Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-17/Emerson, Lake & Palmer

Where's the dispute?
On Emerson Lake and Palmer's criticism section: Talk:Emerson, Lake & Palmer.

What's the dispute?

 * Comment by UhOhFeeling:

I believe the blender article is valid criticism. We see all the time articles with "Rolling Stone ranked them such and such on their list of so and so." Other user claims the criticism doesn't use enough "reason" for his taste.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by TJRC:

First, I think UhOhFeeling dramatically misrepresents the opposition to this piece, and I invite mediators to review the discussion on the talk page. Beyond that:


 * On the substantive issue:
 * The information sought to be included does not amount to serious criticism of the article subject. Blender (magazine) is not a magazine devoted to serious musical criticism.  When it was in print, it was best known for what its Wikipedia article generously calls "sometimes steamy pictorials of female celebrities."  In short, Blender was a lad mag, with some music content.


 * I wouldn't have a problem with that, if this were serious criticism. Playboy, for example, is known for having published some serious musical criticism.  But a look at this article,, shows that this is in no way serious criticism.  It's tongue-in-cheek commentary.  So apart from the merits of Blender as a source, this particular piece is just a bunch of bullet points.  It is nowhere near the type of criticism contemplated by WP:CRITICISM.


 * Real criticism of Emerson Lake and Palmer should not be difficult to come by. I would expect that someone with access to Nexis or a similar database could find contemporary reviews of the band that were negative (not that WP:CRITICISM requires or suggests that "criticism" should be negative, of course; quite the opposite).  A search for the band name and adjectives such as "bombastic" or "pretentious" would most likely yield a lot of useful material.  In short, there exists some appropriate criticism of ELP that I would support including in the article, regardless of whether it is positive or negative.  But it should be something substantive, not a bullet point from Blender.


 * My objection is not that the criticism "doesn't use enough 'reason' for [my] taste"; It is that this is not criticism in any meaningful sense.  It adds nothing to the subject of the article, and is purely a point of trivia about a Blender writer's opinions, not about the subject itself.  Again, I would welcome the inclusion of actual criticism in this article.


 * UhOhFeeling has made similar edits on Yngwie Malmsteen and gotten into a similar edit war on that article, for substantially the same reasons . This was twice reverted, but unlike on the ELP article, he seems to have worn down the editor in that article.


 * On the issue of consensus:


 * UhOhFeeling added this section on March 9 and has re-added it several times .  No other editor seeks to add this material.


 * In addition to my deletion of it, it has been deleted by other editors: IP editors 76.120.131.60  , ; and 200.8.23.229


 * One editor (Wiki libs) previously reverted the deletion of the Blender reference . However, after the discussion commenced, that editor apparently has reversed his position (or perhaps had reverted in error), stating "The Blender blurb is just a useless trivia bit. Its inclusion doesn't improve the article at all. Leave it out."


 * In addition to the discussion at the talk page, I posted a neutrally-worded invitation for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, to assist in establishing consensus. The talk page comment by Wiki libs may have been in response to that effort.


 * In short, no one other than UhOhFeeling supports adding this material. The consensus is clearly against its inclusion. TJRC (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsolicited Comment
I'm not sure what the protocol is for adding a comment as an outside observer to the dispute, but I'm going to be bold and add it here, knowing that if I've stepped out of bounds someone will gently let me know.

Speaking as someone who often leans deletionist, I find that I come down in this instance in favor of inclusion. I do agree with TJRC that this is a relatively weak source and if more substantive criticism is found, it should be added and may in fact render this item redundant. However, I don't think we can exclude a contribution on the basis that there might be a better version of the contribution lurking out there somewhere (this is almost always true to some extent, if you think about it; I thought the Wikipedia philosophy was to improve weak content, not reject it outright). As TJ points out, there has been abundant criticism of this band over the years, both from "true" sources and among various fan bases, but you wouldn't know it from reading the article as it is. The Blender item at least serves notice that such opinion exists; I also trust users will consider the source and make up their own mind as to the item's value rather than have us decide for them. Jgm (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia please help
I've been waiting weeks for a mediator to help out this discussion and no help. All I really want is an outside voice to comment with some wiki credibility. Please help. Thanks. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Be right with you. Might take a couple of hours. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Essentially, the dispute boils down to this: In any contentious dispute, we want the highest quality of sources. Certainly there are sources out there that offer valid criticism from a more reputable source? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Party A says the cited article is valid criticism
 * Party B says the cited article isn't valid criticism


 * I find JGM's argument "I don't think we can exclude a contribution on the basis that there might be a better version of the contribution lurking out there somewhere" solid. I don't see why this isn't a worthwhile source. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, so long as the source isn't unreliable. It does appear to be of questionable reliability to other folks, though. Can I get their opinions? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In my experience, they have been more concerned with "consensus" and reverting than discussion.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So what do we do if they don't care to discuss the issue?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be an active disagreement at the moment; there hasn't been much discussion on the talk page, nor many edits to the article. I'll keep the case open for when discussion jump-starts. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Any chance we can jump start this discussion? The article has no mention of criticism of ELP even though, as many editors note, there was rampant criticism of the band. Therefore there is an undue weight problem. I have an article that is a reliable source which criticizes the group. However, some editors do not believe it should be in ELP's page. I do not believe there has been a single good reason for not admitting the article and I believe there are good reasons for admitting it. Please help. I would love to get some unbiased opinions on this.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)