr standards. I really don't know what we can do to advance the discussion under these circumstances.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The material is WP:SYNTHESIS. This is basic WP policy. If the material cannot pass muster, it must fall because of that reason alone. The other proposed sentence is also synthesis. So, that too is unacceptable. If this material is against WP policies, it is not my fault. It is unreasonable for you to blame me for the material failing to pass WP policy requirements. I am entitled to challenge the material per WP policies. Discussing the new sources or finding some new material is not within the mandate of this DRN process. Look at the starting posts by Sitush. This DRN is meant to decide only whether the present sources are OK for the material or not. They are not. They fail WP:SYNTHESIS. If my view be correct, the material should be deleted. ASAT. And I have already explained that those sources are rubbish for the material in question. You have not even cared to counter my objections by showing how my objections are wrong. If you want to propose new sources and new wording, it should be done separately.-MangoWong (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC) This DRN process is only about the current material and sources in question. I am not going to discuss any new sources or material within this DRN process.-MangoWong (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Modus Operandi of the said group:
 * Start irritating users by baseless and senseless comments. Once the user is irritated, they can be brought to ANI. See examples here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kurmi#Importance_of_Legendary_Origins.2F_Mythological_Section


 * Notable quotes by Sitush:-


 * "forget the Bible and those prompting you behind the scenes, as I suspect that they might be doing"
 * "I merely said that I think you are misguided if it is going on and you are dancing to that tune"


 * Work as a team to make sure no one else is able to put any word in the article i.e. improve the article


 * Sitush makes an edit on the main article with the following comments: "I don't think this is 3RR but I am not taking a chance on it - someone else will be along shortly,"


 * Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurmi&offset=20110807024721&action=history


 * And can someone guess who is the someone else who shows up:- our friend Qwyrxian. Well, what a team work!


 * (cur | prev) 00:31, 7 August 2011 Qwyrxian (talk | contribs) (30,222 bytes) (→Legendary origins: Please summarize this--we cannot just drop long quotes into an article. see talk) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 00:15, 7 August 2011 Sitush (talk | contribs) (33,326 bytes) (Undid revision 443427856 by Sitush (talk) self-revert: I don't think this is 3RR but I am not taking a chance on it - someone else will be along shortly, no doubt) (undo)


 * I am sorry to say, but the entire India related articles are stinking due to such a great team work by Sitush, MatthewVanitas, and Qwyrxian.


 * Anyone with a different view is POV pusher, sock puppet, meat puppet, etc. Get the other guys blocked due to one or the other silly reason. You MUST have a policy that editors should report suspected cases on ANI etc. rather than running to 'friendly admins'. Sitush is an expert in getting the attention of 'friendly admins'. WHY? How can this be allowed. Is this correct approach. Let me know


 * It is good for Wiki to look into such issues. Enough has been said, now ACT!''' Nameisnotimportant (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have managed to work out what I think are the relevant pages from the Barrier source cited in the statement at present. I have requested a scan of the entire chapter from the book but, of course, it is the weekend and things may be delayed. MangoWong, as was recently explained to you at WP:RSN, we do not just dismiss a source without at least trying to work out what intent existed in citing it. This one clearly mentions "upper Shudra" in connection with Yadavs but I need the entire chapter in order to sort out the context etc. Although I would not use them to support this particular statement, there are instances of court cases reflecting the shudra point. One that I have just come across again is quoted in, the editors of which are both profs. of anthropology. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to find out the relevant page numbers, and get to look at the contents of Barrier, why don't you request the original contributor? That contributor must be knowing full well about the page numbers and contents of this book. The original contributor seems to have devoted a FULL 120 seconds of time in finding+ reading+ formatting the ref for this cite. They must know all about this ref?-MangoWong (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did; you didn't. Happen I like to be a constructive contributor. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedian whom I know to have a copy of the book has just replied to my request for a scan, saying that they'll sort it out for us but are away until around Thursday 18th. - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and the original contributor?-MangoWong (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion did not even paying attention the points i have raised on yadav talk page.i am again saying this conclusion and intermixing of ancient concept with modern yadav and seprate yadav/yadava article are making yadav topic completely useless and historically wrong.Bill clinton history (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm finding it very difficult to continue this discussion. Despite the fact that those lines have been in the article for the long time, Bill clinton history continues to remove the lines despite clear, direct objections to his removal, based on specific policies.  Bill, you cannot "force" your way on Wikipedia.  I understand that you think that there are problems with those lines.  The way we solve that problem is via discussion.  A number of your concerns have already been discussed. For example, your claim that the sources are about a limited area have been shown wrong, as sources have been provided for many different parts of India. I don't understand this last claim you've made; I think you're saying that ancient Yadav and modern Yadav are different...well, of course they are.  But that doesn't mean we can't discuss both in the same article.  But we cannot do that while you continue to try to dominate the article by reverting over and over again the same lines, or by bringing in a new editor to do the reverts for you.  I really feel like you're not actually trying to work through a discussion here, that you insist that no matter what we decide, demonstrate, or prove, you are absolutely right and your version my be retained in the article. That's not going to lead to a successful resolution of this dispute.  Are you willing to discuss the issue here, and stop reverting on the article?  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Qwyrxian. A sign of positive intent regarding this would be if you self-reverted your last removal of the content, Bill. I reverted for you but then decided to leave it to someone else because it put me at three reverts in < 24 hours - and since then someone else has come along and changed something else despite a clear consensus on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For example, your claim that the sources are about a limited area have been shown wrong, as sources have been provided for many different parts of India. What Bill has been saying is RIGHT. And there is no question of allowing synthesis.-MangoWong (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sitush, what did the original contributor say about the page numbers and contents of Barrier?-MangoWong (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The original contributor did not give any details about the page numbers and contents of Barrier?-MangoWong (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The original contributor vanished?-MangoWong (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * MR.Qwyrxian you are again ignoring and misrepresenting my points and sources.i have never said modern yadav different from ancient yadavs.but infact while reading Yadava topic from barious sources i find them same and as continous stream of history without any break.Yadavas from ancient period always considered chandravanshi kshtriya and in modern period only those writer label them shudra which dissatisfied from there reservation policy for social justice.


 * My point is if you apply religeous text based varna system concept from ancient period than how can you make conclusion based on these modern sociologist who's views themselves affected by modern political situation in india.and they make conclusion without any bases.


 * i thanks Sitush and MW for this healthy debate.i am completely agree with the point that we first reach consensus on this topic and then edit in article.Bill clinton history (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Bill, the lead already mentions the Kshatriya claim and this was done in the interests of balance. However, as you, I and others have discussed time and again, this is just a claim by the Yadavs themselves. Few people other than Yadavs recognise it as valid, although presumably they got a tame Brahmin on board somewhere along the line in order to "prove" the descent from a mythological background (the Lunar Dynasty). The claim arises from exactly the same socio-political movement as occurred with numerous other castes from around 1890 and is commonly thought to be a direct consequence of Risley's definition of the system, which culminated in the classifications used in the 1901 Census. Regardless, there is nothing at all wrong with an article showing both this claim and the opinion of modern academics etc. As a project, we need to show all sides - subject to the usual policy/guideline provisos - & not just the one that a particular group likes. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless, there is nothing at all wrong with an article showing both this claim and the opinion of modern academics etc. There is a lot wrong when one performs WP:SYNTHESIS. As a project, we need to show all sides - subject to the usual policy/guideline provisos - & not just the one that a particular group likes. Right. We don't need to perform WP:SYNTHESIS and violate WP:V to pour in hundreds of instances of a word which a particular group loves.-MangoWong (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sir,again you are only focusing time period of last 100 years.around 1890AD there was a socio-political movements in yadavas of mainly Uttar Pardesh and Bihar.but yadavs found in every part of india with various names.and time period of just 100 years is only a small component of there history of more than 3000 years old history.so social status in varna system should be decided from entire history strted from around 1500BC when they first mentioned as vedic tribe of aryan.
 * the present article has very narrow and wrong approach towards yadavs history.i am working on this topic from various sources.i have already shows sources on talk page how yadavas in different time period and in different region established their kingdoms and greatly contributing in the culture of india.but i found in this article that we are only focusing on last hundread years.section like caste politics again i find very strange in article.how can you blame a single community for caste politics in india.this is completely wrong.in india every politicle parties involves in caste politics right from the beginning of electoral process in india.
 * so this article needs complete reform.we should not mention material from last 100 years based on these baised journalist and sociologist which has no historical relevance.they are only part of a political propaganda.
 * we should rely on proper historical sources from ancient india to modern india about yadavas.18:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill clinton history (talk • contribs)
 * Bill, you have been told on the article talk page what this discussion relates to. The rest of the article is pretty much irrelevant to this process. Your kshatriya point was borderline, but your last message is for the most part way outside the topic. Take a look at the start of this discussion point, where the parameters are set out: that is what this process relates to, otherwise we would end up asking people watching here to review the entire articles and that is a big ask. The way you are approaching this article and others akin to it reminds me very much of, & related socks who worked on pretty much the same subjects & in the same way. Keeping discussion focussed makes for better outcomes as a rule.
 * Mango, everyone has seen your synthesis line here & I'd guess that most people are now aware of your general desire to remove the shudra word from articles, regardless of the grounds. I don't think it likely that you have to keep repeating it, unless of course you are actually going to advance the point in some way. I know that you think you know policy & are keen to advise new contributors etc. We will find out in due course whether you are correct or not. It would be easier if you were prepared to co-operate but you have said that you are not willing to look at additional sources etc for the sentence under discussion, which seems a little cynical to me given that sources are central to this entire issue. However, if you want to opt out of a process then there is nothing I can do about that. I do accept that the additional source do not form part of the current statement but, of course, if they are not challenged here then it is quite possible that they may be used as well as or instead of the existing sources.
 * Both of you, please re-read what the lead says. It does not say that Yadavs at all times and in all places were considered to be shudra, although I think that there is a preponderance of evidence pointing to that. Since it does not say that, arguments about synthesis are simply irrelevant. Each source stands alone for the statement it makes.
 * I have offered a tentative proposal to ameliorate the issue still further but for some reason you do not want to collaborate in this way. I find that to be disappointing. At an extreme, we could even say "modern scholars variously commenting on issues in Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, A, B, C, X, Y and Z, have referred to Yadavs as being shudra", but it starts to get unwieldy. The Barrier book will most likely confirm that the term was used in Bihar also, but we'll have to wait for the scan to turn up in order to confirm.
 * Does anyone actually know what the distribution of Yadavs is in India? There has been no caste census since before World War 2 but my gut feeling from general reading around various caste issues is that UP,, AP and Bihar are the dominant areas & have been for a very long time. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have re-read my last post. Just in case someone gets the wrong end of the stick, in the above I am not accusing of socking. There is a significant difference between that contributor and, which is that the latter generally refused to communicate. My apologies to Bill if anyone thought otherwise after reading my message. My point was that this is old territory and that the similarities in viewpoint/method/articles of interest etc might make it worth Bill's while to read up on what has gone on in the past. If I did think Bill was socking then, believe me, I would have filed an SPI; oddly, the only SPI to show no connection of the many that I have filed involved one of the other contributors here. I apologised immediately. - Sitush (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sitush. Your above comment looks hypocritical to me. Within that comment, you are accusing Bill of various things because Bill is talking OUTSIDE the parameters of this discussion, but accuse me of being uncooperative because I am staying INSIDE the parameters of this discussion. You accuse me of wanting to take down that word, while it is well known that you guys are generally obsessed with inserting and reinserting as many instances of that word as possible, in as many articles as possible and by whatever means possible. I have mostly neglected to deny your accusations because I want to avoid having the discussion lose focus. It does not mean that your accusations are correct. Will you hold the accusationavalanche and focus on the meaningful issues at hand? I have to keep repeating the points about synthesis because I want the discussion to stay focused on content issues and within the parameters of this discussion.-MangoWong (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC) We have one sentence, and four sources to examine. Please focus on that only.-MangoWong (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If things are to progress then people need to drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. That is why I have proposed things both here and on the article talk page and why I have found more sources to substantiate what currently exists. Just repeating yourself is unlikely to be conducive to a solution, in my experience. Sure, I don't entirely feel that I need to compromise & would rather not, but I am willing to explore options in the interests of collaborative editing etc. I have no idea if the options are realistic & they do pain me somewhat, but at least I am trying to develop the issues. You have demonstrated an absolute unwillingness to collaborate in this discussion. That is your right, of course. We will get nowhere if we all just keep repeating the same personal mantra. It may be that the additional sources sway things, it may be that alternative wording sways things; whatever, something needs to be swayed & whether that comes from me or someone else does not really matter. But I am trying, in good faith. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to propose alternative sources and alternative wordings, you can always do so on the article talk page. It is not desirable that we examine extraneous issues here ( I think you are likely to dump ten/twenty sources here and want me to examine them. If all of them them turn out to be cherry picking/ misrepresentations/ synthesis, etc. I would immediately find myself straddled with another twenty sources obtained from googlebooks. Bill too seems to have a dozen or so sources which need to be examined.) This page is not meant for things like that. If you accept that the present sentence is a synthesis, we can scrap it and end this discussion. Then get on the article talk page and propose whatever you want to propose. If we still disagree, come back here. No need to extend the scope of the present DRN process endlessly. OK?-MangoWong (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not synthesis. You are misunderstanding, perhaps because you appear to be fairly new to WP. I have explained & Qwryxian, at least, seems to agree. Perhaps Fowler&fowler to some extent also, although there are provisos. There is absolutely no reason why one sentence should have to ping-pong between WP:DRN and Talk:Yadav umpteen times. If the sentence needs to be amended then so be it, but removal is not an option because there are reliable sources for retention of the basic point (and, as you have suggested, there may well be more on the way). Let's get it sorted, right here, right now. I am fed up of the incessant warring & dealing with your POV. Let's try some diplomacy instead. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, alternative wordings were suggested on the article talk page. You were not interested then and appear not to be interested now. Your own talk page speaks volumes, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is synthesis. It is synthesis. It is synthesis. The alternative was also a synthesis. You and others have been reinserting synthesis umpteen times in direct violation of WP:V. You have no respect for WP's core policies. To my way of thinking, deleting synthesis is a very logical and viable option. I see no reason to keep synthesis. Deleting it is a good option. You have reinserted it again. Please go and delete it. I am not going to discuss alternative sentences and alternatives sources in this DRN process. It is outside the scope of this DRN, it will take volumes of talk page space, and should be done on the article talk page. It is likely that all the new sentences which you propose will also be synthesis/ misrepresentations/ cherry picking/ based on passing comments/ unverifiable sources/ toilet designer sources/ off topic sources, etc. There is also no doubt that myself and others will have to keep swimming against a combination of Amazon and Grand Rapids of accusations, incivilities, irrelevancies, threats of blocks, warning signs, ANIs etc. etc. etc. We should do some preliminary investigation on the article talk page before bringing them here. I am not going to discuss alternative sources and sentences in this DRN.-MangoWong (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not want to involve in personal allegation.i believe in collaboration, consensus and team work.

Moreover these lines not only synthesis but a misleading and historicaly wrong synthesis.and my points on caste politics,reservation policy,link between ancient and modern yadavas are completely within the framework of debate because they are directly related to the topic.those who are supporting these lines see the history of yadavs from a very narrow approach and make their points based on last 100 year sources which mainly of sociologist adversly affected by political rise of yadavs and their reservation policy.they have no historical relevance in broad frame work of yadav history.they are only a social and political propaganda and labelled yadavs as shudra.there is no point to maintain these lines in article.i have already shown how ahirs related to ancient yadavs and abhiras and recognised fromm ancient period Brahman and Kshtriya also.moreover the source which mention them shudra has been incorporated in ahir article.yadav is a broad term incorporating various communities.
 * Instead of getting personal i hope a collborative attitude from both sides.


 * Moreover I have first debated on ahir article.i provided many sources in support of my point then admitted them.now i find double standard following by same contributor by admitting these lines based on very poor sources.Bill clinton history (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is as well that you do not take notice of someone casting aspersions of socking etc. on you. Anyone who disagrees with them automatically becomes a sock/meat/tendetious etc.-MangoWong (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Mango, what I'm largely hearing you and BCH saying: you don't want to use modern historians because they're biased, you want to use 19th century sources that off-handedly refer to Yadavs as Kshatriya, and you want to proceed with the assumption that such groups such as Yadav/Yadava and Ahir/Abhira are the exact same thing and represent an unbroken lineage, this despite the fact that we have clear cites showing Ahir cowherds were explicitly encouraged to take on the last name "Yadav" at the start of the 20th century. If your argument is that current academic scholarship is wrong, there's really not much we can say to you, as it is not Wikipedia's goal to correct academia, or to ignore the most current scholarship because a few editors on WP don't like what modern scholars say. This would be quite akin to saying "I don't like modern historians writing about the settlement of California since it criticises the white settlers, so I want to use 1920 books which praise them and don't talk about racism or discrimination." From what I'm seeing of it, earlier sources in India are not keen on digging into the verifiability of caste/varna histories, whereas modern scholars do; you and BCH seem to resent this, and so you want to eschew modern scholarship. Do you disagree? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Who is Mango?-MangoWong (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is one of the burning questions of our age. Who is the contributor known as MangoWong (and contractions thereof), indeed?  - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "MangoWong" is MY username. If "Mango" is being used to refer to me, I take exception to this grotesque caricature of my beautiful username. I have never caricatured other eds usernames. Not intentionally at least, except in some edit summaries where I have used initials due to restrictions of space. You guys should also show the basic modicum of respect. I too can take to referring to others as "Matti" / "Situ" or some other exceptional construction.-MangoWong (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In ancient and medieval period mostly yadavs did not mention there surname as yadavs.they were either adopting simply name as in ancient yadavs or Singh,Rao,Rai,Rana etc.kshtriya titiles in medieval period.Yadava as a surname became more prominent in use in modern period.so i dont understand whats the logic behind surname use and origin decision.AS i have already provide enough sources on ahir talk page how these people comes under broad yadava community from ancient periods.so adopting there caste name as surname is a modern phenomena which is more related with political mobilisation rather then origin.
 * I support the inclusion of material based on from ancient historians works to modern historian work but modern sociologist who are greatly affected by the political rise of yadavs and their reservation policy.so they not have any historical relevance but only a socio-political propaganda to defame yadavs.yadavs historically always classified as kshtriya in Varna system.Bill clinton history (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I haqve fixed your indenting (again), Bill. As for the points in your message well (another "again"), they are mostly irrelevant to this discussion. We are not looking at Ahirs and we are not looking at old familial names. You have provided nothing other than a vague claim of defamation by a wide range of academics. Well, legal issues do not affect much content here and Wikipedia is not censored, as has been explained before. Provided that the sources are reliable etc, the only possible issue is one of weight. How do you feel about my suggestion of rewording, noted above? - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The things being said in the comment 14:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC) by the user who is the latest participant in this discussion looks completely irrelevant to me. That user is the original contributor of the sentence + the four sources in question. But that user seems to have done nothing to address the meaningful issues.-MangoWong (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The sources which we are discussing mention Ahir as shudra of a particular region and then apply it to all yadavs of india and nepal.so my points are completely relevant.relation between surname use and their origin is mentioned by Mathew first not me.i am not supporting this baseless and historicaly irrelevant relation in deciding varna status.these lines based on comletely irrelevant and inadequate sources have no use in this aticle.Bill clinton history (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * MangoWong, grow up please. You have been called by the contraction on and off for a while & have never complained previously. Bill, which of the sources listed at the top of this discussion are referring specifically to Ahirs? - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the source among those disputed four sources which based on bihar region.and you are still not responding my arguements against these sources properly rather making personal allegation against me.this is not fare.Bill clinton history (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have never noticed anyone referring to me in that disagreeable way. If I had noticed, I would have objected then and there. Anyway, it is up to others to maintain their respect. I too will feel free to caricature the user names of those who caricature mine. And why are you guys discussing extraneous issues? Bill is a new user and is inexperienced in these issues. But it is unacceptable that you should try to move the discussion away from the mandate of this discussion.-MangoWong (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * These controversial sources does not even represent authentic miniority view.they are completely mislaeding in broad yadava article.they may find place in article like ahirs,gollas etc. seprately.in ahir article they have alredy incorporated so whats the point to push them in yadava article.collectively yadavas as group always classified as chandravashi kshtriya by authentic historical sources.Present reformed yadava article gives more real picture of yadava history.Bill clinton history (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you all have had your talking past each other time. Now in less than 100 words for each side summarize your point. I'll try to understand it along with the reams of content that has been posted. Stay on topic and try coming to a resolution. This constitutes the warning to keep the discussion on topic and productive. Hasteur (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 100w/side, not per person? In that case, Sitush and Q feel free to edit my words below -MV


 * Summary: MW and BCH exhibit persistent bias in attempts to remove the term "Shudra" (a labouring social class, a term regularly used by modern academics) from Yadav. "Our side" argues both Yadav documented self-identification as Kshatriya (warrior social class) as well as external-identification as Shudra should be proportionately noted. MW and BCH have largely refused to directly critique our many given sources, and instead claim endemic bias (both on WP and academia), cite ancient legends, Victorian writers, and other non-RSs. This type of caste/sect POV/COI is common in India articles and a precedent of low tolerance for caste-glorification should be set. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Summary. I think folks indulge in accusation mongering only when they have nothing substantial to say. IMO, the sentence in question is a synthesis, and is not attributable to any of the books in question. My content related points are in comments 17:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC) and 07:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)-MangoWong (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources are not synthesis when the sentence uses phrase such as "at some times" or "some people", + cites to examples. I have offered to discuss specific rephrasing & got nowhere. I have also offered additional sources & have been told that they will not be considered. I am still waiting on a copy of one of the existing cited sources. This is wikilawyering gone mad and has featured before at ANI etc. There is a stated desire to see the word shudra removed (so much so that MangoWong cannot even abide typing the word and prefers to say "Sh****". WP is not censored. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Per side? This is ridiculous, but I have struck mine out.


 * Summary.these sources are completely misleading the status of yadavas in varna system.yadavas classified in kshatriya by mainstream and authentic historical sources.these sources are region specific and particular group specific so have no relevance in broad yadavs history.contradictory sources also avaliable on talk page and in article also which are more comprehensive and authentic.but MV and Sitush arbitrarly rejects them and shows no respect to other side valid points.the sources mentioned by them are misleading they did not open in google books.how one can beleive their content without seen them.on the bases of available sources these lines should be deleted from article.if in future they are able to provide adequate,authentic and comprehensive sources than we are open to discuss them on talk page.i have made some valid objection in above discussion also.plese read them before taking decesion.Bill clinton history (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Summary by uninvolved user:Fowler&fowler: I believe both sides are being intransigent and both are incorrect. The Yadavs, like Kurmi, were free peasants, for much of their history, with no rank in the formal four-fold caste system, or varna, but regarded as respectable. As I've said elsewhere, it was not uncommon for a Brahmin (highest class) widow to remarry someone from one of these backgrounds. In the first half of the 19th century, some (upper) landed castes (under economic pressure) attempted to label both Yadav and Kurmi, shudra (or lowest class) in an effort to exact unpaid labor from them, which it was claimed was customary. In response, both Yadav and Kurmi, like many groups before them, especially as they themselves gained economic power, fought the accusations by promoting an upper-caste Kshatriya heritage for themselves. Neither the original imputations of low-caste status, nor the creation of upper caste heritage in reaction are a significant part of these groups' history. Each lasted but fifty years. In independent India, they have yet another classification, which I don't know too much about, but it is neither Kshatriya nor Shudra. By adamantly wanting these outdated appellations in the lead of the article, both sides of the dispute are not only showing no flexibility, but are also inaccurately portraying the history of these groups. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Summary: Wikipedia cannot accept the position that modern historical/sociological research is equivalent to primary religious sources, chronicles of colonial domination, or promotional works done by involved groups. We must use the best sources; these are the one currently presented. BCH’s approach is to say the opposite.  MW’s approach is to say that we must have an exact quote to verify everything we say; this is not how WP:V or WP:SYN work.  However, I am willing to accept F&F’s approach to move the information out of the lead if and only if the information is retained elsewhere (and probably expanded upon). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You think WP:V means we can say whatever we want regardless of whatever the sources say, and regardless of the quality of sources.?--MangoWong (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yadav resolution

 * This discussion has continued for too long. I am going to take a few hours to read over it and then close the discussion, and leave comments as to what I think the consensus of the discussion is. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  02:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Super-logarithm and Super-root to Tetration


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

A mathematician named Arthur Rubin started a discusion at 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC) at Talk:Tetration proposing the mathmatics based articles Super-root and Super-logarithm to be merged with Tetration arguing that 'There's less than one paragraph that can be said about each.' Fixman, a programer, was the first to respond with 'Speed Keep.', stating that they are used differently to Tetration. Arthur Rubin Claimed this to be 'nonsense' and said they can not be expanded more, but afterwards a mathematician named Euclidthegreek argued, against the merge, that both article are expanding such as Pentation has done and Arthur just needs to give them time to expand, but Euclidthegreek argued this point using a sock puppet account named Professor Fiendish.

Arthur Rubin carried on to argue his point suggesting that expansion should instead be used on the inverse function section of Tetration and the mathematician sligocki joined in the discusion stating that although super-logarithm seemed to have an acceptable amount of content and references to warrent it's own article super-root did not stating 'It seems to me that there is not much to say about this function [super-root] right now and we should have it as a section and only expand it out if enough content and sources are added' and so merged it with tetration, but then I, Robo37 then reverted the edit as there was no clear consensus for the merge and then argued against the merge of both articles stating links between the functions and the complex plane and e.

After much arguing and many counter edits with sligocki stating he thought super-root 'it is still a stub with no indication of it's notability' Joule36e5 entered the conversation at 11:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC) and expressed support towards the merge stating again that 'The inverses don't seem notable enough at present', but not soon before a programer named Druseltal2005 argued against it, stating 'I recall that I found articles concerning the function x^x and its inverse independently of the tetration context. The authors discussed this for formulae in ballistics and some characteristics of driving (google for "wexzal", also I can provide a downloaded copy of that treatize). Also I recall vaguely a study which refer to x^x as function needed for computation of flight of airplanes.' User:Cliff joined the discusion at 15:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC) and argued for the merge for simular reasons mentioned above, and there has sinse be more arguing and reverts of edits which resaulted in Super-root being merged but not Super-logarithm as a compromise, but I am not happy with super-root not having an article of it's own and Cliff is not happy with Super-logarithm having a article of it's own.

So to summarize, Arthur Rubin, Cliff and Joule36e5 argued points for the merge with the main point being that the functions have very little notability and practically no references, Fixman Robo37 Druseltal2005 and Euclidthegreek argued points against the merge with the main reasons being that the functions are important to mathematics and are used for practical appliances such as in ballistics and airplane flight and thereby might be notable, and sligocki argued simular points for the merge of Super-root and points against the merge of Super-logarithm, and arguments and small edit wars have been going on over the subject for over two years now.

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



Professor Fiendish is a sock puppet of Euclidthegreek.

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

We've discussed the issue and have came to a compromise, though the compromise is not agreed to be the right resolution.


 * How do you think we can help?

There needs to be more users showing their thoughts on the matter so a clear consensus can be gained and/or help from third party experts of the subject.

Robo37 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Super-logarithm and Super-root to Tetration discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

I have been trying to resolve this problem for some time. I have no strong opinions either way, and am simply trying to remove a merge backlog. Robo37 indicates that there was a compromise but I am unaware what that might be. I am surprised to see this posted to DRN. Cliff (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I still think that there's not much, if anything, which is or should be in Super-logarithm which should not be somewhere in Tetration.  (Super-root has already been merged.)  The only exceptions that I can see would be a general discussion of Abel functions of the exponential, which isn't actually in Super-logarithm, and the graph theory example.  Specifics (as to the current version of Super-logarithm):
 * The first part of the "Definitions" section is already included in Tetration
 * The "Approaches" in the Definitions section should be in Tetration, as they are also approaches to the real version of tetration.
 * The "Approximations" section is trivial rewriting of Tetration
 * The first two "Properties" are in the inverse function section of Tetration.
 * "slog as inverse of Tetration" is a trivial rewriting of Tetration, although the figure might also be included there.
 * I agree that there is not yet a WP:CONSENSUS for the merge, but I think it should be done.
 * I don't recall a specific compromise, either. Perhaps Robo37 could comment here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to change my view of the matter that it makes currently and in all foreseeable timeline no sense to keep something like "superroot" or "superlog" distinct. There seems to be no research *under this specific header*. I agree widely with that comment of Arthur Rubin that the only reason for a different page from "tetration" were if we had something more general like Abel-function/Schroeder-function in the context of iteration of functions. Gotti 10:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Druseltal2005 (talk • contribs)

I also feel that there's no reason to keep the articles distinct, though I have not been involved in the dispute up to this point. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Coconut oil


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

A POV tag is being repeatedly added by a single editor after discussion on the talk page indicated there was no support for the tag. Tag was first removed August 2nd, replaced on the 3rd, removed, replaced, removed, replaced, removed, replaced, removed, replaced, removed, replaced, removed, replaced, and removed again. Only one editor thinks the tag is warranted while four believe it is not (based on edits to remove it). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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



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

Discussion occurred in April and there was no support for the tag. Discussion at the NPOV noticeboard found no support for the tag or dispute, and it was recently raised a second time again with no support. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you think we can help?

I'm looking for ideas actually, perhaps further input regarding the process would be sufficient. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * There is something distinctly wrong with the way u|Lambanog has behaved during this dispute; the number of reverts to re-place the NPOV banner, against 4 other editors, outnumbers the number of comments to the talk page. No specific recommendations for improving the content beyond vague generalizations have been made, and they are the only editor to voice approval of this banner.  It seems very suggestive that this editor is using the banner as a badge of shame. [Unsigned comment by Yobol 03:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)]


 * If there is something distinctly wrong, it is the perfunctory way with which the editors I am in dispute with push their POV by systematically obstructing development of the article and removing perfectly valid sources that were brought up and found relevant at RSN by independent parties. Removal of sources should be done sparingly, with care, and as a last resort; haphazard removal can be considered vandalism.  But apparently the obstructing editors have found the subject of the article not to their liking and whether by accident or design are tag-teaming and suppressing relevant information on the subject.  Good form in a POV dispute is to come up with better sources to contradict POV bias, but those opposing me maintain their POV by removing good sources.  They should also have informed me of this DR discussion and not engaged in canvassing.  It should come as no surprise that if one inspects the records of those opposing my improvements to the article that they have little record building articles but are well-versed at removing information from them.  A look at the article's history will show that my edits have generally increased the article size and the edits of the others have reduced them.  If there have been any improvements to the article lately it's only because I embarrassed WLU into grudgingly adding stuff from sources I had brought up and my better article version.  But the article remains woefully biased in comparison to write-ups on the subject one finds in newspapers or other sources. Lambanog (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I've read through the article, the noticeboard threads, and the talkpage. Lambanog, will you accept me as an independent 3rd party and not label me as a PoV pusher? Those on the removal side, will you accept me as independent? I'm laying the groundwork for being neutral between the parties. But at quick glance I see issues with I'll stand by and see what the disputants think, but I'm willing to help mediate this out. Hasteur (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bold, Revert, Discuss
 * Abusive Edit Sumaries
 * Borderline Incivility.
 * Yes, I have no issue with Hasteur acting as a mediator. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd actually prefer as many eyes and opinions as possible so that the issue can be addressed conclusively and can be said to be truly the will of a group representative of all Wikipedians, but I certainly have no issue with you giving your take of the situation and your recommendations. Forgive me also if I cannot respond much further; it is late in my neck of the woods. Lambanog (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Lambanog, The idea is to not have to query every single editor, but to take a uninvolved neutral 3rd party. Your statement appears to suggest that if you do not like the recommendations you'll ask for even broader commentary in an attempt to canvas your viewpoint into a majority. Please confirm that you will accept a policy based reading on the viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hasteur I think your implication of canvassing unfair and ask that you withdraw it. Canvassing suggests selecting or calling upon an audience predisposed to ones own line of thinking.  This complaint was brought here by WLU not me.  As this is a noticeboard, I was under the impression that it operates like other noticeboards in the manner I expressed preference for.  I do not see why preference for standard operating procedure should bring to mind canvassing.   WP:Dispute Resolution states the acceptable process.  Seeking opinions on noticeboards or a RfC is not canvassing. Lambanog (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will not withdraw the implication of canvasing because you've accused 3 other editors on this page of forming a cabal against you, objected to previous noticeboard readings of the situation (RSN, NPOVN) and now you're challenging a 3rd party reading here. Frankly it may not be explicit canvasing, but rather WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Will you accept my reading of the situation and consensus or should this thread be closed for a proper RfC (which probably won't get any participation outside of the people arlready involved)? Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you insisting that I still accept you as a mediator? Lambanog (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I also have no problem with Hasteur acting as mediator, and welcome independent eyes and evaluation in this case. Yobol (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry


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

The content of section 5.1 Fiscal issues, although cited, is written with an obvious bias against Rick Perry. The lead paragraph of that section cites only negative aspects of Perry's record. While these may or may not be accurate, I would suggest a more balanced construction of the section, especially the opening paragraph, to ensure a neutral point of view.

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



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


 * How do you think we can help?

provide an informational blurb indicating that the section does not maintain a neutral point of view and further restrict the ability to edit this page directly.

64.128.242.120 (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, Ayr United F.C.


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

Dispute over the inclusion of Scottish Football League Division One at the above page. My view is that the league should not be included on the list, as it is not fully professional. Fellow contributors from the newly formed Scottish Football taskforce, do not dispute that the league contains semi-pro and/or part-time teams and players, but conclude it should nevertheless be included on the list.

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

Issues around page ownership, canvassing, edit warring, misused vandal templates and uncivil conduct from Warburton1368. Also a premature ANI which circumvented proper dispute resolution.

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

Ongoing discussion on talk, decided to register after previously contributing via IP. Contributed in good faith to a premature ANI complaint.


 * How do you think we can help?

I am concerned that a valid content dispute has been portrayed as "disruption" etc. with a very premature ANI. My IP was blocked for 31 hours with no explanation. Even allowing for understandable "IP bias", I believe this was a very poor admin decision by Black Kite. I think the failed verification and content dispute tags should remain on the article, to reflect the facts of the case. Or the name of the article should be amended to reflect the inclusion of leagues which are citably not "fully professional". In particular problematic sources relating to Ayr United and Queen of the South are repeatedly re-inserted into the article, although both actually militate against the teams being "fully professional"

PorridgeGobbler (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, Ayr United F.C. discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

You were blocked for vandalising pages related to the discussion. You were warned many times but removed these warnings times from your talk page. No decision was reached and your continually disruptive edits, and nastiness towards other users was what prompted your block. While you have the right to debate the proffesional status of SFL1 you cannot make changes which are not in keeping with wiki policy. And continually doing this despite warnings is what got you blocked. Adam4267 (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and I have blocked this account as well, for making exactly the same edits as the IP did. I have, however, offered to unblock under conditions which can be seen on User:PorridgeGobbler's talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Procedural note: I have given notice of this discussion to the users listed above who are not already involved in the discussion. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Request: Could someone please provide a link to the ANI discussion referenced above? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Voila. GiantSnowman 13:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, so here's what I can remember/add to the story. There was a link posted at WT:FOOTY to a discussion over at WT:FPL regarding the professional status of SFL1, which had started before I contributed, and which remains ongoing. The IP had removed SFL1 from the list, I reverted, and contributed to the ongoing discussion, per WP:BRD. From my interpretation of the discussions at both FOOTY and FPL, there is no consensus to remove SFL1 from the list - but the IP has completely ignored that, and continued to remove it, despite multiple warnings from multiple editors. Warburton asked me what could be done about the IP, I suggested ANI over DRN as I didn't view it as a content dispute when consensus existed on the talk page, but two admins over at ANI suggested here, something which I echoed to Warburton when he told me he was getting disillusuioned with the situation and was considering retiring. The IP was blocked by Black Kite (rightly, in my opinion) for ignoring - continually and deliberately - the consensus that existed on the talk page, and advice to continue discussing the situation without editing. I'm sure more will come to me in due course, but my memory ain't what it used to be! Hope this helps, GiantSnowman 13:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all the Scottish task force has nothing to do with the overall reason for consensus to keep the SFL1 on the list all users involved with WP:footy are able to contribute to it and many users out with the new group have. There has been discussion on the main page and on the talk page at WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues re this and although its agreed thats its one of a few leagues on it that are borderline for now so far anyway the consensus is it should stay. A new proposal to change to a new system was also made by a member of the scottish football task force that was broadly turned down this would in all likelyhood have removed SFL1 and many others of the list. Which is another reason that the scottish task force cant be blamed for this. I question the need for dispute resolution on this matter as the broad consensus is in favour of it staying the way it is. This will be reviewed later down the line again and that may change. In regards to Ayr United F.C. the term part time club should definitely not be used in the intro i would be willing to say that it could be used in context maybe in the history section explaining how the club has changed over the years although i do question the fact they are part time as they are maintaining a compliment of full time and part time players so they are not totally part time. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a source I provided on Ayr United that caused some of the issues here. Due to a misleading introductory paragraph, I said that this source indicated that the team was currently operating full-time. PorridgeGobbler (as an IP) quite rightly pointed out my mistake as a "failed citation" and I accepted the error. After this, however, a number of other editors - only some of whom are attached to the Scottish Football Task Force - argued that the SD1 should nevertheless be retained for a number of reasons: 1) No definition of "fully professional" has been agreed for, or stated on, the page in question; I was told on the talk page that the list developed with a reasonable understanding of what it means for a league to be professional. This is open to debate and interpretation, and "all clubs in the league must comprise squads entirely of full-time players" was never an agreed criteria. 2) Other leagues, such as the Finnish Veikkausliiga and the Albanian Super League, are in a similar position, with most but not all players in the league being full time. A consensus was reached on allowing the Veikkausliiga and the Super League in the full knowledge that a proportion of players are part-time. 3) PorridgeGobbler has discounted a 'common sense' argument by other editors, feeling that this has no place in the debate. 4) There is no source to indicate whether most other leagues on the list include any full time players, let alone all. The SD1 is the only league with references confirming the status of players at all clubs. I provided a reliable source to confirm that all clubs in another league, the Azeri Premier League, train for just one and a half days per week, but there has been no consensus for removal. PorridgeGobbler has shown no interest in discussing any other leagues, and why they are on the list, and in contrast with his passion for removing the SD1 this may have contributed to others interpreting his actions as having a particular agenda with regard to SD1.


 * 5) The SD1 has a higher average attendance than a number of the listed leagues, a factor others think should be taken into account when deciding upon professionalism of a particular league. 6) I have provided reliable national media sources (e.g. ) to confirm that Queen of the South are operating as a "full-time club" for the current season. I think it is unreasonable for PorridgeGobbler to contend that they should instead be considered part-time based on their squad list including a small number of youth apprentices paid, in whole or part, through a government scheme . The "player profile" comments indicate that these players have mainly served as unused substitutes and reserves. Should this discount them from being considered a "full-time club", in contrast to the description used by the BBC & the Scotsman etc., other listed leagues such as the Dutch Eerste Divisie, where some clubs (e.g. Telstar) almost exclusively use players paid externally on loan deals from other clubs, would also need to be removed. 7) Ayr United have a mixed squad of full and part-time players. This is why that reference has been retained (by others, not me), simply for taking into account, there is no conspiracy to present this as proof that all players at the club are on full-time contracts. 8) PorridgeGobbler did not appreciate the debate widening out to discuss the criteria that determines which leagues are included, which for me is highly relevant. Other editors feel that the list has an arbitrary nature, and looking again at the criteria may have helped resolve the dispute on whether the SD1 should be removed before coming here.


 * Apologies for the ridiculously long comment (and I could go on), I just wanted to indicate the extent of the number of arguments in opposition to PorrigeGobbler's position. While I accept much of his input, and that the inclusion of the SD1 is certainly open to debate, myself and (in my opinion) a majority of other editors - Scottish and non-Scottish - who have contributed to the talk page discussion think it has a strong case for maintaining its place on the list. Deserter 1 10:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, Ayr United F.C. resolution
Proposed Close: In light of the fact that PorridgeGobbler is currently indefinitely blocked and cannot participate in this discussion, I would suggest that Unless I hear an objection to the contrary, therefore, this dispute will be closed after 21:00 12 August 2011 (UTC), subject to being reopened if the block is lifted. (If PorridgeGobbler wishes to object or otherwise communicate with this noticeboard in regard to this proposed close he should post the communication on his talk page, which I will be watching until at least 21:00 12 August 2011 (UTC).) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Proposed close withdrawn, as PorridgeGobbler has been unblocked. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * in reference to his block or blocks that this forum is inappropriate (he may either try an additional unblock request on his user talk page or, if he wishes to appeal it further, may take the matter to the Arbitration Committee by contacting the Ban Appeals Subcommittee in the manner set out at Appealing a block) and
 * in reference to the remaining disputes regarding content and behavior that those disputes have been rendered moot until and unless his indefinite block is lifted.


 * i have made my point yesterday but someone has deleted them on this forum.this is not fare115.241.253.253 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have checked the history and cant see an edit made to this section yesterday nor on your ip history. However if you have a point to add just add it again. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Proposed close - this discussion is now stale and has been for a few days, so I see little point in it remaining open. Can an admin close please? GiantSnowman 14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Northwestern University School of Law


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

As being discussed on Alanscottwalker's discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alanscottwalker#Northwestern_Law_logo), the issue concerns which seal/logo should be used in the infobox for Northwestern University School of Law. Here are the three options: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NWLawSeal.png (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northwestern_University_Seal.svg (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NorthwesternLaw.svg

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



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

I have started a discussion on the Alanscottwalker's talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

(1) Please provide a general opinion about what logos/seals should be used in the school infoboxes. (2) Provide a general opinion about whether a seal, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NWLawSeal.png, is authoritative if it is nowhere mentioned on a school's website or in its marketing materials. (3) Provide a specific opinion about what seal/logo should be placed in the infobox for Northwestern University School of Law, after at least considering the following webpages: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/library/research/ http://www.law.northwestern.edu/ http://www.law.northwestern.edu/communications/brand/ http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jilb/ http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/

IvyLaw ( talk ) 12:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Northwestern University School of Law discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * Starting a discussion on a user's talkpage is not the normal process to obtain WP:CONSENSUS - those discussions belong on the article's talkpage so that all editors on the article have the opportunity to discuss. An WP:RFC can also be opened to obtain wider input. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have now started a discussion here too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwestern_University_School_of_Law IvyLaw  ( talk ) 12:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replied on the Talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a neutral in this dispute. According to College and university article guidelines the best practice is to use both the institution's seal and its wordmark in university-related articles. The fact that the law school's seal does not appear on the school's website does not necessarily mean that that the law school has wholly abandoned the use of the seal even if it is no longer using it in its public face or for promotional purposes. The school could still be using it on official documents such as diplomas or could even be retaining it as its official seal even if it does not use it on a day to day basis. Without at least some direct evidence (e.g. a press release or copy of a resolution saying that they were abandoning the use of the seal altogether) to the contrary, then it should be presumed that the law school still has the seal even if it is not in everyday use. Not only has no such evidence been brought forward, but the article cited in at least weakly implies that the seal is still the official seal of the law school, and this page clearly states that "An official transcript bears the Northwestern University School of Law Seal". In light of those references, established best practices would suggest (but not require) that NWLawSeal.png ought to be the seal used in the infobox. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I would also note that the image preferred by the complainant is already in the infobox at the bottom.  It serves no purpose to have it in the article twice, and not have the school seal, at all.  Indeed, doing so makes the article less encyclopedic, which requires that we make the article as informative as possible by the seals inclusion, in keeping with best practice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that this seal NWLawSeal.png  is the current, official seal.  I do agree that it was the official seal as of 1925. IvyLaw  ( talk ) 02:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "An official transcript bears the Northwestern University School of Law Seal." As a Wikipedia Ambassador to Regions 5 and 1, I asked a Northwestern Law student to provide a redacted transcript.  This is an image of the transcript: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6075/6044461858_0ed817d1b3_z.jpg  Here is the correct seal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_University   I think this dispute should be resolved and the Northwestern University seal placed on the Northwestern Law article infobox.  The old seal could be shown somewhere else in the article. IvyLaw  ( talk ) 03:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that this has to be decided on WikiPrinciples at this point. You are improperly synthesizing the statement on the website, the actual seal on a transcript, and the absence of the seal on the law school's website and publications to imply that the law school has abandoned its school seal and adopted the university seal. (An alternative analysis, admittedly equally improper synthesis, could be that the statement on the website and the actual practice are simply out of sync; that the law school still has a seal, but no longer uses it on transcripts.) Alanscottwalker, on the other hand, has submitted without any evidence that this particular design is now or, indeed, was ever the actual law school seal (and I also have some question about the adequacy of the fair use justification for that image, now I've taken a look at it). At this point, I think that no seal or image should be used at the top of the infobox until one seal or the other can be established through a reliable source. I, frankly, do not care much for this answer, but I think that it is the correct one for the time being. I am going to ask a WikiAcquaintance who is a guru on fair use and logo issues to take a look at the fair use justification for the image (I'm most concerned with the source of the image being simply identified as "Internet". That may be perfectly fine, but I'm a bit concerned.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we obtain an official correspondence from the school on this issue? IvyLaw ( talk )  —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC).
 * I disagree with TransporterMan that the seal's design is not adequately described in the reference I provided. Be that as it may, as the reference shows the seal was adopted by the School, a private letter that is not verifiable by others would not suffice, but a publication from the School that it has dis-adopted "its seal" should satisfy WP:V. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have also updated the image summary at NWLawSeal.png, to indicate where I found the seal on the internet to upload: "Patent Docs" http://www.patentdocs.org/2011/02/index.html (entry for Febuary 18, 2011) Any user may also search Google images to find this.Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am no longer particularly concerned about the fair use question, having obtained some clarification from another source. There's no indication of how the seal came to be on the Patent Docs site, so I don't consider that particularly good evidence of it still being the official seal today. But this image fairly clearly indicates that it was still in use in 2009, but its absence on the transcript (what, I wonder, is on the Spring, 2011, diplomas, though that wouldn't definitively solve the issue, either) and at this site (which admittedly isn't any more certain than the Patent Docs site) tends to cut both ways. I still think that there should be no image until this matter can be determined through reliable sources. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The WP:V evidence shows the seal was adopted. You have provided further evidence from a 2009 publication of what it looks like, which is the same as what's used on Wikipedia, and the 2011 Patent Docs site.  As for the other documents produced, not one says the seal is dis-adopted. Traditionally, seals are not printed in ink on an official paper, they are impressed, i.e. the stamp raises the seal's design in 3D on the paper, with no ink.  Regardless, no document disputes that the seal is "adopted," and all the evidence shows that NWLawSeal.png is that seal.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Animal Farm in popular culture


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

There is a disagreement regarding appropriate content for the article, especially regarding whether reliable secondary sources are required for items listed in the article to establish their eligibility for inclusion.

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



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

I have been heavily involved in a discussion on the article's Talk page. Additionally I posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture soliciting other editors' opinions, with no apparent result.


 * How do you think we can help?

I believe other editors' feedback would be very helpful in resolving this dispute, particularly in regards to the appropriateness of including items on a standalone list article that are not reliably sourced. There may be other issues with the article as well, especially with regards to WP:LSC.

Doniago (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

User Doniago is complaining that a specific song which is used as a primary source for its own description in the article concerned does not have the material contained in it which is included in that article. As proof, he has given the fact that he "read the Wikipedia article" on the song, and didn't see the material there. I explained that the source is the song itself. (Everyone knows that wikipedia articles are sources for nothing?) I explained that his complaint might be entirely true, and suggested that he check the primary source--song lyrics themselves--and get back to the talk page if he didn't find the song's description supported by the song. Filing this complaint was his response to my request that he verify the primary source. Please simply advise the user to check the source and report on his findings on the article's talk page. I have already told him there I will listen to what he has to say when he checks the source itself. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Disregarding the fact that you are focusing on one of the several concerns that I brought up, what you are asking me to do would be original research. Even if I were to listen to the song, unless it specifically and unambiguously referenced Animal House it would be inappropriate for me to take a presumed reference to the novel and use that as a basis for inclusion. Additionally, per WP:BURDEN it is not my job to prove that a list item is inappropriate for inclusion, it is incumbent on editors who wish for material to be included to provide reliable sourcing. And finally, on the article's Talk page I asked you repeatedly to provide information regarding the article's selection criteria, a requirement per WP:LSC, and you either could not or would not do so. You similarly failed to satisfactorily provide any policy links supporting your allegation that a primary source is sufficient to establish eligibility for inclusion on a list. Doniago (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Animal House and Animal Farm are rather different. I've looked over the list, and there do seem to be some more than dubious inclusions. Dylan's Mr. Jones? I'm sure it has been suggested that this is an AF reference - it may well be - but that's a theory not a fact, and it's not even mentioned in the article on the song. It really should be attributed. Every use of the phrase "animal farm" in song lyrics is not necessarily a reference to the novel. Paul B (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a typo on my part. Apologies for any confusion! Doniago (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Has it occurred to anyone that Gnarphism in popular culture-type articles invariably end up as repositories for trivia, and are not especially encyclopedic in the first place? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes it has, which is why I attempted to remove any entries that did not include reliable sourcing, especially given that the article has been tagged since January 2009. And now we're here. Doniago (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think there is some legitimacy to both positions here. After all, any source can only be interpreted by what it actually says. Even an academic source can only be known to be referring to Orwell's novel if the context makes that clear. A song lyric or other reference may be unambiguously referring to Orwell's novel. In that case if the content of the text is reliably sourced and there is no reasonable dispute that the novel is being referenced, I don't see why it should not be included if it is sufficiently notable. Paul B (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Doniago seems to have a rather mechanical understanding of what a source is, and to be working under the false impression that only secondary sources count as proper sources, and cannot apparently distinguish between having a what appears to be a source in an article and an editor's responsibility in verifying the content of a given source if he doubts it. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources primary sources are absolutely reliable for their own mere self-description.  The entries with which Doniago takes exception are ones in which the works themselves are identified and described by what we must assume are good faith observers.  Doniago's original objection was to the contents of a Dylan song.  (I refuse to address multiple complaints by him at one time when every indication is he fails to understand the relevant policies and procedures.)  That song is explicitly identified in the text.  The song is the source.  He is free to check its contents himself, just as, if he doubted that a secondary reference said what it was reported to have said, he could and should also check that secondary reference.  This is not OR.  It is exactly what editors do, they check sources to verify that they reflect the claim being made.  That is what verify means.  The presence of a supposed secondary source as a ref in an article is not magic.  It doesn't mean that we as editors don't also have to check it to see whether it says what it is supposed to say.  There are a dozen different tags indicating that an editor has checked the source, primary or secondary, and doubts that it supports the claim for which it is adduced.  See Template:Failed verification.  What exactly do those tags mean other than someone has checked the source and disputes it?


 * If you check the article history, you will see that in addition to deleting works whose notability was not demonstrated by the presence of an article on the subject, I myself tagged all the claims that referred to primary works as their own sources without specifying a verifiable name or episode as in need of specification. I then deleted them (they are on the talk page) when they had not been specified.  I have invited Doniago to address his concerns one-by-one after he himself has checked the attributed sources.  I am happy to consider his findings--his complaints may have merit--if they are reflected in the given sources.  Instead, his response was first, rather to check the primary sources themselves, to check the WP articles on them as if the WP article were itself a source (!)--an epic fail in understanding what a source is--and then immediately to raise the complaint on this board.  he simply needs to check the primary sources and then comment on the talk page.  I will AGF as to his findings.  I see no further action necessary here on my part.  μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The very fact that the only people claiming the list items reference Animal Farm are the editors adding the list items, as no secondary sources are being provided, would seem to me to unequivocally establish that said list items have not been satisfactorily verified. I fail to see how me reviewing any of the primary sources to confirm that they are referencing Animal Farm would satisfy anything, as I am not a reliable source. Additionally, you have still failed to provide any information regarding my concerns vis a vis WP:LSC and lack of clear selection criteria. Doniago (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You repeat yourself. Once a "reliable" source has been given, you can't challenge the claim as lacking a reliable source--you can only challenge the source as not verified upon inspection. You are asking for magic, or worse, slavery: that others verify things for you because you refuse to bother to do so. You have to check the sources and confirm or deny that they contain what other editors have in WP:AGF asserted.  If you yourself are not willing to check whether the sources say what it is asserted they say, you must WP:AGF and deal with it.  If you do check out the sources, which have been added in good faith by many different people (not one of whom in this article is me) and which, as an editor, you MUST do if you challenge them, you may tag them with any of the appropriate tags that I have helpfully linked you to above.  You are, for the last time, invited to check the sources and report your findings on the article's talk page, and I will listen to you and treat you with good faith.  But I am done here to the point of wishing to utter obscenities.  I am unwatching this report.  If any admins want to get in touch with me they have my talk page address. μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I was vacationing when this began, so I am starting a somewhat new thread rather than jump in the middle of these discussions. After overlooking the arguments already made, one important factor remains to be discussed. Namely, what is the purpose of this article in the first place? It serves as a resource to those reading about Animal Farm and almost everyone who comes across this page has done so via already reading the main article about the novella and the reader clicks on this link because he or she is curious about its place in popular culture. The reader is the target audience. Having a full list of self evident works of art that make use of Animal Farm and/or its themes (primary sources, not academic articles or reviews) is what the reader is looking for on this page. Not a sparse set of three or four items, but a full range of songs, other works of fiction, television episodes and references from film. That should be kept in mind when reviewing content that may not have a strict source when it is self-evident and primary (and no, I don't think listening to/reading lyrics is original research - interpreting them, yes, but listening to them, no.), if it is still indisputably an instance of Animal Farm in popular culture, it is then a resource for further inquiry or curiosity satisfaction for the reader. JesseRafe (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Koboz, Cobza


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

on en.wikipedia, Hungarian Koboz redirects to page for Romanian Cobza, unlike on hu.wikipedia. I have information about the Koboz I would like to add, along with translation of hu.wikipedia/wiki/Koboz text, but Cobza does not seem correct plage. Beware political minefield, as Transylvania was historically a Princedom under the Kingdom of Hungary (like Wales and England in modern times), but is now part of Romania, with much ill-will in either locatino.

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



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

Talk page, but there was no answer to previous post there by unsigned other party


 * How do you think we can help?

Remove the redirect?

Leegee23 (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

2011–12 FC Barcelona season


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

Content dispute and edit war. The original content dispute involved the display of names in the section "Squad information". I (User: Digirami) changed it in favor of displaying the first and last name or a generally acceptable common name (a similar edit I have made to other articles); the other editor (User:Lafuzion) favored displaying what's on the back of the player's jersey. After a brief edit war, the dispute was taken to the talk page. Another editor (User:Vanadus) got involved in the discussion. That other editor and myself agreed on a resolution; Lafuzion did not, or did he provide much content-wise to discuss over. Upon continued insistence, the issue was taken again to the talk page, epsecially after Lafuzion changed the display of names to their full legal names and more continued reverts by him. Requests to the other editor to continue to take the issue to the talk page for more discussion (primarily to understand his reasoning) went nowhere. In addition to all this, the other editor reverts other edits made by myself to the article without any obvious explanation (perhaps spite). Invention is needed because it has reached a massive impasse.

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

On a side note, I'm quite aware that my actions at this points (edit warring and breaking 3RR) were wrong. It shouldn't have reached that level. I apologize for not behaving appropriate in respect to those actions. Digirami (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Taken the issue to the talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

Any way possible.

Digirami (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

2011–12 FC Barcelona season discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

I am a neutral in this dispute, having not heretofore participated in it and having no history, as far as I can recall, with any of the involved editors. I'd like to perhaps start by setting a foundation. WikiProject Football has a section that reads:

and when you click on the Club seasons manual of style link, it takes you to a sample page in which the player's names are listed in full. Though as discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football there are a few templates which direct the use of jersey names, those templates are not listed at WikiProject Football/Templates which says that it is "intended to be used as a guide on template standardization" and the squad templates which are listed there use, to the extent that there's any indication at all, full names. It would appear to me to be the standing consensus of the project that full names are to be used and that this ought to set the best practices standard across football articles. However, it has to be noted that none of the pages I've mentioned claim to be setting guidelines or policy and, moreover, the position of Wikipedia is that while uniformity between articles is a good thing to have, that it is not mandatory in most cases (including this one). In short, there are no policies or guidelines which require a particular result in this case, which means that it has to be decided by consensus on a case by case basis, but there is some consensus that the best practice is to include full names. Having read and evaluated the arguments, I note that the only substantive argument being made for the use of jersey names is that the full names are given in the team article and that there is no need for them to be repeated in the season article, but I find no argument presented as to why jersey names should be used in this article in particular. While there may or may not be some merit to the argument in general, it is an argument which would be better pursued at WikiProject Football or at MoS than at individual article pages, since the latter tends to disrupt Wikipedia far more than the former. (I also note that the issue has, indeed, been raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football, that it was to be so raised was at the talk page of this article, and that the editor in favor of the use of jersey names, Lafuzion, did not to express his opinion in that discussion, which further suggests that he/she was more interested in the use of jersey names in this particular article than in general but without expressing any reason to justify that preference.) I, therefore, believe that the best thing to do in this article would be to follow the established good practice of using full names in season articles and that the proposal that jersey names should be used in season articles ought to be made at a more generalized forum. The editors who have commented upon this matter are mostly in favor of using full names, with only Lafuzion in favor of use of jersey names. At something like 3 to 1, and with the weakness of Lafuzion's argument in respect to this article, that would appear to me to be a consensus. If, however, consensus has not already been clearly established in favor of using full names at this article, you may add my position in favor of that consensus. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: While my opinion favors Digirami's position on this matter, and I give Digirama a modicum of credit for bringing this matter to dispute resolution, I would note for anyone who might be considering how much weight to give to his apology, above, for edit warring that since March 2009 he has been blocked twice for edit warring (both were in May 2010, with his request to lift the block refused in both instances) and has been warned 5 additional times about edit warring (4 times in 2009, once in 2011), with the most recent of those 5 having been (and not for 2011–12 FC Barcelona season) just on 29 July 2011. One hopes that his apology and use of DR in this case signals that he has amended his habits, but in light of his history I have not taken his apology into account in coming to the conclusions I've reached, above. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a complete waste of time. I don't even know why I bother but the article was fine w/o any changes and followed the format from past seasons.. I don't understand why we need to put the full name as this is an article concerning BARCELONA CURRENT SEASON. If I need further reading on a certain player then I'll just click on the link and be on my merry way. When you first click on FC Barcelona, all the player's full name are displayed. Once you're on the current season, there shouldn't be a need to repeat this information as it has not been done for the past seasons like here, here, here, here and here. If you look at the 2006–07, Giovanni van Bronckhorst is shown as Gio as it was shown on his jersey while playing for Barcelona. So the original way the names were displayed is following the format used in past season. La Fuzion (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It not just the names in the squad information. You revert a vast majority of my edits to that page for no apparent reason. I adjusted the transfer record to reflect that two players went to free agency and not a complete transfer from club to club: reverted. I display the full names of referees for matches (as is standard): reverted. I display the full names of stadium (as is standard), not just a simple nickname: reverted. I add template:sortname to the transfers list to better sort the player's name by their surname: reverted. I display the last names of scorers (as is standard) in box scores instead of what's on the jersey: reverted. Half of those edits I made because of a level of inconsistency within the page itself. In one section, the full names of referee is displayed, but not in another. Same goes for the stadiums and the use of the "location" parameter in the box scores (fortunately you warmed to that one). You display a high level of ownership when it comes to that page and that is really troubling. You also have to understand that just because things were done one way in previous seasons, doesn't mean it has to stay that way for subsequent season. Things we may have never thought about in previous season article come to light in the present and being willing to adjust to them is paramount. Digirami (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Fb si player p: player's name on jersey and link to his article and that's the template. La Fuzion (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As someone else has said, templates can change. They have, and it really should in this case (it has because, in a separate issue, there was also a big MOS:FLAG violation within the template). FC Barcelona proves how very inconsistent the practice of names on the back of the jersey is, something I'm sure the creator of the template never imagined. One player has his full name. The other his first name. Another his last name. Another his last name with first initial. Another his nickname. The practice of full/common name (i.e., first and last name) is far more consistent from player to player (granted, Brazilian for example are a large exception to that practice) and is far easier to understand.
 * And you never responded to the my concerns and reversion on other parts of the page. Digirami (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard to have a discussion when the other editor seems to have abandoned it. Digirami (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

2011–12 FC Barcelona season resolution
Is there any resolution? The other editor in dispute seems to have little interest in keeping this going. Digirami (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In light of his nonparticipation, there's not much more that can be done here. I'd say change it to full names and, if he reverts again, leave the reversion in place and take it to a request for comments or informal mediation and feel free to point to my opinion as a neutral. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is well organized and follows the original template. I thought I made that clear when I added the link for it. I didn't know there was a need for me to spell it out. His counter argument is nonsense as he feels the way it is as not being good enough for him. If we're going to make changes then it should be to make the article better. No one has had a problem with how the template was/is since it was made. The same format has been followed from the first article to now and the sudden need for change is unwarranted. Like I've stated, this is an article on BARCELONA'S CURRENT SEASON and all the common names of players can be view on the main FC Barcelona article. La Fuzion (talk ) 20:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I request that this be closed by another neutral due to the discussion stalling non-productive discussion . — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Amended from "stalled" to "nonproductive," but close still requested. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "non-productive discussion." from whom? Because I'm not agreeing to this silly request I'm "non-productive"? So if I had agreed, everything would be good and dandy and we're all best friends? La Fuzion  (talk ) 20:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "non-productive discussion" from you! It took you six days to come up with a reply while you were off doing other edits. And that reply only came when this dispute was threatened to be resolved in my favor. I was on a minor vacation and I still managed a post to keep it going. You still haven't addressed any of the points I made in my last post in the section. Pardon us, but it does seem like you no longer want to participate. Digirami (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)