Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 76

Istanbul
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

2nd time I'm requesting this. First time was rejected because of ongoing RFC. The RFC, unfortunately, did not attract any uninvolved editors and did not lead to a solution

The dispute is as follows: 1) Lead: There are currently 482 words in the lead. More than half (245 words), 2 entire paragraphs, deal with history. Yet, despite this extensive focus, pre-Byzantine history is completely ignored despite the notability. The current sentence "Founded on the Sarayburnu promontory around 660 BC as Byzantium..." also does not comply with WP:NPOV, as multiple reliable sources contradict it (see sources here: Talk:Istanbul) 2) Toponymy section: Other names as part of history of the city is completely ignored. This edit was reverted despite reliable sources.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talk page discussions starting in April (Talk:Istanbul/Archive_8). One RFC (Talk:Istanbul/Archive_8). Then I temporarily left this issue to focus on other articles. Even despite the long cool down period, the current discussion also does not seem like it will help (Talk:Istanbul). A mediator would help.

How do you think we can help?

Please clarify issues with respect to WP:NPOV.

Summary of dispute by Tariqabjotu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The aim of this noticeboard is to resolve content disputes. As far as everyone except Cavann is concerned, this content dispute has already been resolved. Therefore, I see no reason to offer any sort of statement or participate in this. Again. The only remaining issue related to this dispute is Cavann's willingness to exploit every possible avenue (including holding TFA over his adversaries) until he gets his way; however, that is an issue best reserved for another forum. --  tariq abjotu  22:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dr.K.
I am here to basically support Tariq's version of events. There have been lengthy discussions all of which have conclusively and systematically refuted Cavann's positions. Cavann's RFC(s) went nowhere and he is still the only one arguing about these points. As far as his claims that we are "involved", that of course is nonsense. Anyone taking part in a discussion is automatically "involved" in that discussion. One more comment I would like to make is to note the frequent personal attacks Cavann is engaging in, both with his comments on the talkpage of Istanbul and in his edit-summaries. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  23:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. "As far as everyone except Cavann is concerned"..."Everyone" meaning few involved editors. Tariqabjotu's unilateral closures of RFC's  was rebuked   before, but I guess that is also an issue best reserved for another forum. Cavann (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Pluto deleted my conribution, as described here:. The Diff page is. I have asked him to un delete it, but he has not replied.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked few times him to un delete it (including in his talk page), but he has not replied.

How do you think we can help?

either to explain me if I am wrong, or convince him to return this important sentence.

Summary of dispute by pluto2012
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Chennai Express
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved

Dispute overview

the movie cheenai express has grossed around 33.12 cr according to reliable sources and tv channels but the wiki page shows 29 cr as it follows BOI fig .my point is if there is conflict in fig one should mention that too

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i have requested it in the edit sorce page

How do you think we can help?

one can simply mention the other figures too

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


 * My name hasn't been mentioned in the "users involved" list so I feel it necessary to note here that more than four new accounts were registered from the day (10 August) this dispute has started (some random IPs also) and there's some serious sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on to get consensus in their favor. This user, Iamabhu, could well be a sock and there's an open SPI with ample evidence regarding that. Thanks. Fideliosr (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added your name to the list. Leaving it off was an oversight, sorry. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No acquisitions here please. I am just putting forward my point in this discussion that, there are many cases like SOS, Bol Bachan, Rowdy Rathore etc which were released after JTHJ (i.e the so called consensus to use only BOI figures) and yet they are present in article :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollywood_100_Crore_Club even though BOI figures are different.

In this case, since it seems that box office india is the only site that is showing a different figure and every other source or official statement is showing 33.12 crore, hence this must be changed because if the movie had achieved something it shouldn't be denied recognition just because of one particular source denying it. Why be unfair only to this? Sources: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/chennai-express-vs-ek-tha-tiger-who-will-be-the-ultimate-winner/413373-8-66.html http://movies.ndtv.com/bollywood/chennai-express-mints-rs-33-12-crore-on-opening-day-403904?pfrom=home-latest http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/box-office-chennai-express-breaks-salmans-ek-tha-tiger-opening-day-record/1/298947.html [User:Pmnikhil|Pmnikhil] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmnikhil (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely wrong. Leading trade analyst Komal Nahta also reported 29 crore figure: http://www.emirates247.com/entertainment/shah-rukh-s-chennai-express-edges-past-salman-s-ek-tha-tiger-2013-08-11-1.517189 Fideliosr (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Another noted trade analyst Amod Mehra and Amul Mohan of Super Cinema have also suggested the 29.5 crore figure:


 * Trade pundits differ on 'Chennai Express' beating 'Ek Tha Tiger'


 * Fideliosr (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Same articles mentions as Taran Adarsh reported 33.12 crores which is also the same as reported by many other sources that our friends had pointed out in the article while requesting edit. Hence my viewpoint is that BOI should not be 'the sole' source for reporting thebox office colection for CE while some other movies(even after JTHJ) as i mentioned, are there in different articles with widely accepted figures rather than BOI figures.

If Komal Nahta too has mentioned 29cr, but how can you assume that Taran Adarsh, Koimoi, Joginder Tuneja etc. are not true? Mention both on the official page. Pmnikhil

So mention both sets! Why ignoring Taran Adarsh and Tuneja? Unless you are anti srk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.185.37 (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not even the week that the movie has been released, so we shall need to wait for the correct statistics. OwnDealers (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

And the correct figures will be the official ones or by BOI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.185.37 (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There has always been a difference in figures provided for every Hindi film. The question is: why does this issue always arise when specific films release? Wikipedia has used Box Office India only for years now, and the addition of the different figures to articles of ALL Hindi films would be practically impossible. Note that an exception simply cannot be granted in this case for purposes of uniformity - we must do it for every other film too. Factual Proof (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But it is not the BOI figures that is used always. I have pointed out SOS, Rowdy Rathore, Bol Bachan etc. They have the widely accepted figures, then why not here? Especially if it is announced by UTV, who pay the tax for it? Pmnikhil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.194.39 (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

33.12 is official figure by UTV.. . All professional trade analyst confirmed this. http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/1872682/report-chennai-express-mints-rs33-12-crore-on-opening-day BOI dnt have any clear method of collecting data.. Komal Naata always gives collection on the basis of producer's figure..This time he intentionally posted different collection.


 * It might be a good idea to keep the discussion in one place. This new section contains some important points made by participants. Fideliosr (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

24-hour closing notice: This has been listed for nine days without any volunteer being willing to take it. Unless a volunteer takes the case by 15:00 UTC on August 21, 2013, it will be closed as stale. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Kurdish separatism in Iran
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Kurdish separatism in Iran is article title from 18 August 2012 until 5 August 2013, when it was moved by user HistorNE to new title and boldly reshaped to a new meaning. My revert and requests to issue WP:RM were in vein, until involvement of an administrator, returning original name to the article. While finally issuing a WP:RM move request, HistorNE still performs disruptive edits on the article - insisting to radically alter the content of that page and topic related articles in accordance with the desired result of his requested move, even though the move is in process. In general, he is also particularly unfair with WP:RS, removing credible historians who don't fit his world view (like removing McDowall ) and misusing others, as well as trying to stalk his edits. I don't think this is helpful for the Kurdish and Iranian topics, and considering his general disruptive behavior for the last 2 months and suspiciously bold and professional edits, i'm thinking of asking an investigation on this user in general. In the meanwhile, i would like a suggestion how to pause his aggressive edits and forcing him into standard procedure of WP:RM.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asking user HistorNE to backoff renaming the article and changing its content unless WP:RM is closed in support with his opinion at the talk page; HistorNE was also explained so by an uninvolved administrator, but refused to fully cooperate, even when forced to WP:RM by title protection.

How do you think we can help?

HistorNE should be made clear that articles don't "move" without consensus and radical change of topic should be first discussed anytime when there is an opposition. Consensus should be achieved via WP:RM discussion and until the process is finalized it is fine to add sources, but not to make radical edits to change the content of article in accordance with desired result.

Kurdish separatism in Iran discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Response : Fist of all, when I moved article for the first time I left comment on talkpage where I explained factual errors. Prior to that I also left template "disputed", but Greyshark not just restored name but also removed academic sources and template without leaving any explanation to talkpage. In next three days we both participated in move/edit war and he still didn't discuss anything. When he is discussing, he's doing it with very aggressive and arrogant attitude (baseless accusations and threats, insulting mockery, etc.). Move war has been stopped by administrator JHunterJ and from his talkpage is more then obvious that problem with move war has been fully understood from my side (I thanked him for kind action in the name of both). This also implies all of this complain about WP:RM is no more then burlesque, because Greyshark has misunderstood stopping move war as approval to removing sources which he don't like and restore his version which misused sources. I've explained his misuse of sources one by one on talkpage, but he's avoiding to repond. Instead of it, he has started with baseless snitching on JHunterJ's talkpage falsely acusing me for misusing sources. He did the same here on DRN. Article Kurdish separatism in Iran isn't sole case of misusing sources, he also misused it in this article (see talkpage). Despite clear explanation, he restored his version seven times without any response on talkpage. There are numerous of other examples: when I find some POV-pushing in articles I correct it and I leave explanation on talkpage by refering to academic works (examples: ). In all given cases, Greyshark simple undone my edits without any discussion. He also isn't able to recognize reliable sources so above he complains about removal of claims by David McDowall who isn't "credible historian" but narrative writer, and I refuted his claims by using quotes by Ervand Abrahamian who is one of most eminent Iranologist of Modern Iranian history. For someone with extensive expertise about subject like me, it's more then obvious Greyshark is pushing anti-Iranian and pro-irredentist POV. After he realized he can't challenge attached academic sources which I posted (I'm in possesion of all major academic works about subject), he got angry and started with this baseless aggresive accusations. --HistorNE (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

24-hour closing notice: This has been listed for eight days without any volunteer being willing to take it. Unless a volunteer takes the case by 15:00 UTC on August 21, 2013, it will be closed as stale. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Haredi Judaism
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I am a native, Hebrew-speaking Secular Israeli Jew. Chesdovi is (probably) a Haredi Jew, who does not speak/read Hebrew and does not live in Israel. (this info is relevant because the Edit War primarily concerns references and citations in Hebrew which relate to Israel, and its society and culture).

Over the past 3 weeks, there has been an Edit War going on between us on the abovementioned article. It began with many additions I had made, especially to two segments in the article, under the main headline 'In Israel': "Military", and "Views on 'immodest female exposure', male-female segregation and associated public controversies".

Chesdovi believes:

1. That the article is too long, and should not cover these issues and many others in depth (that these issues should be covered in different pages). 2. That most of my references are flawed and should be deleted. 3. That most of what I've added is Original Research and has no validity.

I believe:

1. That the contents of the article are already short summaries of much broader issues. 2. That all of my references are legit. 3. That everything I've written of is common knowledge in Israel, and has also been well-documented.

The Edit War includes the following pattern:

- I'd add new materials and references.

- Chesdovi would promptly delete all of them.

- I'd re-add them and ask him to discuss things on the talk page.

- He'd delete them and only then attack SOME of them on the talk page.

- We'd delete and undelete the materials over and over while discussing them on the talk page as this was going on.

- Process repeats itself. No editor makes further serious intervention =\

Over the course of this Edit War, I have added over 60 references and citations - most of them at Chesdovi's request. Very few of these he agreed to keep so far. This entire Edit War is well documented on the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk this out on the Talk Page. Chesdovi has also tried asking for help from other editors before, but no one made a serious intervention so far.

How do you think we can help?

I think the talk page pretty much speaks for itself. It reveals that Chesdovi possesses a very strong pro-Haredi agenda, and would do anything to keep deleting materials which portray Haredim in a bad light - making up any sort of false argument he can possibly think of. There is an urgent need for native Hebrew speaking editors, preferably Israelis, to intervene in this dispute. I believe that any Israeli who reads and checks my sources will attest to their validity, and to Chesdovi's agendas.

Haredi Judaism discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Jonathan, I would recommend that you reconsider your statements about Chesdovi's nationality and religious affiliation. Your implication is that a Haredi individual living outside of Israel can't write objectively about this topic. That's not a reasonable claim to make. I would encourage you to point out specific edits that you feel demonstrate bias or a misuse of sources rather than make general claims about a user based on his religious affiliation. GabrielF (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Gabriel. Thanks for your comment. I do not feel that a Haredi living outside of Israel cannot contribute to the article. The main issues are in this regard, in my opinion, familiarity with the Language and Culture of Israel. This is apparent throughout the entire talk page. On a few dozen instances, things which Chesdovi have pointed out to be 'incorrect' were matters which would be easily apparent as correct by someone who either speaks the language and/or lives in Israel (and is therefore exposed to the local culture). That said, I think that it is in Chesdovi's case in particular that him being a non-Israeli and not speaking the language makes for a bigger issue - especially combined with his innate bias. A good place to see the manifestation of these problems would be in the talk page, under the title: "Review of Chesdovi's deletions over the past week (13th of August, 2013)" (which I see you have already read).  Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I wish to point out further that some of the references require an understanding of the subject material from the religious perspective - especially quotes from the Hebrew bible. Chesdovi has been trying to suggest these are too open to interpretation. The thing is, that in Israel, all Secular and Orthodox Jews study the bible for 11 years straight from Elementary school to Middle school to High School, and are test on each an every part of it several times. I have been taught 1-5 interpretations for most verses in the Old Testament, and so have most native Israelis. To us Israelis, this is therefore common knowledge. We know and understand well the origins of religious commandments, as we have studied them for so long. This holds true even for myself, a Secular Atheist. So for instance, one of my references states the following: "Origin of the rule of not looking at things which can cause sexual arousal is in the Book of numbers, in a verse stating: "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זונים אחריהם. למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדושים לאלהיכם" (see: ספר במדבר, טו, לט)". This is not contested information in Israel. One wouldn't be able to find one Israeli who have studied the bible who does not understand the relationship between this saying from the bible to the requirement present in Haredi society to not look at 'immodest' women. But Chesdovi has been trying to suggest that such things are open to interpretation. They are not. It's a lie. One does not need some foreign professor to approve something like that, when every possible Haredi one could ask would assert this sort of information. This is an example of how Chesdovi has been taking common knowledge issues and trying to present them as 'complex, unverified material' to people who do not live in Israel and do not speak the language. I am astounded by his Hutzpa, to be lying like that on such basic and well-known things. His claims would have be thoroughly mocked at had he presented them on the Hebrew wikiepdia (which is, by the way, the place I went to fetch many of the references I used, as the Hebrew wikipedia articles on Jewish matters are far superior to the English ones).  Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The edits made by Jonathan.bluestein speak for themselves. He jumped in with hardly any editing experience and has not cared to adhere to basic policy or guidelines. In an attempt to satisfy the need for RS, he has simply added more and more inadequate material which indicates he has misunderstood core editing requirements, these include repeated violations of PRIMARY and CIRCULAR and the addition of references which do not support the text. He came to Haredi Judaism to add a section about violence and abuse relating to the enforcement of modesty by ultra-Orthodox vigilantes and about the censorship of women in the Haredi press. To me, his poorly written additions seem to unbalance the page, giving too much weight to these issues. I have attempted to merge some of his points into other sections, but this has been deemed unsatisfactory. Yesterday, after a week of no correspondence at talk, I proceeded to make some further alterations, to which Mr Bluestien responded with DRN. I have no real "dispute" here. All I request is that basic editing standards and style are employed. I could also do without Mr Bluestien's tendency to add elongated posts about his personal circumstances and his amusing, if not annoying, original interpretations on various events. His gratuitous use of vulgarities is repulsive. Mr Bluestein has a lot to learn and I am not going to waste more of my time "teaching" him – (he takes no notice anyhow!) Chesdovi (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

24-hour closing notice: This has been listed for seven days without any volunteer being willing to take it. Unless a volunteer takes the case by 15:00 UTC on August 21, 2013, it will be closed as stale. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn, since volunteer Ki Chjang has joined in. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me point out first that an editor's background has NOTHING to do with his/her ability in contributing to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute. Jonathan.bluestein from your explanations above, your abstracted arguments are as follows (correct me if I'm wrong):
 * Premise 1: The Book of Numbers has a verse in Hebrew.
 * Premise 2: You and other Hebrews you know of interprets this verse as a rule of "not looking at things that causes sexual arousal".
 * Conclusion: The Book of Numbers contains a rule of "not looking at things that causes sexual arousal".
 * The problem here now is on premise 2. This is a very obvious case of social proof. Wikipedia does not operate upon social proof: information written on Wikipedia must be verifiable AND reliably sourced. Here I quote the policy on verifiability: [Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Fear not though, if what you say is really true, then it should be relatively easy for you to find reliable sources to support your statement. You have mentioned that you have taken material on the Hebrew Wikipedia, and although the Hebrew Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, you should be able to make use the references of the equivalent article on the Hebrew Wikipedia. Ki Chjang (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Thanks for looking into the matter. I will indeed dig deeper and find further proof for this. But the Book of Numbers issue was merely the subject of a small paragraph I included here. The talk page of the article at hand is jammed with a million other issues, that unfortunately no one wishes to help us tackle =\    Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

College Football_Playoff
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I have been trying to edit the references of "Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl" to simply "Peach Bowl" after citing the official name in the section header. This is an effort to keep the names of the bowls uniform and parallel with an overall more pleasant look to the table. I am being constantly undone or revised by a user BilCat, which I believe to be harassment. I asked politely to compromise and he made fun of my "compromise."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I provided my reasoning and asked to make the change politely.

How do you think we can help?

Warn BilCat to quit harrasing me and undoing my posts, which he claims to be vandalism.

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

College Football_Playoff discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Kerala
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

in wikipedia page 'kerala', under 'Post colonial period', it was mentioned that "In 1957, elections for thenew Kerala Legislative Assembly were held, and a reformist,Communist-led government came to power, under E. M. S. Namboodiripad.It was the first time a Communist government was democratically elected to power any where in the world." Its a wrong fact. Please check the wikipage 'San Marino'. Under History title you can see "San Marino had the world's first democratically elected communist government, which held office between 1945 and 1957." I edited this content myself. Hope you will agree with me.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I already edited this

How do you think we can help?

Please acknowledge the editors of this page.

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

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

Mary Landrieu
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I've made edits to the articles on Mary Landrieu and Mark Begich in which I added appropriately sourced content and removed content that was unsourced or inaccurately sourced. I've consciously made my edits in discrete chunks to facilitate discussion in case someone disputes my changes.

J is making the claim that my edits are biased and is using his rollback authority to make blanket reversions of my edits.

My goal is to balance the perspective of the articles by providing fact-based, properly sourced content and remove content that is subjective or inaccurate and improperly sourced.

In my opinion, J has adopted a hostile tone from the beginning of our dialog and is abusing his rollback privileges.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

J and I have had some discussion on my Talk page. In addition, I've attempted to engage NeilN as a 3rd party to help mediate the dispute. However I've not received a response from NeilN.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like an objective 3rd party to take the time to read my edits and provide an opinion on whether they're valid.

Mary Landrieu discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * To be clear, I have not used the rollback tool on any of these articles and would not do so for edits of this nature. However, replacing reliable sources that describe a United States Senator as a "moderate" with a clearly partisan source calling them a "'rank-and-file' Democrat" can — in no way — be described as an attempt to "balance the perspective."  I believe User:CFredkin's edits to the Begich and Landrieu articles speak for themselves.  Aside from removing User:CFredkin's blatant violations of wp:npov and wp:blp, I don't intend to engage him further.  I've recommended he make his proposals on the article's talk pages since he apparently cannot see the otherwise readily apparent issues with his edits.  The dispute he has is with wp:5p, not me.   user: j  (talk)  17:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'm Theodore!, and will be assisting you with this discussion.  Feel free to list any additional information, positions, or concerns below this statement; I will be reviewing the situation presently.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There seem to be two issues here. First, it doesn't seem as if all of the "Landrieu is the most conservative Dem" content was well-sourced.  At the same time, if objective, third-party commentary in reliable sources called her a conservative Democrat, it would be appropriate to mention this.  Information describing her Removing discussion of her nuanced views regarding healthcare reform, and drastically simplifying them, is probably not appropriate.  The removal of info on the Common Ground Coalition is concerning, as well, and is definitely not appropriate.  As such, I feel that User:J was probably in the right to restore the removed information.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Theodore, Thanks for your help here. I could find no reference to the Common Ground Coalition in the source provided, or elsewhere online other than Landrieu's own web site. On the health care discussion, the original version is somewhat repetitive and to me doesn't seem quite coherent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFredkin (talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a Forbes photo essay here which references it.  I'm not sure if this can really be taken as significant RS coverage, though.  At the same time, I don't think that the healthcare content is repetitive or coherent; her positions seem to have differed markedly from those of most Democrats, and should be described as such.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Theodore: Can you articulate her position on health care based on the existing commentary? I definitely cannot. The fact that it never mentions the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act makes it appear to me that someone is trying to obfuscate the issue. At the same time, I don't think the quote about her being a "high priced prostitute" is appropriate either. I would support removing it, even though it is properly sourced.CFredkin (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have laid out some of my views at the bottom of the Mary Landrieu section below; they apply to this section as well. I would request that further discussion occur at the bottom of the Begich page, so we can keep it in one place.  As for your comments above, I would agree that it is hard to articulate a view on her healthcare position.  But I don't see much of a problem in listing that she's been called a moderate (if this can be sourced), and then following this up by a mention of votes where she crossed the aisle.  I don't think that this would fall into the realm of WP:Original synthesis, which I mentioned in the Begich section.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing notice: This appears to be resolved. Unless someone expresses an interest in keeping it open, it will be closed as such after 16:00 UTC on August 27, 2013. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Mark Begich
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I've made edits to the articles on Mary Landrieu and Mark Begich in which I added appropriately sourced content and removed content that was unsourced or inaccurately sourced.

J is making the claim that my edits are biased. The only evidence he has provided for that is a claim that I changed a source on Mark Begich's article in order to make the claim that he is a "rank-and-file" Democrat. I have changed NO sources. The existing source made no mention of Begich being "moderate". I updated the statement in the article to be consistent with the existing source. I'm definitely fine with removing the statement altogether. However there is no basis in the sourced material for making a "moderate" claim.

I made a previous request for dispute resolution which was closed. I've now removed any references to the other editor's behavior. There was a reference in the other request to an RFC already being in progress. I'm trying to follow the guidelines for dispute resolution here, but I don't know what an RFC is or what that RFC would be.

My goal is to balance the perspective of the articles by providing fact-based, properly sourced content and remove content that is subjective or inaccurate and improperly sourced.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

J and I have had some discussion on my Talk page. In addition, I've attempted to engage NeilN as a 3rd party to help mediate the dispute. However I've not received a response from NeilN.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like an objective 3rd party to take the time to read my edits and provide an opinion on whether they're valid.

Mark Begich discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * Despite his assertions otherwise, the evidence of the lack of neutrality in his edits are numerous (as evidenced in the diffs from the earlier discussion, above). As with above, I don't intend to engage with him further on this, as I'm not interested in being a participant on Crossfire.   user: j  (talk)  23:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

J: To be honest, the reason I created the second DRN entry (Mark Begich) is that I saw the notice for Talk:Yuilop above it and mistakenly thought it applied to the DRN for Mary Landrieu. I didn't realize my mistake until after I created the second DRN (for Mark Begich). At that point I wasn't sure how to close the original (Mary Landrieu) DRN, or whether it would be appropriate for me to do so.

In any case, according to the NPOV FAQ: It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias.

I believe the content I added on both articles is properly sourced, regardless of whether it might be considered to be biased. I also believe that both articles already included content that might be considered biased. Regardless, I did not remove any existing content that was properly sourced. In some cases, it appears that the information in the sources may have changed based on more recent voting information. In those cases I updated the content in the article to reflect the current information in the source. However I did not change any existing sources. As I said, I'm happy to remove that content. But I don't think it's appropriate for that content to remain unchanged if it is no longer reflected in the sources.CFredkin (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello again; I'll be assisting with this case as well. Here, like with Mary Landrieu, it seems that CFredkin's edits have removed most or all information qualifying Begich as a moderate.  Reliable sources do seem to indicate that he's been considered a moderate; given that, it's perfectly appropriate to state that he's been called one, as long as one of those sources is used.  Sometimes, though, an article contributor might analyze a bunch of votes, and then conclude that the senator is a moderate given his voting record.  This would not be appropriate, and would be an example of original synthesis.  Any thoughts on this from either editor?  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Theodore: I agree with you here. The problem is that the claims I deleted (including the moderate label) were not sourced. In addition, in my opinion, the claims listed might as well have been compiled by Begich's campaign staff. In my second round of edits, I left in the unsourced claims in the intro and added one regarding his vote on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However that was deleted as well.CFredkin (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. It would be problematic if the moderate claim is derived from lists of votes or something along those lines, and if an editor had interpreted them unilaterally as "moderate".  I have seen content describing Begich as a possible moderate; I can post links if you'd like.  I would also like to hear User:J's response to this before we proceed further.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thus far J has limited his contributions to hostile statements impugning my motives and my methods, without providing any examples to back up his claims. I've definitely made mistakes during my time here on Wikipedia. But I don't believe that's true in this case. I'm happy to point out specific instances in the past where I've collaborated with other editors to find mutually acceptable language, as well as instances where I've pro-actively removed my own edits after discovering new information that contradicts them. J's behavior here which seems to entail unilaterally blocking updates that are counter to his own biases, making blanket statements without providing specific examples, refusing to engage in this process, and utilizing hostile/provocative language all look a lot like bullying to me.CFredkin (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "My own biases" are ensuring wp:npov is respected. If you think my pointing out your replacing neutral language with partisan scorecards and labels of a "rank-and-file Democrat" are provocative, you've clearly got a skewed sense of perspective.  I've worked at the Carly Fiorina and Sarah Palin articles in the past preventing folks from introducing partisan attacks in their articles that were not neutral.  I've done the same at articles for Canadian and Australian politicians from various corners of their political spectrums.  My only "bias" is in ensuring that you don't turn these — or any other — biographies into coatracks for partisan opinions, which is precisely what your recent edits to these articles appeared designed to accomplish.  Rather than collaborating with editors on the talk pages for those articles to figure out a path forward, you decided to manufacture some "dispute" with me and you're continuing to try to make the strawman argument that I'm the only one standing in your way.  Make your proposals on the talk pages and stop wasting your time trying to wikilawyer your content in through tangential forums.   user: j  (talk)  17:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If you're so concerned about maintaining NPOV, why don't you spend a few minutes cleaning up all the unsourced/inaccurately sourced content that's currently on the articles (which interestingly all seems to be favorable to the candidates)?CFredkin (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, as I've said repeatedly, I did NOT add the source for the "rank and file" description. I updated the claim to reflect the source. The current language is not consistent with the source. I'll say again, I'm happy to delete the claim altogether.CFredkin (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) Here's the edit where you — and you alone — plainly added "rank-and-file Democrat" to the article. Regardless of who originally added the source (which, plausibly, used a different descriptor in 2010 when the source was last assessed), you were the one who made the decision to replace neutral "moderate" with pejorative "rank-and-file Democrat" — the former being widely used to describe Begich in reliable sources, the latter being clearly non-neutral.  Nevertheless, the point is that this is not a dispute you have with me, no matter how much you want to stomp your feet that I undid your edits and pointed out clear issues with the synthesis you introduced and weasel words you decided to use.  I saw highly problematic edits on your part and I undid them, appropriately.  No single editor has any obligation to fix your edits for you, or to fix other edits on your demand.  You may claim you were simply being "bold," but even in that instance, the cycle would be wp:brd.  Go to the article's talk pages and make your case.  If other editors agree with your edits, they will be implemented.  If they don't, you'll have the chance to discuss and collaborate.  You're wasting your time here.   user: j  (talk)  18:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of getting to a reasonable outcome here, I'll make the following proposal: I'll limit my immediate edits on both articles to just removing unsourced/inaccurately sourced claims. I'll then post any additions I'd like to make to the Talk pages, before making the edits. Does that work?CFredkin (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, if there is something contentious and poorly sourced, it should be removed per wp:blp. The issue is if you are going through and removing any instance of "moderate," for example, from the biography of a politician who is widely referred to in reliable sources as a moderate.  That would clearly have a negative impact on the neutrality of the article (which also has wp:blp ramifications).  If there's a serious problem with the source (which I think is a legitimate concern with "GovTrack.us"), then it could probably be removed and  added inline.  If the source has changed or isn't the best but is left in place, then  could be used, instead.   user: j  (talk)  18:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A few things. It seems that the dispute boils down to this: one editor has removed most content calling the senator a moderate.  Unfortunately, some of this content seems to be original synthesis, giving him some grounds to do what he did.  At the same time, there should be sources in existence which call the senator a moderate; these sources should be used in the article, and his "moderate"ness shouldn't be ignored.  I would also suggest that further discussion occur on the article talk; I'm also generally OK with CFredkin's plan.  My concern is this: like I said before, some of the "unsourced" stuff might be very important to the article, and removing it might cause bias.  When and if accurate but unsourced content is removed, it should be replaced with sourced or sourceable content.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Theodore!: Thanks for your help facilitating the discussion.CFredkin (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing notice: This appears to be resolved. Unless someone expresses an interest in keeping it open, it will be closed as such after 16:00 UTC on August 27, 2013. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

psmithpr talk
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Your administrator "Orange Mike" is practically harassing my article when there is nothing wrong with it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

He has very terrible communication and gave me no reason as to why he deleted the article.

How do you think we can help?

Block him from contacting me or my article

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

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

Ectaco
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

It has been discussed on the Ectaco talk page.

The issue is whether mobileread is a reliable source for the proposed controversy section. It keeps getting reverted. I personally don't think that they are a reliable source as they are the accusers in the controversy. There are no other news covered sources that I can find on this subject.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to resolve with discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

By confirming my thought that mobileread is not a reliable source and this section does not belong in the article. or saying that it is a reliable source and placing the information back into the article.

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

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

Talk:Natalee Holloway
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Van Der Sloot, suspected of murder in Aruga in the Holloway case but never tried, was convicted on a charge of a separate murder 5 years later in Peru. In the Natalee Holloway article the only info about the outcome of his murder trial in Peru is that he pleaded guilty to the charge. I think the the article should be changed so the subsequent conviction and sentence should be included. The lede doesn't mention anything about Van Der Sloot in Peru

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extended discussion for weeks.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like an opinion if, as an attribution of crime is made by saying Van Der Sloot pled guilty to the Peru murder, the conviction and sentenceon that charge should be included in the article, and the lede.

Summary of dispute by Wehwalt
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Adds nothing about Natalee Holloway, and think that including it in the lede would imply a connection between the Flores and Holloway deaths. Plainly Overagainst thinks so too, that's why he's fighting so hard for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Kww
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The proposed addition is redundant in terms of the conviction, because pleading guilty is sufficient. I don't know why the jail term imposed for a tangentially related crime would go in the lede of this article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Montanabw
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Here are the problems: That's all I have to say for now. Montanabw (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The guy pled guilty to murdering someone else, not Holloway, so doesn't belong in the lede of the Holloway article and creates problems with SYNTH, OR and all sorts of other BLP issues as to Ven Der Sloot.
 * 2) The body text of the article already mentions the other case and its outcome. Overagainst doesn't understand that pleading guilty IS a form of conviction and so adding that the fellow was convicted is either redundant or worse, confusing (as he did not go in front of a jury, hence no "conviction" in that sense).  There appears to be no dispute that it would be OK to add the sentence handed down in the article body text, though not the lede, so not sure why that's even here.
 * 3) Overagainst doesn't understand that he's making changes to a featured article-class biography and we have to hold to the highest standards.

Talk:Natalee Holloway discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm a regular volunteer here. I've looked at the talk page, and I'm afraid that I cannot find any consensus for the inclusion of the material in question. The Consensus Policy says here that, "Some discussions result in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context: ... In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." If anything here there is some degree of consensus against the inclusion of the material, so unless the editor who wishes to include the material can obtain consensus for its inclusion it must be excluded. Having said that, however, I wonder if there is not room for a compromise which could improve the article: What if the text of the article was left as it is, but the source for the sentence which reads, "Van der Sloot pled guilty to murdering Ramirez on January 11, 2012." was changed from this one to this one .Both stories say that he pled guilty and by substituting the sources we'd gain the advantage of making the conviction and sentencing information available to anyone who wants verify the plea information, as well as making clear that the requirements of WP:BLPCRIME have been satisfied. (In passing, and at the risk of messing up this idea, let me note that those two sources disagree on the date on which Van der Sloot actually entered the plea, with the first one saying that it was on Wednesday, January 11, 2012, and the second one saying that it was on Thursday, January 12.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No consensus? How about a 3-1 consensus Against?  (smile)  My point is that none of it belongs in the lede, period, end of story.  I hesitate to remove a source, but have no problem adding additional good sources.  We do require a source that says that Natalee was declared legally dead, (though if that source is also used elsewhere to verify that bit, we don't need redundancy for its own sake).  If you want to add a second source, so long as it passes the WP:FA criteria, that probably is possible.  We can look to additional material to verify the actual date of the plea, or just weasel and say "January 2012," given that it's now been a while... and does not need to sequentially correlate to the legal declaration of status of Natalie. But I shall await the views of KWW and Wehwalt before "voting" for any particular proposal.  Montanabw (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice of Montanabw to admit she is operating as part of a team. We are going off on tangents. It is not my contention that the Natalee Holloway article has to have anything about Van Der Sloot in Peru anywhere in the article. It is the other side in this dispute that wants to keep the article as it is at present and mentioning that Van der Sloot pled guilty to the charge of murder in Peru, but not saying what the outcome of his Peru trial was.


 * In my opinion, once the fact that Van Der Sloot pled guilty to a murder charge is Peru is mentioned, then WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLPCRIME mandate the mention of the fact that he was convicted of that murder.  WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLPCRIME are there for an extremely good reason: to ensure that articles do not mention unproved accusations about living people. I am not aware of any other article that mentions that someone was tried for murder without saying what the outcome (ie verdict of the trial) was.  To continue keeping this article as it is is to open the door to other articles doing the same thing and  overturn settled BLP policy. I am aware that the motive in this case  is not to have the article mention an accusation and omit that it was later disproved, but the priciple being violated is the same nevertheless. 3 editors opinion for the current edit is a violation of BLP policy. Changes need to be made. Either say he was convicted of murder in Peru or remove all mention of him being tried for murder in Peru. All or nothing._Overagainst (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That misapprehension of yours is the crux of the problem. Pleading guilty is the verdict. There are no doors being opened. Don't read too much into Montanabw's phrasing: we haven't communicated anywhere but the NH talkpage, and we are not part of a "team".&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, I've emailed Kww from time to time, but I don't think we've done so in a couple of years. We do not generally work in the same parts of the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If he pled, there was NO TRIAL. (arrgh!) And the tl;dr responses of Overagainst are what we've been up against for weeks. That user just will not drop the WP:STICK.  S/he does not understand that a guilty plea and a conviction have nuances; to say "convicted" implies a jury conviction, not a guilty plea, but for purposes of sentencing, the guilty plea - in essence, is the person "convicts" themselves by agreeing to plead guilty, and hence there is no need for a trial to determine guilt.  Overagainst doesn't understand how the law works.  It is inaccurate and redundant to say "pled guilty and was convicted"  That's like saying "jumped off a cliff and was pushed off a cliff"  In both cases, the person went over the cliff, but the mechanism is not identical.  And KWW is correct, we are not a "team", we just happen to agree on these points.   Montanabw (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

 I see nothing in either WP:CRIMINAL or WP:BLPCRIME which mandates the inclusion of anything. Would you please specifically quote the language from those rules which you feel has that effect? Please do not quote the entire rule, just the part that you believe has that effect. (Being a lawyer with over 30 years practice, I'm pretty good at reading rules and interpreting them.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rule 1 "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and there should be encyclopedic content. Including a plea and then omitting to mention a conviction on that charge and the sentence is very odd; is that encyclopedic content? On my reading the guidance is quite clear:WP:CRIMINAL: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law", also WP:BLPCRIME "...editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Note that no exception is made for a charge where the living person entered a guilty plea. My reading of how the BLP guidance applies is that if a plea to a murder charge has is mentioned, the outcome of the trial such as the verdict and sentence, if any, must be mentioned too.


 * I am not an expert on law and know nothing about the quirks of Peruvian legal procedure, but IMO it is simply not true that in general a defendant pleading guilty to a charge necessarily results in a guilty verdict on that charge. From my general knowledge of cases in Britain and America, the judge can order the jury to bring in a verdict of not guilty, or refuse to accept a plea and order a not guilty plea to be entered, the prosecution can withdraw the charges and the accused goes free, and many other things. There can be changes in the charges so defendant is found guilty of lesser charges and gets freed on a suspended sentence, or he can be found guilty but insane, not guilty because of temporary insanity ect. Including the conviction and sentence lets the reader know what the outcome was. No other article on Wikipedia mentions an accusation like this and then fails to mention the outcome of the trial and the sentence. Not a one. Allowing this as an exception is opening the door to having information about accusations against living people tailored by ommisions, to the extent it suits whatever agenda the editors are working to. Seems a 3 editor consensus team is already enough to do that.-Overagainst (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Overagainst, you don't undertand the legal process. If a person pleads guilty, there IS NO TRIAL AND NO JURY to "convict."  (Yes, a judge in the USA can choose not to accept a guilty plea in some cases, but it's rare, and clearly didn't happen in this case.) How many times to we have to explain this to you?   Montanabw (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * USA law is irrelevant in this case. Referring to it just clutters the conversation.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article leaves the reader to surmise what the outcome of criminal proceedings against a living person was. No other Wikipedia article that does that.-Overagainst (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in WP:CRIMINAL or WP:BLPCRIME which mandates the inclusion of conviction information. There is a mandate that a conviction exist before inclusion of information about the crime, but no mandate that it actually be mentioned in the article. (Indeed, WP:CRIMINAL, being about whether a "person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article" (emphasis added), has no applicability whatsoever to the present situation.) Thus understood, the exclusion or inclusion of the conviction and sentencing information is just like any other information in Wikipedia: Whether it is or is not included is a matter of consensus. The fact that any or all other biographical articles include or exclude it is, at the end of the day, irrelevant because except when required by policy or guidelines there are no uniformity restrictions between articles and each article stands on its own. I disagree with the opponents that there is no difference between entering a plea and being convicted on the basis of that plea, but at the same time I can see how in this particular context that including the conviction and sentencing information is unnecessary in this article about Holloway. On the other hand, I cannot see its inclusion doing much harm, especially if it were condensed into something like "Van der Sloot pled guilty to the charge on x date and was convicted and sentenced on y date." All of that is moot, however, since there are three opponents here and only one proponent. I cannot see any new arguments being advanced by either side or any possibility of the opponents budging on this, so Overagainst either just needs to drop the stick or move on to an request for comments to see if the community will form a consensus in favor of inclusion. (As for the suggestion that the three opponents form a clear consensus against inclusion, I don't think that the quality of their arguments rises to that level. See my edit here for my personal rule of thumb on consensus evaluation.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If "including the conviction and sentencing information is unnecessary in this article about Holloway", then why have the partial information about Van der Sloot's guilty plea in Peru in an article about Holloway at all?


 * Mandate was not the right word. But now TransporterMan has trenchantly pointed out what WP:CRIMINAL is actually about, I think it is not entirely without relevance. Van der Sloot has an article about him and he most certainly would not have had that that article created for him just on the basis of him being convicted of that 2005 murder in Peru. In effect the Van Der Sloot article is an article on a "person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial" and that was the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. And now the existence of a separate Van der Sloot article is being used to exclude information about his conviction and sentence from the article about Natalee Holloway, which is the only context in which that conviction and sentence has any notability. Slick!_Overagainst (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The current article reads: "...Van der Sloot pled guilty to murdering Ramirez on January 11, 2012.[18].." I don't think KWW or Wehwalt have a strong opinion about adding one more full or partial phrase stating the length of his sentence. I certainly don't. But the crux of this whole spat is that Overagainst wanted this stuff in the lede, and no one else does. Overagainst also wanted to add a redundant phrase that Van der Sloot was "convicted" to the body text (and possibly the lede). The rest of us think to say "pled guilty and was convicted" is redundant and unneeded - like my "jumping off a cliff and was pushed off a cliff" example above. A guilty plea IS a conviction. I am so frustrated that Overagainst fails to get this and seems to be making arguments for the sake of argument as far as sentencing goes.. Montanabw (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Once you mention X going over a cliff the reader will be expect to be told what became of X._Overagainst (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

For months the pro-Sri Lankan state editors have been consistently working to white wash the genocide [it's the word to refer the killing of 40,000 civilians by a state or at least I believe it's the word]of Eelam Tamils .At first they made issues regarding the war crimes section.Then it was removed.

Then they started issue regarding the CIVIL WAR section and removed it.

Now in the independence there are references to the post-civil war stand of the prominent Tamil political party on the political solution.

But reverted it back. I just reverted his revert.Now Administrator is ABUSING his power and pushing {{User|user:Obi2canibe}'s version though my edits were sourced.Though I see no recent discussion in the talk page about having the post-war position of the Sri Lankan state or not, is reverting my edits continuously saying that there is consensus not to have it and harassing me and warning me that he would ban me.

I need your suggestions

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

has asked to go to DRNB

How do you think we can help?

I think the following editors can help to resolve this issue

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

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

Sri Lanka article discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Saint Patrick's Saltire
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I am Vincent Morley. The page at Talk:Saint Patrick's Saltire contains a section entitled "Who is Vincent Morley?" which was posted by a pseudonymous contributor on 3 December 2012, although I only became aware of this fact a few days ago. I have tried to reply three times, giving links to my personal website and blog where details of my publications, qualifications and background are available. Each time, my response was immediately deleted: first by Favonian and twice by Eyesnore, who has now given me a "last warning" and said that I will be blocked if I try to reply again.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have posted on Favonian's talk page but have not received a response. I cannot post to Eyesnore's talk page which is "awaiting review".

How do you think we can help?

Either delete the section headed "Who is Vincent Morley?" (if the question is irrelevant) or allow me to answer the question (if it is relevant). I would be happy with either outcome, but it is not acceptable that doubt should be cast on my credibility on a public website and that I should be blocked when I try to respond.

Summary of dispute by Favonian
It does indeed look like the message was a followup to an older one—from December last year. The fact that it wasn't formatted like a reply, but rather as a new message, combined with its slightly aggressive tone caused me to refrain from further research before reverting. For that I apologize, but not for what Mr. Morley seems to consider a tardy reply. Some of us a) sleep at night, and b) work for a living, so this recourse to DRN is a bit precipitous. Favonian (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Talk:Saint Patrick's Saltire discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Yeakley's Research on the Boston Church of Christ
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Dr Flavil Yeakley conducted research in 1985 on the Boston Church of Christ. He had his book published by 'Gospel Adovocate'. There was some dispute over Gospel Advocate as a reliable source and the DRN ruled here Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_73 that: (1) that Yeakley's publisher, The Gospel Advocate Company, is not a high quality source, because there is no evidence of fact checking, (2) that Yeakley's research may be cited in the article because it's referred to by other high quality secondary sources, (3) that it's preferable to cite the secondary sources to refer to the aforementioned material if they cover enough ground. Discussion has deadlocked with whether the reliable secondary sources "cover enough ground".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive debate on the Talk page over a number of weeks.

How do you think we can help?

Can you guide us to resolve whether the secondary reliable sources cover enough ground or whether material from 'Gospel Advocate' needs to included in the article?

Do the reliable secondary sources cover enough ground on Yeakley's research on the Boston Church of Christ

 * Have you considered that taking this to the reliable sources noticeboard might be a more appropriate course of action? My first instinct is to close this with that recommendation but I'd like another volunteers opinion.  Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue might be a little more complex as 'Gospel Advocate' was ruled as an unreliable source but Yeakley's research as admissible because it was referred to in reliable secondary sources. Two editors are happy to use the secondary sources and one is insisting in keeping the 'Gospel Advocate' material in the article, his assessment is the reliable secondary sources "don't cover enough ground" hence the deadlock. Guidance would be appreciated.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok in 200 words or less, those stating the seconady sources don't cover enough ground: please explain your rational behind it.  Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I've read over the material again. It seems to me that Gospel Advocate is an unreliable primary source (something seemingly agreed upon) however the material has been cited by reliable secondary sources. In Wikipedia we much prefer secondary sources because they do the analysis for us. The policy on primary sources states: be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]. It looks like the Yeakley source contains some fairly big claims ("highly manipulative" sects) which are not covered in secondary sources. This is the primary source drawing conclusions from its own statements. Generally we prefer a secondary source to cover these and do the analysis of the data presented by the primary source. Would I be correct in saying that there is no secondary analysis that makes the same claims (e.g. the bit about the sects, unhealthy ways)?  Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cabe Yes, to my knowledge, that is correct. On the Talk page I have asked @Nietzsche to provide any secondary sources we are unaware of, to date he has not. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling is that those claims shouldn't be included as their is no reliable source for those parts explicitly. Considering the weight of what is being said I would say not to cite the GA source and remove those statements. In the interest of fairness I'll wait and see what the remaining editors opinions on the matter are. I am open to having my opinion changed. <font face="Verdana"> Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 12:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, I agree that the strength and nature of the Gospel Advocate claims are not in line with RS and BLP policy. The secondary sources definitely cover the gist of Yeakley's research (although as you know from the talk page I still find the quality of these secondary sources questionable if they choose to see Gospel Advocate as reliable enough for their use). My opinion is that Yeakley is not relaible enough for the article since the primary data is so unreliable but, should it be kept by consensus, the secondary sources are preferable and adequate if used properly. I have been querying @Nietzsche's constant push to have such inflammatory (almost tabloid like) data included but other than continual reverts am still not sure why this is so. I would also like to propose that the title be changed to "Flavil Yeakley's 1985 Research on the Boston Church of Christ" as Yeakley's book is given a separate section (as opposed to being contained in the "history"). Since it was nearly 30 years ago and only in a single congregation of what is today around 430 congregations in 170 countries it is misleading to indirectly project these findings on the current entire ICOC. By qualifying it as much as possible in the title it would be better reflected. JamesLappeman (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the length of what follows; I tried to keep it as short as possible. If my understanding is correct,  TransporterMan  on behalf of the DRN board previously ruled that while The Gospel Advocate Company is an unreliable source, Yeakley's research is a reliable source since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources.  This is why the previous ruling of the board was that we may cite Yeakley directly.  I understand that secondary sources are to be preferred to primary (and even more specifically that the high quality Norton secondary sources are to be preferred to other secondary sources); but the previous ruling permitted citing Yeakley directly, especially when the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground.  Specifically, while the secondary sources state that BCC members' personality types changed to match its leaders' types, the secondary sources leave out Yeakley's specific normative claims that "the discipling methods employed by that church" are "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" and the bit about "highly manipulative sects" already mentioned (see Norton p. 39).  JamesLappeman and JamieBrown2011 have been trying to word the summation as: "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm".  My problems with this is that it's misleading since it's only a clarification Yeakley makes of his conclusion stated earlier.  Moreover, JamieBrown2011 takes the bit from The Boston Movement, which quotes it right from the Yeakley text; so if you have a problem directly citing the Yeakley text, this bit shouldn't be included, either.  The secondary sources also leave out Yeakley's claims regarding how the BCC operates three years after his study was completed: "[p]erhaps the most important development in the year since this book was written is that counselors in virtually every city where this radical movement exists are now being flooded with clients who are the psychological, emotional, and spiritual victims of this authoritarian movement. Psychologists who specialize in treating cult victims have reported that in several cities they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together. These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult".  I take offense to the above suggestion that these observations are almost tabloid-like.  These are serious charges that come from a reputable source.  The question is: is the Yeakley text reputable enough?  As far as articulating the section on Yeakley to be mindful that his 1985 research is limited to the BCC (not necessarily the ICOC as a whole), the WP article is already written in this way.  What specifically, JamesLappeman, were you wanting to change? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this sums up the difficulty we have been having over at the Talk page. Nietzsche is determined to keep using the 'Gospel Advocate' material to the point of being "offended" when it is pointed out that making big claims from low quality sources is not really within the scope of Wikipedia or consistent with it's policies (but more akin to a tabloid). When an attempt is made to rather use the secondary sources (as per the previous DRN ruling by TransporterMan) and their summation of Yeakley's research, the repeated response is reject and revert back to the primary GA material. The high quality secondary sources describe the research Yeakley did, give an analysis of what his research revealed and quote from his writings the sections they endorse. (that is why I included those quotes in my suggested edit). None of them quote from Yeakley's appendix in the GA book, which Nietzsche insists should be included in the article. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * JamieBrown2011's above summation is incorrect on many points, of which one point is particularly pertinent: the bit he suggested to include (previously mentioned in my edit above) comes directly from Yeakley's text. The editors of The Boston Movement (where Jaime gets his quote) included an entire chapter from Yeakley's text in their book. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is the point isn't it, where the reliable secondary sources reference or quote Yeakley, that material is preferred to using a primary source on Wikipedia, especially a low quality one. Since Cabe's request is for the editors who feel the secondary sources don't cover enough ground to fully explain their rationale, I wont interrupt again until that is complete.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "TransporterMan on behalf of the DRN board previously ruled that while The Gospel Advocate Company is an unreliable source, Yeakley's research is a reliable source since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources." No. As volunteers we speak only for ourselves and not the entire board. It isn't a ruling. It is simply the opinion of one volunteer and has no authority. Having said that, it might be advisable to put a good deal of weight on Transportationman's opinion as they do know what they are talking about. But, this is an informal process at DR/N.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 20:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * <font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark and <font face="Verdana"> Cabe  6403  thanks again for your input. As you can see we have struggled to find  consensus. I still find it strange that a source can be seen as unreliable according to WP guidelines but then legitimised because it is quoted in a few secondary sources. I guess I'm not convinced that because a few niche journals chose to include material from a family business publisher it means that it is of encyclopaedia quality. It is such a minute and debatable slice of research that seems to take up a large amount of space (more space than some other more significant and relevant sections). I think that Gospel Advocate is not a reliable source and should be removed BUT if we decide to keep it then a few short measured sentences from secondary sources would be the most balanced option. JamesLappeman (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The primary source isn't "legitimised" by being quoted in reliable secondary sources, rather because the secondary sources are reliable we can use their commentary on the primary source. Basically, the bits of GA that have received critical commentary can be cited in the article. My own feeling is that you are able to make claims in the article if they can be cited by the secondary sources. If a claim you wish to make is only covered by the primary source then it wouldn't be appropriate to cover it. The only time its appropriate to cite the primary source is when directly quoting it to clarify a claim made by a secondary source. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that for me. JamesLappeman (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cabe & Mark  Thanks. This has provided a lot of help on how to move forward. With the clarity to use the secondary source material and not the primary GA stuff, we can go back to the talk page and work out the details of what that wording should be.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do JamieBrown2011 and Nietzsche123 agree?--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I must confess that I'm a little confused. On June 14th (DRN archive 73)  TransporterMan  wrote that "with that Gasde reference, I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory".  From this and more statements he wrote I gather that it is  TransporterMan 's opinion that (1) Yeakley is a reliable source, that (2) Yeakley may be directly referred to in the WP article, and that (3) secondary sources are preferable to directly citing Yeakley if they cover enough ground.  I concur with this opinion.  While The Gospel Advocate Company doesn't seem to be reliable source, the Yeakley material does seem to be a reliable source since it's referred to by multiple high quality sources.  The secondary sources fail to cover the normative ground Yeakley does.  This shouldn't be surprising: for various reasons academic presses in general tend to shy away from making normative claims, especially about religious groups. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding link to archived discussion related to this dispute: Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 73 for convenience.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 18:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nietzsche123, I feel we should show the full statement from the DR/N volunteer to better understand their intent. This in no way should be seen as agreement with any participant. This is just for convenience to understand the opinion of the volunteer from the past filing:

--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 18:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally I dislike trying to interpret another volunteers words, but it appears to me that what is being said here is that the Yeakley material can be used as a primary source when used with secondary sources that are confirmed to be reliable to Wikipedia standards. Multiple sources are required for BLP group articles as we are talking about living people. Thoughts?--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 19:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Without overcomplicating, my take on the above is simply: Secondary sources would be best. In light of that I feel that we are in a good place because the secondary sources describe the research without the weightier claims in the later added editors notes. I'm not exactly sure what @Nietzche means by 'normative ground' (it just sounds like he is trying to squeeze an accusation in which is not what encyclopaedias are for). I still stand by the observation that it is a strange place we find ourselves with Gospel Advocate not meeting encyclopedia quality but a few cultic studies journals (with questionable reliability as I've noted on the talk page) making reference to Yeakley. Given RS, BLP and even FRINGE there are enough problems with the fact that Yeakley (1) virtully published his own work, (2) is a communications and church specialist and not a psychologist (his research didn't make it into any major psychology journals) and (3) The journals he is cited in are very niche and even citing them is making a big and disputed claim about the ICOC (notice that established journals like 'The Journal for the Study of Religion' do/would not source from GA). I still opt for us all to look at the previous ruling and consider the prudence of taking Yeakley out altogether. If consensus goes against this then lets err on the side of concise, neutral and secondary sources. JamesLappeman (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I previously stated my take on TransporterMan 's opinion, namely, that while 1) secondary sources (and the higher quality Norton sources in particular) are preferable to citing Yeakley directly, it's permissible to do so, especially where the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground.  The secondary sources fail to mention the normative claims Yeakley makes.  It's not just several Cultic Studies Journal articles that refer to Yeakley; rather, at least two other high quality secondary sources do: 1) a Norton text edited by Michael Langone and 2) a Pastoral Psychology article by written Lewis Rambo.  Yeakley's CV may be found here: http://www.pureheartvision.org/resources/docs/Vita2011.pdf.  He was a professor for over 17 years, earning awards for teaching at Harding University and the Isabel Briggs Myers Memorial Award for Research in the year he published his work on the BCC.  I'm not sure on what grounds JamesLappeman declares that Yeakley isn't a psychologist since he has a BA in psychology and a PhD in speech communication (and has published in a number of psychology journals).  Where the secondary sources cover the ground Yeakley does, I agree that we should use them instead of citing Yeakley directly; but where they fail to cover enough ground, I'm in favor of citing Yeakley directly. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So Cabe & Mark  we are back to the same place we started. @Nietzsche has a predetermined disposition to wanting to use the primary Gospel Advocate material, even though everyone agrees that the GA book of Yeakley's research is regarded as unreliable for Wikipedia (no professional journalists, no editorial board, no evidence of fact checking) yet because @Nietzsche choses to interpret  TransporterMan 's  comments to legitimise the primary GA source, therefore for all practical purposes, anything found in the primary GA book that is not covered in the reliable secondary sources is fair game because the "secondary sources do not cover enough ground". Hence @Nietzsche can conclude above:

Where the secondary sources cover the ground Yeakley does, I agree that we should use them instead of citing Yeakley directly; but where they fail to cover enough ground, I'm in favor of citing Yeakley directly JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, let me ping the participants and see if I can sort this threw enough to further the discussion., and , I would like to make a few observations.


 * The material in question is: "Yeakley, Flavil (1988). The Discipling Dilemma: A Study of the Discipling Movement Among Churches of Christ. Gospel Advocate Company. ISBN 0892253118". The issue; is this reliable enough for Wikipedia standards to use in any way to source content if there are secondary (third party) sources, that should suffice. One editor believes that the secondary mentions are not enough and wishes to source directly from the Yeakley, Gospel Advocate (YGA) source where the secondary sources fall short. A sort of broad interpretation of the dispute, so feel free to correct any mistakes I might make.


 * Some of this has been slightly misperceived I think on both sides and that is not a bad thing. But let me try this.


 * The strength of sources is determined by several factors and in the last DR we seem to have had enough consensus from editors that the YGA was at least good enough to be a primary source, specifically because it had mention in multiple references in third party sources. That in itself means that we are able to at least show the primary source as illustration along with the secondary source references. Now, if there is something that is being cited directly from the secondary source, such as Yeakley's opinion, a quote could perhaps be used from the primary source, if it expands on the secondary mentions, but not if we are interpreting the primary source ourselves independent of the secondary (third party) sources. Thoughts.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 23:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, so, here is where I think we had left off. On 07:50, 8 August 2013, in a reply to JamesLappeman, Cabe6403 responded with clarification about secondary sources not necessarily "legitimizing" a primary source. I believe I have recapped much of what the DR volunteer stated about primary source use with the secondary sources. At 15:08, 8 August 2013, the editor that requested the DR/N stated that they were prepared to return to the talk page to continue discussion on the secondary sources-excluding the primary source being used, which was responded to by Nietzsche123 with concern that they felt Transportationman had indeed clarified that the YGA was a "reliable source" and therefore could be directly cited, "especially where the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground".

Nietzsche123, you may only cite YGA directly if a secondary source as already advanced the information. If the secondary sources fail to sufficiently cover enough ground, we would really need further research and additional sources to fill that in. JamesLappeman, there is no actual reason to exclude the use of the primary source. For example, it may be placed third in line to the two secondary sources as inline citations to illustrate the commentary mentioning YGA. I actually think we are still where we left off, when JamieBrown2011 suggested that this could be closed and taken back to the talk page to discuss. But we just do not need to exclude YGA entirely from the article, it's use just hinges on the secondary sources for any material used. Perhaps a quote from YGA that is covered by commentary in secondary sources? Just a suggestion, not a recommendation. In other words there must be a way to get a consensus for content no matter what it is, and the DR/N won't really tell you what you have to do hear.

We could continue to discuss the content dispute and hash out eactly what is used from YGA if editors even agree that something should be at all. Thoughts?--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 02:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to accept only quoting from YGA if a secondary source has already advanced the information and if the quotes don't go beyond what is advanced by the reliable secondary sources.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that it is Mark 's and Cabe's opinion that YGA be cited directly only if high quality secondary sources cover the same ground, since YGA by itself is not necessarily a reliable source.  But I also understand that it is  TransporterMan 's opinion that YGA may be cited directly, even if secondary sources don't cover the same ground, since YGA is a reliable source (since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources).   TransporterMan, please correct me if I'm wrong.  As I see it, we have two different "rulings" by the DRN board.  If we may only cite YGA directly when the secondary sources cover the same ground, I'm in favor of something like the following summation of Yeakley's research.
 * In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a study of over 900 members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. In order to conduct his study Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test three times to BCC members over extended periods of time (Gasde article citation and Yeakley citation). A majority of the members changed their personality types in the three different versions in convergence with the group's leader (Norton Langone citation (p 39), Gasde article citation (p 58), and Yeakley citation). After completing the study, Yeakley concluded that "there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Norton citation (p 39) and Yeakley citation).
 * What do you all think? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand me at least. I am stating what Transportationman has already helped establish, that the primary source (the YGA) could only be mentioned through secondary sources. Could you demonstrate how you are interpreting Transportationman to be saying what you claim?--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 02:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And I may also be misunderstanding this from : "[T]he Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory". That sounds like we are defining YGA as a RS to be cited when the third party sources do not cover it. So we are saying that there are enough multiple references that YGA is not a primary source in itself and has enough notability to at least allow some use to reference content. Not sure how I feel about referencing any facts though.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark  05:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Nietzsche I am not sure where you are getting your information that Yeakley conducted his tests over an extended period of time, on pg 30 of Yeakley's book he says he conducted his research over 10 days and participants were asked 3 questions and asked to give answers how they perceived their personalities to be before conversion, currently and what they imagined they would be like in 5 years time. Here is the quote: "They were asked to answer the questions three times. One time the members were told to answer the questions the way they think they would have before their conversion-or five years ago for the few who had been members that long. The members were also told to answer the questIons the way they would at that present time. Finally, they were told to answer the questions the way they think they will answer them after they have been discipled for five more years." So stating that the majority of the members changed their personality types is factually incorrect. This was not a longitudinal study. So please word that part correctly. Not sure what @JamesLappeman thinks? Also, I am going to remove all the current GA material from the ICOC article until we reach consensus here.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * JamieBrown2011, if this is true then either it must be explicitly mentioned as Nietzsches current suggested wording is, therefore, factually incorrect or it mustn't be mentioned at all. I don't have access to the source currently, would you be able to quote the relevant sections directly for me here? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Cabe


 * I don't see where Yeakley discusses the duration of his research on page 30 of his work; rather, on page 23 he states that the "initial data-gathering stage" of his research lasted 10 days. On page 24 he goes on to say that the focus of his chapter (and our present discussion) is "a much larger psychological study that involved over 900 members of the congregation".  Regardless, I cannot find where I got my "extended periods of time" from.  In light of that, I'm comfortable dropping the phrase from the summation.  What do you think?
 * <font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark, I think the following quotes from  TransporterMan  are relevant.
 * In my eyes, the first quote suggests that while GA is not a reliable source, Yeakley may be, so long as his work is referenced by high quality secondary sources. And as I read the last two quotes, they suggest that while high quality secondary sources are preferable to citing Yeakley directly, we may cite Yeakley directly, especially where the secondary literature doesn't cover the territory Yeakley does.  -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Nietzsche I think you are missing the point somewhat, the more important misrepresentation in your description of the Yeakley study is not so much in the 10 day timeline of the study but in your comment that "A majority of the members changed their personality types". The reliable secondary sources and Yeakley himself states that the forms were handed out to the 835 church members at a midweek church service and they were asked to answer the questions three times; 1) How they think they would have been before their conversion - or five years ago, 2) How they perceive themselves now (at the time of the study) and 3) How they think they will answer the questions in five years time... Your description is a significant distortion of the facts. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * JamieBrown2011, there is no distortion on my part. I ask that you be more careful with your use of language in the future.  Again, you were wrong to assert that Yeakley's research was conducted over a 10-day period; contrary to what you wrote, Yeakley took 10 days to initially gather data, not to conduct his study of over 900 members.  Both Yeakley and the Langone Norton source state that "a great majority" of members changed their personality types (see previous citations).  So I'm not sure what your concern is. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nietzsche123, you say yourself: "rather, on page 23 he states that the "initial data-gathering stage" of his research lasted 10 days.". From my understanding of the source, the "initial data-gathering" is the questionaires/forms he handed out. Any analysis of the data produced from that may have taken longer, he may have continued to revisit the data and further analyse it for years but the surveys were conducted over a short period of time, this needs to be clear in the article to avoid misrepresenting the source Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 12:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nietzsche123 On pg 37 Yeakley states: "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm."  On pg 31 Yeakley again states: "It should also be understood that this was not a longitudinal study that determined the psychological type of people at three different times. What was indicated was the present psychological type manifested by these people, their perception of their past psychological type, and their perception of their future psychological type." I maintain, your description is a distortion of the facts.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * [WP:BLPGROUP] must have some precedent here even though Yeakley has been quoted in secondary sources. Whatever the eventual consensus I don't think Nietzsche's original claim (even stated in the heading at one point) that the BCC was changing the personality of its members is well enough sourced to carry the weight of the accusation? JamesLappeman (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) and <font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark  are you aware of any past cases where a serious claim itself to BLPGROUP was required to have more than a single source. i.e. there would need to be more than one body of research making the same exact claim in order for it to be included? JamesLappeman (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nietzsche123 On pg 37 Yeakley states: "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm."  On pg 31 Yeakley again states: "It should also be understood that this was not a longitudinal study that determined the psychological type of people at three different times. What was indicated was the present psychological type manifested by these people, their perception of their past psychological type, and their perception of their future psychological type." I maintain, your description is a distortion of the facts.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * [WP:BLPGROUP] must have some precedent here even though Yeakley has been quoted in secondary sources. Whatever the eventual consensus I don't think Nietzsche's original claim (even stated in the heading at one point) that the BCC was changing the personality of its members is well enough sourced to carry the weight of the accusation? JamesLappeman (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) and <font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark  are you aware of any past cases where a serious claim itself to BLPGROUP was required to have more than a single source. i.e. there would need to be more than one body of research making the same exact claim in order for it to be included? JamesLappeman (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If the claim being made can be defined as an extraordinary claim, or one that directly refers to living persons or BLPGROUPS, then it requires more than s single reference.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Mark 17:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In pages 23-24 of his text Yeakley clearly distinguishes the 10-day initial data-gathering stage of his research from the larger psychological study he conducted with over 900 BCC members. The data gathering consists of sitting in on leadership meetings, observing training classes, "Bible Talks", house church meetings, and Sunday worship services.  So where's the distortion on my part?  Again, I'm ready to drop the "over an extended period of time" bit.  JamieBrown2011, as I repeatedly pointed out on the talk page, your quote from page 37 of Yeakley's text is a qualification he makes.  Yeakley's discusses his method on page 24:
 * The following is from pp. 20-21 of his text, where he states the conclusion of his research.
 * Now, if we're only permitted to include material also mentioned by secondary sources, we can't include Yeakley's claim that the BCC is "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" (since none of the secondary literature I'm aware of repeats this claim). But we can and should include his claim that "a great majority of the members of the Boston Church of Christ changed psychological type scores in the past, present, and future versions of the MBTI" (Yeakley p. 34; Norton p. 39; and Gasde p. 58). In light of this, I propose the following (slightly modified from my previous attempted) summation.
 * In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a study of over 900 members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. In order to conduct his study Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test three times to BCC members (Gasde article citation and Yeakley citation). A great majority of the members changed their personality types in the three different versions in convergence with the group's leader (Norton Langone citation (p 39), Gasde article citation (p 58), and Yeakley p. 34).  After completing the study, Yeakley concluded that "there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Norton citation (p 39) and Yeakley citation).  Thoughts? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Now, if we're only permitted to include material also mentioned by secondary sources, we can't include Yeakley's claim that the BCC is "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" (since none of the secondary literature I'm aware of repeats this claim). But we can and should include his claim that "a great majority of the members of the Boston Church of Christ changed psychological type scores in the past, present, and future versions of the MBTI" (Yeakley p. 34; Norton p. 39; and Gasde p. 58). In light of this, I propose the following (slightly modified from my previous attempted) summation.
 * In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a study of over 900 members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. In order to conduct his study Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test three times to BCC members (Gasde article citation and Yeakley citation). A great majority of the members changed their personality types in the three different versions in convergence with the group's leader (Norton Langone citation (p 39), Gasde article citation (p 58), and Yeakley p. 34).  After completing the study, Yeakley concluded that "there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Norton citation (p 39) and Yeakley citation).  Thoughts? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * @Nietzsche Your arguments didn't make sense on the talk page and they make even less sense here.


 * 1st, you are guilty of WP:CHERRYPICKING when you ignor the qualifying information from the same source. Yeakley clearly qualifies his research by stating it was not a longitudinal study and does not prove that anyone actually changed their personalities. By you trying to exclude that qualifying information from your summary it is wrong and misleading.
 * 2nd, you are conducting WP:OR when you say on the talk page the reason Yeakley says his research doesn't prove anyone changed their personalities is because: "Prove" or "proof" are very strong words that (responsible) academics tend to shy away from because so little can actually be proved. You are now interpreting Yeakley's research for yourself which you are not permitted to do. Also, Yeakley himself states "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm." In the very next sentence he is not shying away from using terms "proof" and "prove". Your argument falls flat on both accounts.
 * 3rd, none of the secondary sources make the claim that people changed their personalities. In fact, Giambalvo does quote Yeakley as saying:   The secondary sources reinforce the fact that this was not a longitudinal study on people's actual personality changes over time.
 * 4th, you are edit warring over at the ICOC page. Wikipedia policies state that: poorly sourced and controversial material should be immediately removed. Yet you are trying to force large tracts of material from an unreliable primary source to stay in the article. That is called POV pushing.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If someone's guilty here of WP:CHERRYPICKING, it is you, JamieBrown2011: you ignore Yeakley's conclusion to his own research, one that is cited in the secondary literature, including the highest quality Norton source. My summation accurately states that over 900 BCC church members changed their personality types on Yeakley's tests.  Langone in Norton (p 39) along with Gasde (p 58) repeat Yeakley's claim that over 900 BCC church members changed their personality type.  It's as simple as that.  You seem to be confused about WP:OR.  Explaining to you that Yeakley's qualification is just qualification in no way violates WP:OR.  While The Boston Movement does include the bit you mention, it includes the entire third chapter of The Discipling Movement, including Yeakley's conclusion.  Concerning your accusation of edit-warring, we've left the disputed section of the WP ICOC article on Yeakley alone throughout this entire discussion.  Yet you tried to unilaterally change it yesterday.  The responsible thing to do is let consensus here determine how the bit is worded. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Nietzsche, you seem a little confused. You are the one who has proposed the wording of the Yeakley summary (a few times now) and on each occasion it has been mentioned you are leaving out important qualifying information that is mentioned by both Yeakley and the reliable secondary sources. By deliberately and continuously leaving out those qualifying statements, it is misleading and you are guilty of CHERRYPICKING and POV pushing. Also on a more technical note, of the over 900 people who were surveyed only 835 people actually filled out the three forms asking them their perception of their past, current and future personality types. See page 31 & 32 of Yeakley's book. "The MBTI forms were passed out in Wednesday evening house church meetings. Some members were busy with retreats that weekend and did not have time to take part in the study. No pressure was put on anyone to take part. However, around two-thirds of the members did take part. There were 835 members who filled out all three forms. A few others filled out only one or two. Among the males, 378 filled out the past (p32) form, 402 filled out the present form, and 388 filled out the future form. Among the females, 471 filled out the past form, 478 filled out the present form, and 460 filled out the future form."JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please keep accusations at a minimum, this board is to discuss content not conduct. Nietzsche, you appear to be attempting to selectively decide what to include in the article. If you include survey it must be very clear how the data was obtained. Claiming that 'personality' and 'personality types' are completely different things may technically be true but it's not clear. Basing your defence on semantics is close to wikilawyering. Please propose a version of the text that makes it completely clear what is being discussed in the research. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The MBTI is a personality type measure. Suppose that it's given to a group of 1,000 individuals, all of which are the only members of some college club.  Say that 900 of the 1,000 individuals change their personality type scores on the tests in the same way, that is, that the scores on the test converge to a single type, which happens to be the type of the group’s leader.  While this change in personality type does not prove that there have been personality changes, it does provide evidence that there's an unhealthy element present in the group getting the individuals to converge to a single personality type, that which happens to belong to the group’s leader.    TransporterMan 's previous opinion leads me to believe that while secondary sources are preferable to citing Yeakley directly, we may do so, especially where the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground.  Now we're being told that we may cite Yeakley directly only if the secondary sources cover the same ground.  If that's what we must do, ok.  But JamieBrown2011's bits are not cited by multiple secondary sources.  Rather, one book, The Boston Movement, includes Yeakley's entire third chapter (since the chapter is on the BCC (the name 'The Boston Movement' was name given to the BCC)).  The last thing I want to do is misrepresent Yeakley's research.  My summation accurately depicts Yeakley's conclusion, which is repeated by multiple secondary sources: the highest quality Norton source and the Gasde source, neither of which just includes an entire chapter, as The Boston Movement does.  My summation may be found immediately below.  I changed it in attempt to more completely depict how the data were obtained.  I've also included numerals for each statement.  If someone disputes a portion of it, please state which numeral(s) you're disputing.
 * (1) In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a psychological study of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. (2) In order to conduct his study Yeakley passed out three different Myers-Briggs Type Indicator tests (Yeakley and Gasde citations). (3) The tests asked members to perceive their past, current, and future personality types (Norton p 39, Gasde p 58, and Yeakley citations).  (4) While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals completed all three forms.  (5) A great majority of those respondents changed their personality type scores on the three different tests in convergence with a single type: that of the group's leader (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58, and Yeakley p. 34).  (6) After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way.  The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Yeakley citation p 37) -Nietzsche123 (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This is real progress. Thanks @Nietszche, this is a much more balanced description of the research. My suggested changes would be to keep the sourcing and wording closer to the secondary sources: Hence:

(1) In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. (2) In order to conduct his study Yeakley asked them to respond to each item one time as they would have responded before their conversion, a second time as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and a third time as they imagined themselves answering in five more years after discipling (4) While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals actually completed all three forms. (5) Nearly all respondents tended to change their psychological type scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the direction in which these changes occurred was towards the personality of the leader. (Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2) (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58). (6) After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way.  The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Giambalvo and Rosedale, Carol and Herbert (1997). The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ, book on page 219)
 * Thoughts?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * JamieBrown2011, thank you for your suggestion. But I'm afraid that we cannot use your summation, or at least your (2) and (5): it's plagiarism since you repeat word for word what a secondary source wrote without using quotation marks.  Being that we already have a large quote in (6), I'm more in favor of a paraphrase, hence my (2) and (5).  If there's something specific about either that you dispute (even if it's minor wording), that's fine; I'm of course open to changing them.  But if there's nothing in it you dispute, I'm inclined to keeping it.  Plus, while you repeat what Gasde writes, my summary better tracks both what the higher quality Norton source and Yeakley himself wrote. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We seem to be getting closer. Nietzsche123 Just confirming that you don't want to use your original heading: "Members Personality Changes" anymore? Are you thinking we go with the later option of "Yeakley's 1985 Research on the BCC" or maybe take the heading away and move it under another section? (I'm less inclined for it to be a free standing section rather than a paragraph possibly on the BCC). Any thoughts? As for the above discussion on (2) and (5) i'll take a look and get back to JamieBrown2011 & Nietzsche123 soon. JamesLappeman (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think my original heading was 'ICOC members' personality changes'. Regardless, it shouldn't be the title if we're only permitted to cite Yeakley when secondary sources refer to him.  Yeakley's claim that the BCC changes the personalities of its members isn't repeated (as far as I'm aware) by secondary sources.  But I'm also not a fan of 'Yeakley's 1985 research on the BCC'.  For one thing, it's not descriptive enough.  For another, Yeakley's research on the BCC consists of other things besides the psychological study we're discussing here: the psychological study in question represents one of his numerous chapters about his research on the BCC in his book.  So I'm more in favor of something like 'Yeakley's 1985 psychological study on the BCC'.  By the way, 'psychological study' isn't my own term: Yeakley uses it to describe this portion of his research starting with his table of contents and continues using the term throughout chapter two of his text.  I'm also inclined to think that Yeakley's study should receive its own section.  I would think that the BCC section should discuss the history of the Boston Church of Christ, not necessarily a psychological study completed by an academic and Church of Christ minister. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"psychological study" sounds a little too close to an accusation of brainwashing. MBTI is most common as a personality assessment to help people choose an appropriate career path. Maybe its safer to head it 'Flavil Yeakley's 1985 study on the BCC' (@Nietzsche's suggestion but without "psychological"). Then when people read the section it will explain. JamesLappeman (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have also been reading over Nietzsche123 and JamieBrown2011's versions. My take is that while it may be preferable to paraphrase, the sensitivity that we have all had to deal with over primary and secondary sources leads me to think that we should go with JamieBrown2011's as is. It is clear (as requested by Cabe  6403  ), properly sourced as per the help from the DRN volunteers and because it is properly referenced the accusation of plagiarism is a bit overstated. Please read it again and maybe we can close the chapter:JamesLappeman (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand how the term 'psychological study' implies or even suggests brainwashing. Yeakley states that researchers have conducted psychological studies of other churches, many of which haven't been accused of brainwashing their members.  Plus, it's Yeakley's own term for the research we're discussing here.  I agree that we need to be sensitive when paraphrasing secondary sources.  I contend that my paraphrase does just that.  An electronic copy of the entire Gasde article may be found here: http://www.csj.org/pub_csj/csj_vol15_no2_98/cutexperiencetext.htm.  The relevant portion occurs very early on in the article.  You'll have to get the Norton source from a library; the relevant page is 39.  Jaimie's summation plagiarizes I'm concerned with Jaime's summation since it repeats word-for-word what Gasde says about Yeakley's study.  You have to use quotation marks to avoid plagiarism.  You should always use quotation marks when repeating what another author writes.  But being that we have a large quotation already in statement (6), I'm still in favor of paraphrasing.  Plus, we were previously directed to use as much of the higher quality Norton source as possible.  My paraphrase does just that.  What specific points of my paraphrases (if any) do you think should be changed?  Last thing: I don't think we should cite The Boston Movement: the book just repeats an entire chapter from Yeakley.  The other sources cite Yeakley directly in their works, not repeat a chapter.  Thoughts? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have modified it:

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Jamie, while I think this makes some progress, I'm still concerned with it, since: 1) you still repeat word for word a sentence from the Gasde article, and 2) you seem to paraphrase the other two sentences by just changing a few words here and there. Generally, we should paraphrase by putting the author's words in our own. That's what I tried to do with my summation, which I include below.

I think it has a number of advantages over your summation. First, it's shorter, but not so short that we lose something from the study. It also better tracks the higher quality Norton source. Also, my (2), (3), and (5) paraphrase instead of either repeating word for word or nearly repeating word for word. I know I've asked this several times now; but I'm curious. JamesLappeman, please feel free to chime in, too. What is it about my summation (or at least (2), (3), and (5)), particularly, that you find wrong? If it's just that you prefer to keep out Yeakley's term 'psychological study', I'm okay with that. But then we'd need to slightly change the rest. That is, I'm fine with the following:

Notice that I cite Yeakley instead of The Boston Movement in (6). I explicated my rational above. Jamie also quotes Gasde twice in his (5). If this is unacceptable to JamesLappeman and JamieBrown2011, I'm afraid we're at a stalemate and hence need <font face="Verdana"> Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) and Mark Miller to help us decide which to use. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As tedious as this is, we have made more progress in the last week here than we made in 3 months over at the talk page. I think we are very close to a version we all agree on. @Nietzsche your final version is much better with two issues. 1) You continue to cite 'Gospel Advocate' as a reference whenever you cite 'Yeakley' directly. GA is a primary source with no editorial board and no evidence of fact checking, which is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Since the reliable secondary sources cover the same ground being referenced here, I think it is better practice and preferable to stick with those sources and references. 2) Also, using terms like "A great majority" is also discouraged on Wikipedia as it is regarding as PEACOCKING or using peacock adjectives . Finally, since conciseness is important, I have made a few tweaks and replaced the two other mentions of the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator Test with (MBTI) and removed the (BCC) since that is not referred to again. So:

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you, JamieBrown2011. I like your use of 'MBTI' over my continued use of the long name. But I must insist that we cite Yeakley directly. No one has ever said that we cannot cite Yeakley directly, period. Rather we are now being told that we may cite Yeakley directly only when he is cited by secondary sources. So we really must include the Yeakley citations (along with the secondary ones). I disagree about 'a great majority' violating peacock adjectives since both Yeakley himself and the high quality Norton source use the term 'a great majority'. Heck, Gasde herself uses 'nearly all respondents'. So I insist that we use something like what Yeakley and the secondary sources employ. The only other apparent disagreement we have is over (5)', where you cite The Boston Movement instead of Yeakley directly. While I don't think we should cite The Boston Movement here because it merely repeats an entire chapter from The Discipling Dilemma, I'd much prefer that we cite Yeakley directly here, too, rather than not citing him at all. <font face="Verdana"> Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) and Mark Miller, care to weigh in? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This whole DRN has been about the use of secondary sources instead of Gospel Advocate. The volunteer moderators asked us to use the secondary sources (you can read the discussion again) and said that they would help us settle on wording. Nietzsche123 you keep on talking about using the "higher quality" Norton source but as soon as there is an attempt to write the article in a way that wont be confused with an strong accusatory claim then you jump onto the extremely "low quality" Gospel Advocate as a source to rewrite (claiming that we can use it when the others don't cover enough ground). "enough ground" means to have a clear overview of the research and a balanced explanation of the findings. This JamieBrown2011 has done. JamesLappeman (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * JamesLappeman, I'm confused by what you write. The volunteer moderators never told us to not cite Yeakley directly; rather, they've suggested that we only cite him directly when secondary sources cite him.  I'm not the one who called Norton the highest quality of the secondary sources; I'm just repeating what Transporterman said.  WW Norton is an esteemed publisher; so it makes sense that the articles it contains are of higher quality than the rest.  You make several accusations in what you say immediately above, but I can't decipher what you specifically mean.  Again, do you contest any of the statements in Jaime's or mine summations?  If so, which statement?  The only difference between his and my summation is (4)'.  I've given at least two reasons for preferring mine to his.  I also contend that we should cite Yeakley directly in the summation, in addition to the secondary sources. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See this from Mark: "Nietzsche123, you may only cite YGA directly if a secondary source as already advanced the information. If the secondary sources fail to sufficiently cover enough ground, we would really need further research and additional sources to fill that in. JamesLappeman, there is no actual reason to exclude the use of the primary source. For example, it may be placed third in line to the two secondary sources as inline citations to illustrate the commentary mentioning YGA". So we should cite Yeakley in the summation, even if it's the last of the available citations. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Taking into account Jamie's most recent summation and my comments I arrive at the following summation.

What do you all think? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey folks, I was pulled away with IRL stuff this past week. Appologies. Looks like you're doing a great job working together to come up with a version everyone agrees with Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Cabe yes we have made much progress, which is very positive. @Nietzsche you say in your last post "taking into account Jamie's suggestions..." but looking more closely you barely changed anything at all. Also, from your previous post to be "Insisting" that your suggestions and references be adopted is inappropriate and not very Wikipedian. We will not make much further progress towards the conclusion of this matter if you stick to that position.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Jaime, our summations only differ by one statement now: (4)'. I've taken into account your suggestions at least three times now, compromising on what I think should be included as the summation.  When have you compromised?  Yes, I insist that we 1) cite Yeakley directly as a source when secondary sources cite him and 2) that when we paraphrase the secondary literature we do it right by using similar (but not identical) language as they use.  If you think that insisting that we maintain good citation practices is preventing us from making further progress, then I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Broadchurch#Miller family
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The last sentence of the paragraph about Joe Miller is "In the final episode, Joe is revealed to have killed Danny". I have attempted to remove this as it does nothing to ensure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served as per WP:SPOILER "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served". Because this information is already included on same page in the episode synopsis there would seem to be no reason to duplicate it where a reader would not expect to find it. Sonicdrewdriver and I are in disagreement.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Please see the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Broadchurch#Major_Spoiler_warning

How do you think we can help?

As the spoiler is already included in the page, to my mind there is no need to duplicate this spoiler so that a reader completely unexpectedly stumbles on it, and thus risk alienating the reader. Rather than leading to an edit war, I would appreciate other viewpoints.

Summary of dispute by Sonicdrewdriver
As far as WP:SPOILER goes, we shouldn't censor Wikipedia to preserve narrative. That is what we'd be doing by removing the information on the identity of the murderer from their entry in the character biographies; the main character trait (that they were the murderer around which the entire series is based) should be included in the biography of said character. This has been supported previously, including by an admin (Ged UK) who saw it necessary to semi-protect the article to ensure this remains in place. The user who initiated today's dispute believes that the revelation has a place only in the synopsis for the episode in which it is revealed, but this severely limits the ability to find the information; we should provide information in a way that it isn't necessary to follow the entire narrative (read all episode summaries for the entire series) to reach one bit of information. It is my opinion (and one echoed by many other users) that we should not have to preserve such revelations in any way on the page about the subject, but that it is up to the reader what they decide to navigate to. There is no reason, in my opinion, that a reader visiting an encyclopaedic article on a murderer mystery can expect to do so without finding out who the murder is.

Broadchurch#Miller family discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm a regular volunteer here. Rather than talking about the identity of the murderer for a moment, let's talk about the fact that Mark Latimer is having an affair with Becca Fisher. That plot point is mentioned both in the character biography of Mark Latimer and in the episode synopsis for episode 1.3. Is the fact that it is mentioned twice objectionable? No, because it is important in both places: It's needed to give the essential facts about Mark Latimer and it's also needed to give a complete synopsis of the episode. If this were a minor or incidental fact mentioned in the synopsis about the character, say that he was driving and turned left onto such-and-such street, where the fact that he turned left was needed to make the plot make sense but said nothing about the character himself, then there would indeed be a good argument that there would be no encyclopedic purpose served by mentioning it in the biography. Indeed, most of the information in the character biographies is repeated in both places for that very reason and serves an encyclopedic purpose in that way: they're important both to understanding the character and to understanding the plot. Mere repetition of matters which are significant to both the character and the plot is, thus, clearly not unencyclopedic. It simply cannot be argued that the identity of the killer is not significant to both his biography and to the plot. The repetition of the fact that the character is the killer is clearly as appropriate in both places as is the fact that Latimer is having an affair. The only difference is that the identity of the killer is a spoiler and we do not make editorial decisions based on whether or not a particular fact is a spoiler. The information should stay in the character biography. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input TransporterMan, I can see your point, although I do not completely agree with the analogy. It is of course necessary for Wikipedia to remain encyclopedic, however there is also the necessity to balance this with usability. WP:SPOILER allows for this where it is stated section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers.. To do otherwise, to spring a spoiler on an unsuspecting reader completely by surprise, especially for a series that is topical, displays a complete lack of consideration for others. I can see no logical reason why the single sentence revealing the killer as Joe should remain in the biography, especially when doing otherwise comes across as unnecessarily mean spirited. Clivel 0 (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

While this is under dispute I am going to remove the spoiler, and the spoiler should stay removed until the dispute is resolved. Clearly from the number of attempts at removing the spoiler or alternatively attempts at warning about the spoiler, this spoiler is affecting many readers negatively. And given that only a very small percentage of Wikipedia users are comfortable with making changes, I think that it is safe to assume that a far larger number of people have been impacted negatively by the spoiler. So, while the section is under dispute, I think that it is fair to err on the side that causes the least offence to the most Wikipedia users. To do otherwise is in my opinion just plain mean spirited. Clivel 0 (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I do have a fundamental problem with the re-re-re-removal of the spoiler, even if you're removing it for the good of the viewers until the dispute is resolved, because you're essentially perpetuating the same edit war that you ostensibly wish to avoid. That said, I've no plan to restore the info until the dispute is resolved. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, here are my arguments in favor of including the information: WP:SPOILER makes it clear that information about the show, even information that spoils enjoyment, should not be cut if it interferes with completeness. Revealing a killer's identity is a noteworthy event in the artistic work that seems to intuitively belong in the description for that character, as well as in the episode summary. We might be losing sight of the fact that Wikipedia is an academic tool, not an entertainment guide, so we must maintain focus and priority on the academic uses of the Broadchurch article, not just on the recreational and entertainment uses. Yes, people interested in the show will look at the article and will have information spoiled. Caveat lector. But a film student, or an aspiring writer who is researching the series may need access to this information, and shouldn't be expected to watch the entire series to get it. Thus, the inclusion of this information has academic and encyclopedic purpose. Further, the following from WP:SPOILER is a persuasive reason to keep the information in the article: Labeling (or cutting) a plot detail "as a spoiler would require editors to use their own subjective opinions to interpret the significance of a plot detail and its likelihood of altering the enjoyment of the work of fiction. This would be a violation of Wikipedia's core policies of no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view." I think this is fairly clear. (Disclosure: I added "(or cutting)" to make the point that labeling and censoring would both be in vio of this principle.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Regarding Broadchurch specifically, it is not that I wish to remove the spoiler completely, it is still there for all to see in the synopsis of the final episode where it may reasonably be expected and reasonably be found by an academic while researching. My objection is to the duplicated spoiler in the character biography where many readers have come upon it completely unexpectedly i.e the section heading has not given these readers any clue that a spoiler may be present. I still feel that the duplicated spoiler does nothing to enhance the completeness of the article yet very much spoils the enjoyment for many readers. The two do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. Clivel 0 (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC) This seems fairly unambiguous to me. As it pertains to this discussion, Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings, except for sections such as (but not limited to) "Plot", where spoilers are implied. So if spoilers are implicit to a Plot section, why are they not also implicit to a Characters section? I disagree that including details about the killer in the killer's relevant character synopsis does "nothing" to enhance the completeness. We expect to read about characters in the character section, and we expect to find out when the killer is revealed in the episodes section. There are other examples of duplicate information existing in the article, as TransporterMan also pointed out. Further, WP:SPOILER states, "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." I understand and appreciate your argument, but I don't agree with it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In general I feel that it would make Wikipedia more usable if spoiler warnings were considered acceptable, especially for shows that are current. But of course this is not the correct forum to debate the general case. However, based on WP:SPOILER in its present form it is acceptable to provide hints to the user that a spoiler may be present by means of section headings "which imply the presence of spoilers".
 * I think you might be misinterpreting what WP:SPOILER is saying. The text reads: "Wikipedia previously included such warnings in some articles, but no longer does so, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers."
 * Hopefully someone else jumps in with fresh ideas, because for now we seem to be going around in circles as we both have reasonable arguments (I think). I would just like to point out though, that judging from the number of people who tried to remove the spoiler from the Character section in comparison to the far fewer that tried to remove it from the Plot, it is reasonable to assume that these people did not think that a spoiler was implicit to the Character section. And assuming that only a very small percentage of Wikipedia users are comfortable with editing, we can extrapolate that to a far larger group of people. Clivel 0 (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I dropped a request for community input at WikiProject Television. I tried to keep it neutral without editorializing. Hope I did okay. If not, lemme know and I'll edit it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm here in response to Cyphoidbomb's request at WT:TV. As pointed out above, WP:SPOILER quite clearly states "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." Spoiler removals are regularly reverted because of that. Per WP:NODISCLAIMERS, we do not include "spoiler warnings" in articles. I do not watch this program, indeed I had never heard of it until today but, having read the article it seems this is an important plot point so its use is encyclopaedic and I can see no reason why it should be removed. To do so would not be in line with the general consensus to treat content ecyclopaedically and not concern ourselves with spoilers. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fan-site. If you don't want to see spoilers, visit a fan-site, not an encyclopaedia. Regarding this edit by User:Clivel 0, I'd like to direct him to WP:STATUSQUO. When there is a content dispute the status quo, ie the version that was in place before the current dispute started, prevails. From the edit history that would seem to be this revision. Given that WP:SPOILER is a widely accepted part of the MOS, I don't see this discussion as a DRN issue. If Clivel 0 really wants to remove the content he needs to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler and (try to) gain a new consensus to remove spoilers. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've tried to stay out of this for a while, and it's nice to see that I'm not alone in my opinion on the existence of the spoiler. For those who may not have read my reasoning in the original debate, I put Batman Begins forward as an example of where this is also evident. A fairly important revelation is listed both in the plot, and in the character biography for those involved. Clivel, in response to your point on spoiler warnings ("especially for shows that are current"), I foresee this becoming a huge issue if it were to be enforced. It's been around 6 months since it finished in the UK (home turf), and since then, it's been syndicated worldwide for repeated transmission internationally. When does it not become "current"? Shows like Spooks, 24, and Taggart are still being repeated now worldwide, so should their articles still behave as if they are current? What about us in the UK? We want a comprehensive article on the subject, why should our experience of Wikipedia be plastered with spoiler warnings because it's being repeated in the US? This blurring of the lines wouldn't be appropriate, and cause much more hassle than it would allow beneficial change. I agree with the points put across by Cyphoid and Aussie, in that we should not pander to the fans of television programmes, we are an academic resource. As I said there, and I hope you can see that I am not the only one who feels this way now, if you don't want to see spoilers, then it is not wise to read the character biographies on the article of a programme that aired. I noted during the original discussion that a similar thing happened recently to me, in that I read the character page for a television programme that I had not watched the latest episode for, and I was stung. Although I was annoyed, it was at myself not at Wikipedia. Whoever added that content to that page was doing the right thing, it was I that wasn't thinking clearly by reading it. As the point of the entire series was that it was leading up to the reveal of a killer, I can't understand why people would consider it safe to read anything about it, knowing that somewhere, not only has the killer already been revealed, but that it was big news, and now old news. I don't really want to make this more complex than it is at the moment, so I won't reinstate the spoiler myself at this time, but I would point out that per WP:BRD, it should really remain in place. The existence of it was not considered bold, the 'spoiler' remained in place undisturbed (by anyone who understood WP:SPOILER) until you challenged it. Your removal was, then, the bold component, so it should remain in place until this discussion closes. drewmunn talk 11:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

AussieLegend thank you for your input, although I think that you missed my main point probably due to waffling on my part - To paraphrase WP:SPOILER: I feel that the spoiler in the episode summary ensures that the first requirement is met, however to my mind, the additional spoiler in the Character section contradicts the last point (which is admittedly only a suggestion), if only in spirit. At this point there is not much more that I can add, so I will just have to agree to disagree. In that light I suggest that unless there is additional input within a reasonable period of time (24 hours ?) the spoiler is reinstated and I will consider it closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clivel 0 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Spoilers are necessary to maintain the integrity of an article, which I agree with.
 * Warnings should not be given - Which I personally disagree with, but can understand and accept why it is like it is.
 * However, it is also acceptable to give the reader a hint that a spoiler may be present by means of section headings "which imply the presence of spoilers".


 * "it is also acceptable to give the reader a hint that a spoiler may be present by means of section headings "which imply the presence of spoilers"." - I'm afraid that you are misinterpreting WP:SPOILER. What it actually says is simply that headings such as "Plot" or "Ending" imply the presence of spoilers, not that we should include warnings. "Ending" is not a common heading but "Plot" is supposed to be used in every TV article, per MOS:TV. If you see "plot" or "ending" in an encyclopaedia you have to expect spoilers. WP:NODISCLAIMERS specifically mentions disclaimers like "Spoiler ahead" and then goes on to say "While ideas like this have been continually proposed, the consensus is that they should not be used." Hinting at spoilers by any means other than standard headings such as "plot" is simply not done. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I also attempted to argue that WP:SPOILER does not limit spoilers to Plot and Ending, it simply uses them as examples of article sections that have implicit spoilers. I believe "Characters" would be another section where spoilers would be implicit, as we might discuss certain elements of the characters' personalities, their names or their fates, or even the actors who portrayed them, all of which could present spoilers. Okay, dead horse beaten.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Closing comments: AussieLegend and Cyphoidbomb are absolutely correct that WP:SPOILER does not limit spoilers to Plot and Ending sections. What it does do is to say that we do not take spoilers into consideration in drafting text. Clivel 0 says that he has reasonable arguments and that is true, but those arguments can only be implemented in one of two ways. He can seek to establish a local exception to policy at this particular article, but to do that he must establish a consensus for that and he does not have one. Alternatively, he can seek to change the spoiler rule, but due to WP:CONLIMITED that cannot be done either here or at the article talk page, but must be done at WP:SPOILER following the procedure set out in the policy policy (not a typo). Other than doing one of those two things, Clivel 0 can only argue against what is a clear application of policy against his position and policy can be ignored only in one of those two ways: consensus or changing the policy. There is nothing to discuss further here. Clivel 0 can either file a request for comments to seek a local exception at the article talk page or seek to change the policy. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

FC Steaua București
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute See also User_talk:Jamesx12345 for additional dialogue. Jamesx12345 20:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Users involved Dispute overview

The dispute is over the history of the football club Steaua Bucuresti. The current form of the two wikipedia articles regarding this subject, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti are basically written by club employees who attempt to re-write history, regardless of well known historical facts described by multiple sources. When I tried to edit this articles another editor simply reverts any changes made, regardless of arguments given and references. More important, this editor refuses to use the talk page, violates the 3 reverts rules and has no arguments whatsoever to support the ludicrous affirmations currently displayed on these two articles. This editor also resorted to personal attacks in his comments made on the revision history.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I opened a discussion on the talk page, provided references for the edits and added arguments on the revision history when making edits.

How do you think we can help?

I need someone to simply take a look at the arguments listed in the original text and in my edits, IMO the informations that I added speak for themselves. Perhaps having a neutral 3rd party to write another edit would be a good idea.

Summary of dispute by Narcis90
Optimvs, tried to write from his point of view in a malicious way about Steaua's history. This is the single article on internet about what hi wrote & is his blog http://optimvs.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/steaua-bucuresti-buboiul-bolsevic-de-pe-obrazul-fotbalului-romanesc/ In fact he created his wikipedia account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Optimvs, specially for write this things about Steaua.

FC Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

As you can see this editor continues with personal attacks and with posting false informations. As my account history clearly proves, I did not created it for Steaua. As a matter of fact, if it wasn't for Marcis90's edit warring, I wouldn't have paid much attention to Steaua's history, since the informations he tries so hard to eliminate from those two articles are well known historical facts. (same as those that I added on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traian_Basescu ) As for the rest of his "accusations", the informations posted on my blog are 100% accurate as well, as anyone who can read Romanian can confirm. Fact is that Steaua employees are simply trying to re-write the history of the club because they are ashamed of the communist past of their team. Of course, their attempt has nothing to do with the goals of wikipedia and should not be tolerated.

Optimvs (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

HEMU
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Hemu was born in a Brahmin family, to Saint Puran Das, who was a Purohit and involved in performing Hindu religious ceremonies and rituals. On growing up Hemu got involved in business. Some historians have written him a Vaishya by birth (instead of Brahmin), which is absolutely wrong and needs to be changed on the page. One editor refuses to accept several citations and claims from Hemu's community and decendents that he was a Brahmin. Discussions are on talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Put citations and necessary information on talk page of Hemu and talk page of editor Sitush

How do you think we can help?

Please depute some editor who understands indian caste system and decide on Hemu's caste by birth and profession.

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

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