The article currently contains the text:
'Black and Gass gave them the choice between "Pets or Meat", "Balboa's Biblical Theatre", and "The Axe Lords Featuring Gorgazon’s Mischief" (Gass' personal favorite).[11] "Tenacious D"—a term used by sports commentators to describe robust defensive positioning in basketball—did not get the majority of votes, however, but according to Black "we forced it through".[11][13]'
This has been changed from a previous version (by myself) which specified a particular commentator who used the term, resulting in a minor edit war over which commentator invented the term.
Please be aware that neither named commentator was referenced as the inventor. So, to avoid further edit warring, the contentious text was removed. Anyone wishing to re-add the inventor with a cited reference may feel free to do so - although I would contend that the originator of the term is somewhat irrelevant to the article, as it is currently structured. Metao (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- The editor has attempted to include two sources so far, unfortunately the first did not satisfy WP:RS and the second (a Google Books search result) did not actually reference the term at all. The book returned does reference the term, but does not make a claim as to the origin of the term, which is what is being asserted. I have reverted the changes again. Metao (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Response to Third Opinion Request: |
| Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Tenacious D and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. |
|
Opinion: I've also looked at the discussions at User_talk:Metao#stop_changing_the_tenacious_d_article and at User_talk:Jeff62284#Tenacious D. I presume that the two references in question are this one and this one. Metao's assessment of those references is correct. Per Wikipedia policy, as set out in the first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"; information must be sourced from a reliable source and if it cannot be so sourced, it cannot be included. The Frazier assertion and the references which support it should not be included in the article. A warning to both editors: The three revert rule is merely a bright-line rule and it expressly says, "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." What's going on here is clearly an edit war and I must warn you that you stand a risk of having this page protected and/or being blocked from editing if it continues. Decide it by discussion, do a RFC, take it to MedCab, or use some other form of dispute resolution, but stop reverting. |
|
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC) |