Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 17

Haredi Judaism discussion

Halma10, we've only had one relatively brief discussion about this topic, at Talk:Haredi Judaism#Terminology section cleanup, in which I stated that you could add whatever you liked to the section so long as it was not original research, and was supported by reliable secondary sources. Your response was to insist you didn't need sources for your material, and to attack me personally. I can't change Wikipedia policy; have you found any reliable secondary sources that support your position? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have written quite at length piece on this in the discussion. I would encourage to read and address what I have written, both here and in the discussion. I am not necessarily critical of a given sentence, but of the entire section and its editorial style. Particularly, that it gives a misleading impression of a signification controversy - and it is not set in any relative context. Wikipedia should be informative of a controversy, not incite it. There won't be a source which states that the term "ultra-Orthodox" is relatively uncontentious, precisely because it is not a particularly contentious issue. As I stated, the Oxford English Dictionary use "ultra-Orthodox" as the translation for Haredi - and makes no mention of it being contentious.

Furthermore, the statement that this issue is controversial, with no citation that it is controversial, also constitute original research. This is precisely the same as stating that the term is widely used, and then citing established sources who use the term.--Halma10 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your specific claim that "the statement that this issue is controversial, with no citation that it is controversial, also constitute original research": There is, in fact, a footnote in the article immediately following the statement "Its use can also be controversial", which leads to a citation which includes the following quote: "The term Ultra-Orthodox, though controversial, often refers to Haredi Judaism or Hasidic Judaism...". It could therefore hardly be considered to be "original research".

Regarding the rest, I don't know what to say, except to repeat that I can't change Wikipedia policy, and you need reliable secondary sources for claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read my comments (although you have addressed one of the issues). This is an editorial dispute, not a citation of a given statement. --Halma10 (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between providing a general overview of a topic (as much of wikipedia is and is uncited), and making a specific claim which does need a source. For example, on the page Black people it gives a general overview "The term black people is used in systems of racial classification for humans of a dark skinned phenotype, relative to other racial groups." There is no citation there, and any use of examples in this would classify as original research according to your description? Would you go through the whole page on Haredi Judaism and delete 70% of the wording? since they do not fulfill your interpretation of wiki's policy. --Halma10 (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed some of my past comments on this issue and can understand why there is some confusion. There are two issues: 1) that of the editorial style and 2) that of addressing some specific statements. I note from our previous discussions that you have focused on the latter. I am happy to discuss issues as and when they come along and I have agreed with you where relevant. However, my main source of concern on this entire article - is that of the editorial style of the terminology section (some of which I describe above), and also of the article as a whole. A reader would find themselves to be quite confused and will also find some inconsistencies. The article is very poorly structured (and unnecessarily long in parts). There is also a significant amount of essay-style writing in some parts of the article. I am, therefore, happy to close this dispute here - as we seem to be debating two broadly different matters. It's a shame that there aren't any expert editors on this article who can focus on its layout and structure. --Halma10 (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hindhead Tunnel discussion

Firstly, let me say that I was surprised to see notification of this "dispute" on my talkpage - as I was not aware that there was a dispute over this as such. The article hasn't been modified for about a week.

Secondly, I do not recognise the summary above as a neutral and factual representation of the situation in the article itself; for the following reasons:

1. The article is about a UK road scheme. In the UK "cubic yards" and "imperial gallons" are not "little known" units - they are mainstream units in common and widespread use amongst the population.

2. I have no more "continually" reverted back than the other editors have.

3. I have not reverted back to "all-imperial" at all. The units used in the article had consistently and stably been dual units (imperial/metric) for a number of months until an anonymous IP editor decided to swap them (in this edit). I reverted that edit - not to "all-imperial" - but to dual-units as it had been for months before.

4. I did not use the claim about "all-imperial" or "all-metric" units in any reversion - my justification was based on lack of a "substantial reason" to justify the change to the long-term state - as required by the guidelines for such a change from one primary system to another.

5. Mixsynth claims that themself and Martinvl have "attempted to make the article comply with WP:UNITS" and attempted to "explain" to me "how the guideline applies". It wasn't mentioned that I too was actually doing the same, and attempting to make the article comply and explain to them why I thought that they were wrong in their interpretation.

6. The steps described under "Resolving the dispute" assert that their actions were correct and mine weren't. That's hardly neutral now is it?

Note: Mixsynth failed to mention that they are a contributor to the article containing the WP:UNITS guidelines, and in particular attempted, here, to edit the section "Which units to use" (the section referred to by them above) to exempt UK articles from the "Avoid mixing systems of measurement used for primary measures" clause which is possibly appropriate in this discussion.

-- de Facto (talk). 14:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I've just taken a look at the article and the talk page, and I must say that I agree with a post that Charlesdrakew wrote there. The Manual of Style uses mixed imperial and metric units for UK articles because that is the standard UK system now - hence one can speak of filling one's car with litres of petrol and buying a pint of milk at the petrol station, and indeed of walking a few metres to one's car and then driving for miles down the motorway. There is also good reason to follow the Manual of Style, as it keeps articles consistent for the benefit of our readers (or at least as consistent as they reasonably can be given the international nature of our project). So I would agree with Mixsynth, Martinvl, and Charlesdrakew in saying that the article should be changed to metres and litres, with the caveats about miles and nominal values that were brought up on the talk page. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a random passerby, I'm very surprised to learn that "cubic yards" are in common and widespread use - I can't remember the last time I saw that used as a unit of measurement. Meanwhile "gallons" is a colloquial measure for fuel and very little else (I buy fuel in litres). Maybe we should check what the sources say?

1. Primarily uses metric units. Neither gallons nor cubic yards are mentioned - the only measure of volume is the cubic metre.

2. The Highways Agency writes road distances like this: "1.2miles (1.8km)" but neither gallons nor cubic yards are mentioned, and metric seems to be preferred in other niches.

3. Lots of metric, not imperial, measurements. Neither gallons nor cubic yards are mentioned.

4. The contractor's webpage is solely metric. Neither gallons nor cubic yards are mentioned.

5. Prefers metric. Neither gallons nor cubic yards are mentioned.

6. Again the HA writes road distances like "1.2 miles (1.83km)" but in other cases metric only. Neither gallons nor cubic yards are mentioned. The only units of volume are cubic metres and cc.

7. The weyriver page uses a mixture. Volumes are primarily in cubic metres, with cubic feet in brackets. Neither gallons nor cubic yards are mentioned.

8. This time the Highways Agency uses metric only. Neither gallons nor cubic yards are mentioned.

9, 10, 13, and 16: The BBC writes road distances like 1.2 mile (1.9km). Neither gallons nor cubic yards are mentioned.

11 and 14. "Miles" used once. Neither gallons nor cubic yards are mentioned.

12. The HA writes miles (km) and then km (miles) later in the same sentence. Neither gallons nor cubic yards are mentioned.

15. Lots of metric, not imperial, measurements: km, m, mPa. Neither gallons nor cubic yards are mentioned.

17. Mixture of both metric and imperial. The fire tank is measured in litres but digger fuel is measured in gallons. Still no sign of cubic yards.

18. I don't have access to it.

19. "miles" and "metres". Neither gallons nor cubic yards are mentioned.

bobrayner (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that the UK is nominally "metricated", and that official organisations are, in many case, legally bound to use metric units in their day-to-day activities, it is no surprise that the sources give mainly metric units. However, if we look at common usage and preference, we will see that the UK population prefer imperial measures and that imperial measures remain in widespread and common usage. I believe that Wiki policy is to generally reflect the words, terms, phrases and units in common usage rather than the officially preferred ones. -- de Facto (talk). 07:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi again DeFacto. Actually, this is a common misconception when dealing with issues relating to the manual of style. It comes up a lot in academic articles with capitalization and punctuation. One example that I was involved with recently was a debate on second-language acquisition - most of the academic sources call it "Second Language Acquisition" or "second language acquisition", but strictly correct English usage is to insert a hyphen between "second" and "language". In this type of situation the past precedent has been to go with the manual of style, rather than what is used in the sources, hence the decision in that case was to use the hyphen. So on this point alone it would indicate that we should use miles with metric units per WP:UNIT. But then, as Bobrayner has demonstrated above, the sources also use mostly miles with metric units. So even if we were going with the sources and not the manual of style, the end result would be the same. I can understand your desire to use the other units, and I do agree that they are still in fairly common use in the UK. If you want to take this issue up, though, you should channel your efforts into trying to amend the manual of style, rather than trying to create an exception at just this one page. You are quite welcome to start a discussion about the manual of style - I recommend leaving a message at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and seeing what the other editors there have to say about it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If DeFacto's argument is taken to its logical conclusion, Wikipedia should use the language found in The Sun and The Daily Mirror - the newspapers in the United Kingdom with the largest circulation. This is clearly not the case - Wikipedia is an encyclopeadia and it should cater for its readership, not the population at large. So lets go back to WP:MOSNUM. The artcile in question is a technical article - so it should use technical terminology, but as per WP:MOS should avoid using jargon. Metric units are not jargon - they have taught in every British school since 1970 and if DeFacto cares to browse specialist magazines aimed at the layman (for example those on archeology, orthinology, numismatics etc) he will see that metric units are widely used, likewise he will see that recipes use metric units. Quite frankly, his argument does not hold water and as Mr. Stradivarius has said, please voice your opinions at WP:MOS rather than here. Martinvl (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Common" not "populist" language. The UK has not yet embraced the metric system - or do you have any evidence that metric units are in common use outside of specialist or official documents and official purposes in the UK? -- de Facto (talk). 18:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Do people still actually talk about gallons? As bulk fuel and forecourt pumps have been in litres for the last fifty years or so it is actually quite difficult for most people to translate that back into gallons. Older people may speak of fuel containers in gallons such as four gallon jerrycans (ironic that as the British Army used as many cans as they could capture from the Germans in North Africa and they were 20 litre cans). After such a length of time most Britons have been educated in litres and think in litres. The situation with units of length may be more mixed but we should follow the official system. Whether DeFacto likes it or not that is the future.--Charles (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As a random UK-passer by (who is old enough to be worrying about pensions), I can say honestly that I do not know how much liquid is in a gallon without googling it. Failedwizard (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, also (had a quick look around) - have you guys been having roughly this conversation for a while ? Failedwizard (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Charles, in the UK fuel has been sold by the litre for about thirty years. Even so, the media (particularly the so-called "quality" press) refers to pump prices per gallon (e.g. here and here and here) and car manufacturers state fuel consumption in miles per gallon. And there's a good reason for that - the people have not embraced metrication - and they are more comfortable with gallons in this case. And by-the-way, neither my preference of units (which I've never stated, so you cannot possibly know), nor yours for that matter, are relevant in this discussion. -- de Facto (talk). 22:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, I believe that the recent modifications (the ones which I reverted) go against the guidance given in WP:MOSNUM. WP:MOSNUM says that the: "Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable." Certainly no "substantial reason" was given for the change from the long-term stable and consistent use of dual-units within the article. The change which resulted in the use of some metric and some imperial primary units resulted in inconsistency and a more confusing article. The guideline states that it exists to help "editors to achieve consistency in the use and formatting of ...measurements..." and that such consistency "promotes clarity and cohesion...". How does jumbling up metric and imperial units conform with those noble objectives? The guidelines also recommend that editors "write so the text cannot be misunderstood, and take account of what is likely to be familiar to readers". Given that this is a UK topic and likely to be of interest to a British audience who are probably more familiar with their traditional and customary system of units - the imperial system - than the metric system, then the consistent dual-unit presentation that had been present until the recent change by an anonymous IP editor certainly satisfies the objectives of the guidelines better than the inconsistent results of the change did. -- de Facto (talk). 22:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's note: Unless DeFacto cares to address mediator Mr. Stradivarius' comments set out in his 12:54, 11 January edit, above, regarding why an exception should or should not be made in this particular case (that is, in the Hindhead Tunnel article), then it appears to me that Wikipedia guidelines are opposed to the position DeFacto is taking in this matter and I will close this discussion at or after this time tomorrow. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

TransporterMan, mediator? No-one mentioned a mediator being involved - and certainly not who was one. You wrote that it appears to you that the: "guidelines are opposed to the position DeFacto is taking in this matter" - can you please explain that interpretation of the discussion? My position is that the stable content should be left as it is, and certainly that no exception should be given to this case at all, especially as no "substantial reason" has been offered for the changes made by an anonymous IP editor recently (and supported by a couple of apparently actively anti-imperial/pro-metrication editors). The stable, consistent and familiar content satisfies the spirit of the guidance very well (see more about this in my response to Mr. Stradivarius above) - so there is no credible reason that I can see to change it now. -- de Facto (talk). 22:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, like myself, is a mediator/clerk who works at this noticeboard. Since you have responded to his comments, there is no need for discussion of whether I was correct or incorrect about the guidelines being opposed to your position since I will be leaving the discussion open. I would note that "from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style" means "from one style identified by guideline as acceptable to a a different style identified by guideline as acceptable." Changing from a style not defined by guideline to a style that is defined by guideline does not require a substantial reason to do so other than to bring the article into compliance with the defined style and is not objectionable merely because the article was stable in its prior form. From what's been said above, that appears to be what has occurred here, but perhaps I'm wrong. Mr. Stradivarius is more familiar with the details and I'll leave that analysis up to him. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

TransporterMan, the current text is in a guideline-defined style. Check the guideline - it states: "In non-science UK-related articles: the main unit is generally a metric unit ..., but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including..." (my emphasis). "Including", not "exclusively". This: is a non-science article, is a UK-related article, and in the context of the article imperial units are in common and widespread use. This is unquestionably one of the "some contexts" where "imperial units are still used as the main units". -- de Facto (talk). 23:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So, I've been looking around some more. DeFacto, I understand from your comments and your work on Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom that you are passionate about the metric issue, and that this has been a consistent area of interest on wikipedia for you. But on the other hand, I worry that I barely recognise my own country in your comments. So to move forward a little on this ( because It's easy to lose track on this sort of conversation) do you see the issue as simply a choice between having yards/gallons first as opposed to meters/litres first? I'm trying to gauge our flexibility for compromise.... Failedwizard (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Failedwizard, I'm not specifically or solely passionate about "the metric issue" as such - I'm passionate more about the neutrality of Wiki articles and the elimination of apparently agenda-motivated drives to push articles in one direction or another, particularly where that "direction" is one of two or more possible directions and where the debate is still ongoing as to which is the "correct" direction in the particular circumstances. Look around a bit more, and you'll see what I mean. Look at the edit that I reverted in this case and you'll see that my only worry here is that there was not sufficient reason to change the dual-unit order from "imperial (metric)" to "metric (imperial)" particularly as it resulted in inconsistencies in the article. I support dual-units - look at my history of adding metric to many U.S customery only/imperial only articles and in putting metric first in articles relating to UK engineering topics, particularly articles about recent car models, to see that. -- de Facto (talk). 07:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Dual units" are not the issue here; the issue is over which are used as the "main" units in UK-related non-scientific articles such as that being discussed. In this case, there is only one obvious "direction", and that is for metric main units with imperial exceptions for miles and mph. This is what WP:UNITS calls for under "which units to use", and this will necessarily introduce inconsistencies in the article. Mixsynth (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Mixsynth, there in another, equally "obvious" direction for UK-related articles. To use the traditional and customary UK units as the main units, and this is also allowed, in this context, under the guidelines, coincidentally under the "which units to use" section too. That way the, therefore unnecessary, inconsistencies will be avoided - and thus a clearer article will be the result. And why not? -- de Facto (talk). 13:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It is also "allowed" to use Chinese, Burmese, Indian, or any country's customary units (obsolete or not) as main units for any article because the wording does not strictly preclude their use. However, the guidelines, being exactly as their name suggests, are intended to guide editors as to which main units are actually appropriate and settle disputes such as this. They are very clear which units are appropriate in this case. Mixsynth (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems a bit of a stretch to me. As I see it, the guideline is worded vaguely as there can always be unforeseen exceptions to a rule, yet I'm not seeing why an exception might be applied here. In any case, it won't help too much simply continuing the same argument here with new editors. I think I'll leave a note on the manual of style talk page and see if I can get the editors there to comment on this case. Oh, and as TrasporterMan says, I'm a clerk at this noticeboard - sorry, I should have mentioned that earlier. I haven't been mediating as such, though, just giving my opinion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, as far as I can tell, the main purpose and spirit of the guidleines was originally to help ensure consistecy, whilst maintaining familar content and the flexibility to tolerate local customs and preferrences in articles. We have to remember too that guidelines are just that, and not "law". Even the current guidlines allow the use in UK-related articles, in some contexts, of imperial units as the main unit. Given the context of the article in question is UK roads, and that UK road signs are still generally required by law to use imperial-only units (there are a couple of exceptions) it seems that the use of imperial units as the main units (with metric always given too) is entirely compatible with both the spirit and the letter of the guidelines. For this reason, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect "a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style" to justify changing the content from one defined style to another - as per the guidelines. -- de Facto (talk). 12:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You should be aware that the only UK road signs to display figures in only imperial are those signing distances and speeds; all others frequently use mixed units (metres/feet for height/width restrictions for example) and some use only metric (e.g. tonnes for weight limits and km/h for tram speed limits), so they cannot be cited as a justification for all-imperial main unit use in road-related articles, including cubic yards and imperial gallons for technical details. And you are correct, the guidelines are not "law". However, there is little point in having style guidelines if arbitrary exceptions to them can be justified just because the literal wording of the guidelines is loose enough to permit any usage at all. Rather than trying to find a technicality with which to excuse unfamiliar main unit use in this article, you should concentrate on the justifiability of using unfamiliar main unit use against the spirit of the guidelines, which, the majority appear to agree, is that most of the units in this case should be metric with miles and mph as exceptions. Mixsynth (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We are not talking about "exceptions" to the guidelines - we are talking compliance with the guidelines. The guidelines accept that there are still situations in the UK where imperial units are the main units used. As far as we know (see British National Corpus discussion below), or do you have evidence to the contrary, imperial is still the most common system used for volume/capacity units in the UK - so the article should remain as is, reflecting this. -- de Facto (talk). 17:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This is splitting hairs. As Mr Stradivarius has already said, while the wording specifying the imperial exceptions is loose – it can never be absolute be as there are always unforeseen exceptions – there is no reason why a further exception to those already laid out should be made in the case of this article other than your own assertion that it should be, apparently based on what can only be described as your own POV that it is "unquestionable" that a road-related UK article should use all-imperial main units. If you truly believe that there is no question that road-related UK articles should use all-imperial main units, discuss the possibility of adding it to the list of exceptions at the WP:MOSNUM Talk page. The Hindhead Tunnel article is not the appropriate venue to promote your own minority view of the guidelines in spite of consensus. Mixsynth (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Mixsynth, with all due respect, it is you who is splitting hairs, You are effectively asserting, with no justification, that because road tunnel information is not explicitly listed, alongside the three examples that are listed, as included (and not as "exclusively") in the contexts for which imperial may be used as the main unit, that it therefore is not allowed to be included. Incredible! If you can provide a substantial reason (other than your own POV) why we should make this relatively small change to this article about a UK road scheme, please provide it. -- de Facto (talk). 13:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not for me to prove a negative and justify why road tunnel information should not be considered an exception to the guidelines, on simple account of the fact that it is not mentioned as an exception to the guidelines. As on the Hindhead Tunnel Talk page, this discussion is quickly going around in circles; it has been mentioned by several different respondents that the "substantial reason" (as sought by you) why this article should be changed is that it is not currently of a guideline-defined style – that's the guidelines' POV, not mine – and the only reason you believe it is is because the wording of the guidelines is loose enough to permit anything if literally interpreted without respect to its spirit. If you feel that road-related articles should "unquestionably" use all-imperial main units, discuss on the WP:MOSNUM Talk page why it should be included in the list of exceptions under "which units to use"; however, I suspect the majority of editors would not agree to include it because it is not an appropriate exception. Mixsynth (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, and this is supported by the British National Corpus (discussed below), imperial is still the preferred system of measurement in the UK for capacity or volume. As such, applying the guideline phrase "but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts", would surely mean that indeed imperial units should remain the "main" unit of measure in the article in question (as undeed it has been some some months). A substantial reason is required for a change away from that current state. I think editors here simply do not realise the extent of the reluctance to use the metric system in the UK. We need evidence, not POV, to justify changinf the main units in the article. -- de Facto (talk). 17:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've responded to the British National Corpus idea below as well - and, although I'm skating on the boundary of politeness to do so, I would suggest that you simply do not realise that the rest of the country has moved on.Failedwizard (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to support that assertion? -- de Facto (talk). 19:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This is more than just a "road article" - there is considerable scope for other technical details - the impact of the geology surrounding the project with particular reference to the tunnel construction details and finally, details the new roads and associated infrastructure that were part of the tunnel. Martinvl (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Might be of interest - quick comparison of google hits (limited to UK-only sites obviously) Petrol gallon - 1,660,000, Petrol litre - 6,030,000. "Cubic Yard" -59,400 "cubic metre" - 176,000 - it's actually a lot closer than I thought... but it surely damages any reasoning that UK readers will be more confortable with imperial...Failedwizard (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Web searches don't really give a true picture of everyday usage though. Try something like the British National Corpus. That gives a ratio of 20:19 for gallon:litre in the context of "petrol", "diesel" or "fuel" and 77:46 for cubic yards/feet:cubic metres. -- de Facto (talk). 17:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Um - British National Corpus has not been added to since 1994 - that's getting on for 20 years ago - Do you genuinely believe that is a truer picture of current everday usage? Children born in (very early) 1994 can now legally drink alcohol in pubs... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Failedwizard (talk • contribs) 17:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the best we've got so far. Can anyone come up with a more reliable source of common use - please? -- de Facto (talk). 19:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A corpus is not suitable for evaluating unit usage because there are so many ways to write them: spelled-out, as a symbol, a combination of a symbol and an exponent. It gets worse when one of the units, yard, has many meanings other than as a unit of measure. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You can analyse the use of words in context. The figures I have were for gallons and litres combined with petrol, diesel or fuel and for "cubic yards", "cubic feet" and "cubic metres" - there wasn't much spurious stuff there. It is though the best source of common use that we currently have - can you suggest an alternative? -- de Facto (talk). 19:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors have no verifiable credentials as language researchers, so we should look in sources created by professionals. For example, look at the "metric system" in the Guardian style guide; it says they mostly use metric units, and sometimes provide conversions. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Or the Telegraph one here. It says: "Use common British weights and measures even in foreign stories unless the context dictates otherwise." -- de Facto (talk). 21:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Or follow the example of what is surely one of the World's most trusted and respected puveyors of factual information - the BBC - here's a news story from yesterday covering many measurements - they use imperial as the main unit followed by metric in parentheses. Here's another about road schemes (including tunnels) as it happens - imperial first. -- de Facto (talk). 22:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A point mentioned in this discussion was the following from WP:MOSNUM:

• Avoid mixing systems of measurement used for primary measures. Write They could see the peak of a 600‑metre (2,000 ft) hill from a nearby 650‑metre (2,100 ft) hill, not …a 2,000‑foot (610 m) hill from a nearby 650‑metre (2,100 ft) hill.

I consider this guidance indefensible, because there are no US customary or imperial units for electricity. Thus any UK or US related article that uses US customary or imperial units as main units, but also contains electrical units, violates the guideline. I have proposed a change at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers Jc3s5h (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

International Communist Current discussion

• I'm unsure what assistance we can provide here. The notability of the group is already being discussed at Deletion review and that is the appropriate place. An administrator will close that discussion shortly, but it may take more time than you would like, since administrators are, like all editors, volunteers. Posting here as well may be seen as forum-shopping, although I don't think that that was your intention. Danger ^{High voltage!} 04:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Black Swan (film), Talk:Black Swan (film) discussion

The section currently reads (without wikilinks or cites):

ABT dancer Sarah Lane served as a "dance double" for Portman in the film. In a March 3 blog entry for Dance Magazine, editor-in-chief Wendy Perron asked: "Do people really believe that it takes only one year to make a ballerina? We know that Natalie Portman studied ballet as a kid and had a year of intensive training for the film, but that doesn't add up to being a ballerina. However, it seems that many people believe that Portman did her own dancing in Black Swan." This led to responses from Benjamin Millepied and Aronofsky, who both defended Portman as well as a response from Lane on the subject.

Saint wants to add the following sentence to the end of the section:

Lane praised Portman as an actress, but said the film-makers were "completely lying about the amount of dancing Natalie did in the movie" in order "to create this image, this facade, really, that Natalie had done something extraordinary. Something that is pretty much impossible... to become a professional ballerina in a year and half."

The source is ABC News (). The problem with the ABC article is it reads like a diatribe by the accuser (Lane) and clearly is a BLP violation with respect to the filmmakers if not supportable. As the article says, Lane signed a contract that did not "guarantee" her screen credit. The article also says: "Lane said her feelings about being credited changed late last year after Portman received an Oscar nomination for best actress and the movie's backers began an aggressive campaign on the actress's behalf."

The Wikipedia article already has sufficient information about the "controversy". The additional material is unnecessary and WP:UNDUE. It also picks the most inflammatory material from the ABC article yet omits the defenses of the filmmakers. Even if we were to balance the information, it would require significantly more detail than an article about the film deserves.

Last comment is User:Nymf also reverted Saint's addition with the edit summary comment "No need for that". Nymf has not participated in the discussion of the material on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Regardless of whether we view her remarks as a diatribe, diatribes are not automatically BLP violations. If all critical remarks by notable figures about the actions of other notable figures could be censored on the grounds that some see them as unpleasant, then 'Criticism' sections on Wikipedia would not exist.

2. I have no problem with Lane's crediting issues being added to the article. However, they are essentially nongermane to this discussion, as the edit I made didn't even mention it. The discussion revolves around whether the reverts were justified.

3. In no way does the article contain sufficient information. As it stands now, someone who reads the section has no idea what Lane's views are - whether positiive or negative. That can hardly be described as WP:UNDUE.

4. Nymf provided no rationale for the revert and has not contributed on the Talk page since, so I didn't see them as part of the dispute. Of course, their input is just as welcome as anyone else's.

Frankly, I'm surprised the inclusion of a few critical quotes from someone who worked on the movie has caused such problems. This particular criticism by Lane garnered widespread attention in entertainment media - a simple Google search for 'Sarah Lane Black Swan' proves that. Inclusion in the article is warranted. Saint91 (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement by Lane about what the film makers were trying to do is, from all appearances, her own opinion and speculative at best. I am not sure exactly which Wiki policy would disallow this type of statement, whether WP:OR OR WP:RS or some other, but the comment does not appear to be encyclopedic in nature.Coaster92 (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Those policies are not relevant here as there is no original research - we're talking about a couple of quotes from a reliable source here. Reporting opinions is perfectly valid as long as they are relevant to the article, and in this case, they enhance the section by explaining the controversy fully. Look up the "Critical Reception" section of any movie on Wikipedia and you will see opinions listed. Look up any controversial movie and you will see opinions, even highly critical ones, listed too. Here are a few examples (2 of them are featured articles):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28film%29#Controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passion_of_the_Christ#Allegations_of_anti-Semitism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic_Thunder#Controversy Saint91 (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The first and third examples above criticize the films, not people. They don't call filmmakers "liars". The second example is more on point, but it's a very extended discussion of the issue because the film and Gibson received so much press. The issue in Black Swan doesn't rise to that level of controversy, which is why, as I explained above, to be more balanced in our presentation (if we included Lane's accusations and the filmmakers' responses) would give the issue more attention than it deserves.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

They do not criticise the films - they report other people's criticisms. That is a distinction that seems to be continually missed. The articles report that various individuals have described the films as "racist", "fascist", "ableist" and "hate speech". However, if you want examples of people being harshly criticised by other people, the following examples from other featured articles may be instructive:

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mayer#Controversies_and_allegations_of_racism

The article recounts the opinions of others where they describe John Mayer as a "racist", "misogynist", "womanizer", and even a "douchebag". These are far harsher accusations than simply lying yet make their way into the article.

b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallica#Kill_.27Em_All_and_Ride_the_Lightning_.281983.E2.80.931984.29

The article quotes a former member of Metallica, Dave Mustaine, on his opinions of Kirk Hammett, his replacement. He complains that Hammett is being given credit for work he did, which bears a fairly strong parallel with the dispute here - "it's real funny how Kirk Hammett ripped off every lead break I'd played on that No Life 'til Leather tape and got voted No. 1 guitarist in your magazine." Mustaine even says Hammett "stole my job".

These are much more hostile opinions of individuals which have ended up in featured articles. As featured articles are considered the best of Wikipedia and worthy of emulation, it stands to reason that my edit quoting Sarah Lane can also be included.

As for the claim that her criticisms did not generate enough controversy, feel free to google "Sarah Lane Black Swan". The number of articles is huge. Here are a number of different reliable sources in addition to the ABC News link which suffices in itself - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1377453/Natalie-Portmans-dance-double-Sarah-Lane-hits-Black-Swan-producers.html http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1660763/black-swan-natalie-portman-dancing-controversy.jhtml http://www.eonline.com/news/the_awful_truth/natalie_portman_versus_sarah_lane/233073 http://www.salon.com/2011/03/28/natalie_portman_sarah_lane_black_swan/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/27/natalie-portmans-black-swan-ballet-dancing-war_n_841112.html

If you want to make edits including Aronofsky's rejoinder to the claims, feel free to do so. That however, does not justify reverting edits which are reliably sourced and relevant to the article. See WP:ROWN once again.

So, to sum up - much harsher opinions of individuals end up in featured articles, and Sarah Lane's opinions are worthy of report. Saint91 (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond to everything Saint says, but, for example, the analogy to the Mayer article, like many of Saint's examples, is flawed. Mayer himself opened up the issue by his own comments, which were reported in our article and then justifiably the response was also reported. Also, again, the level of controversy is much greater, and it is an article about Mayer. Not the same as the Black Swan article, which is about a movie, not a bio, and this stuff that Saint wants to go into detail on is remarkably tangential.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment – I haven't been involved, and don't really plan to be. I came across this through Bbb's talk page when posting on an unrelated issue. As an outsider, I think a lot of the discussion above presents sidetracks, and the ultimate issue is a dispute against editorial WP:CONSENSUS, based on WP:BLP concerns of WP:UNDUE weight and sheer relevance. The talk page is a forum to develop a consensus contrary to that characterized as reverts, but if that doesn't happen, there's no basis to dispute. Also, there's no WP:DEADLINE. The issue can be raised again, and without resorting to dispute resolution. JFHJr (㊟) 02:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We appear to be going nowhere, as new contentions seem to pop up as we go along. Let's summarise.

Initially Bbb23 offered no explanation for the revert.

Then they claimed it was acceptable to revert because Sarah Lane was merely a "disgruntled ballerina", which I countered saying disgruntled or not, her comments are clearly relevant, when she was the dance double at the centre of the storm.

Bbb23 argued that an interview conducted by ABC News was somehow self-published source, when it patently is not.

They then claimed WP:UNDUE for the inclusion of couple of quotes, when the current edit does not even explain Sarah Lane's views, merely states that she "made a response". If anything, in its current state it does not reflect a neutral point of view. It states Aronofsky and Millipied made rebuttals, but even an inkling of Sarah Lane's views are considered verboten.

When the quotes were called BLP violations because they were supposedly "spiteful", I provided numerous examples from featured articles relating to both movies and personalities to demonstrate how remarks of that character have been included. That is why the John Mayer article was brought up here, along with the Metallica article. The parallel with Dave Mustaine complaining that his work was unrecognised is stark - Sarah Lane is doing the exact same thing.

With no evidence adduced to support their case, Bbb23 has claimed Lane's remarks did not generate significant coverage for them to be worthy of remark, even after I've provided numerous reliable sources demonstrating exactly the opposite.

There clearly is a dispute, as there is a deadlock between editors, and in the meantime no good reasons have been provided for the reverts. Saint91 (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Saint's summary above is essentially what this noticeboard is not supposed to be about (beefs about the editor) and is, at best, a distortion. The first revert of the material wasn't mine. My first revert offered an explanation in the edit summary (); Saint just didn't think it was enough, but edit summaries are limited. I never said ABC News was a self-published source - I said that in this context it had the feel of one, particularly in the way Saint pulled Lane's quote from it. I've already dealt with Saint's examples, even though WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a justification for including material in an article. I don't recall ever claiming that Lane's remarks didn't generate significant coverage, but perhaps that's just one more of Saint's "interpretations" of something I said.

I'm pretty much done here unless someone other than Saint has a question or comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

United States Ambassador to Guatemala discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fedora discussion

This wants clarification. I think a list (a separate section, which was formerly "the fedora in pop culture") of fedora-wearing celebrities/historical figures is redundant and unnecessary. We could accomplish the same goal by inline naming of a few people who made the fedora their trademark. There seems to be a clash about the notability of someone establishing the fedora as trademark, which is the wrong application of notability and is rather insignificant. It has been pointed out that the article needs examples of such persons who made the hat their trademark and as I have said, I am not opposed. I am opposed to a list of such people.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 15:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Contrasting example. From Guayabera, sec. "Popularity in the United States":

The guayabera shirt is a long-standing symbol of solidarity amongst Hispanics living in America. On September 24, 2010 a powerful statement (about the guayabera as a Hispanic laborer's "uniform") was made by United Farm Workers President Arturo Rodriguez. Appearing as a primary speaker at a U.S. Congressional Subcommittee hearing on Immigration, Citizenship and Border Security, President Rodriguez wore a finely tailored guayabera.

The citation for this is: "Congressional Subcommitte Hearing on Immigration, Citizenship and Border Security, C-SPAN 3, 24 September 2010". Pres. Rodriguez is known for his dark, solid-colored guayabera shirts- they're his trademark and therefore significant to the section in the article. If we compare this to the list in Fedora, we see the exact contrast I hoped to show. Guayabera does not include or need a list of people who wear the shirt regularly as a trademark, but the inclusion of Pres. Rodriguez illustrated significantly the popularity of the shirt in the U.S. So the Fedora list is a similar issue, its popularity both in the U.S. and across the world, but it is silly and excessive to list everyone who wears it, whether significant or not.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 16:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is all the other editor has to say: I don't see why there should be a DRN entry. We have article talk pages for this. Well, there we are, "he said, he said" type thing.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 16:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A query about whether to close this: If you will look at the article, then this diff and finally this from editor DVdm, you'll see we have reached a consensus about the inline structuring of the facts in question. My only regret is that DVdm didn't see fit to properly address this dispute resolution.--Djathinkimacowboy 19:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)--Striking comment: The article is nowhere near reaching a consenus and WE NEED HELP.--Djathinkimacowboy 13:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: If you will consult the new posts at the talk page, you'll see a major problem that developed is some editors stating it is significant enough if a source merely says someone wore/wears a fedora. That, as I stated at the talk page, is no guideline at all. I call attention to the notability conflict of using that standard.--Djathinkimacowboy 13:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually think we have an acceptable consensus for the standard "Notable person (per WP:N) who notably (again, per WP:N) wears a fedora", DRN or no DRN. Is there anyone who disagrees with that standard? Achowat (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC) [My reply et seq.] Oppose list of fedora-wearers:...and you know why, Achowat. As far as I and the regulations are concerned, we have no consensus as yet, "DRN or no DRN"!--Djathinkimacowboy 14:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Two things before I begin my statements, Civility and the Assumption of Good Faith. I give that to you and I expect the same in return. There is an active discussion working towards reaching a consensus. Dispute Resolution is, frankly unneeded. In regards to me 'muscling' my POV: You responded on the talk to my suggestion (which was, for the record with "Notable person (per WP:N) who notably (again, per WP:N) wears a fedora") with "I have no problem with the general idea" and then went on to explain the necessity to keep a tight standard. I asked if there was opposition to what I saw as a developing consensus, and you responded by shouting at me on the talk page and directing me to this DRN. It smells a bit like forum shopping and my ideal conclusion of this Resolution would be to let consensus be built on the Talk page. Achowat (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I resent those implications. I am not forum-shopping nor breaking any other rules. This DRN was started when two and only two editors were disagreeing. When you chose to finally stick in your oar, you merely started posting without reading the thread or the article. And for the record, you are trying to force your POV on the talk page that a 2-to-2 situation equals a consensus... and now you're saying here "let consensus be reached" knowing it hasn't been reached. You are also not being entirely truthful when you claim we are in agreement. I do not agree with you at all, but if you agree there is to be no trivial list, then we do agree. Unlike you, I am arguing carefully and not "shouting" at anyone.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll address your concerns one at a time, if I may. I never accused you of breaking any rules or forum shopping; I simply asked that the discussion be handled in its correct location, the article's Talk Page. As to 'sticking my oar", I'm a member of this community and a contributor to this project, just like you. In fact, seeking an outside editor to help is one of the best ways to settle a dispute, and I was simply stating my opinion for inclusion guidelines. Suggesting that I hadn't read the article or thread is a breach of WP:AGF and, in this case, untrue; your use of quote boxes made your comments hard to decipher. Which, for the record, is exactly why I inquired about whether or not a consensus was coming together. I did not push a WP:POV or try to declare a consensus when non existed, I simply asked if a consensus was being formed. Consensus is not determined by show of hands so you simply reciting "2-to-2" (which I happen to doubt) does nothing to affect the situation. I'm aware that a consensus has not been reached, which is why I'm asking that a consensus be allowed to be reached. See, we are agreeing; prose is preferable to a list (trivial or otherwise) and I believe that the prose that comments on notable wearers of fedoras is acceptable, as the article currently stands. this edit is shouting and not civil. Achowat (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well, you're doing that thing where you disagree with my interpretation of something so it's obvious that I've never even read the document in question. *ahem* WP:AGF *ahem*. Have you read WP:TRIVIA?? The point of that part of the Manual of Style (note, not inclusion guidelines) is that prose is preferable to lists. It does not anywhere give a definition of what makes something 'trivial' and, if it or any other guideline or policy does (which it doesn't) you can feel free to point to that page and quote the relevant text. Achowat (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I left the discussion because the thread was a hell of a mess. I would also like to remind you of wp:OWN. - DVdm (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

For the purposes of anyone observing this from the outside, we had been close to a consensus, the salient details of Djathinkimacowboy's proposal being that the current prose was preferable to a list and that no new examples were to be added. I proposed that instead we come to some sort of guideline on who can be added and why, which was agreed to on principle. The guideline that Djathinkimacowboy proposed was "no trivial additions". I pointed out that there was no community consensus as to what does or does not constitute 'trivial' and Djathinkimacowboy then directed me to WP:TRIVIA with this edit. I simply pointed out that WP:TRIVIA is a part of the manual of style and not an inclusion guideline and continued to search for a consensus for an inclusion standard, to which I was accused (here and on the Talk Page) of 'stonewalling'. Achowat (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, with Djathinkimacowboy's withdrawal from this issue, is there anybody else who'd like to take up the case? Pending no objections I'll close this in 72 hours as "No change". I encourage a natural guideline to be developed and implemented on the article so it's not an indiscriminate listing of notable wearers but a list of people who are known for wearing a fedora in addition to their notability elsewhere. Hasteur (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Space Ghost discussion

Clerk comment: I typically don't like being the first to comment on a DRN thread because I firmly believe it's much better for the involved parties to discuss the problem on their own a bit first, but after reviewing the situation a bit, I feel like I need to start a few things off in this case. First, there seems to be a bit of a personality conflict here, and judging by how quickly this particular issue escalated to DRN, I think both editors need to back down and cool off a bit. Let's all keep our heads here and remember that the goal here is to improve the encyclopedia, not to win the argument.

Yonskii - I'm not taking sides here, but I think the vandalism warning might have been a bit on the extreme side. Remember, even though it is discouraged, edit warring is not vandalism. Just because an editor adds information with which you personally disagree (even repeatedly introduces said information), that does not mean it is vandalism. Remember to always assume good faith. Alucard's edits were not obvious vandalism (i.e. he wasn't blanking sections or inserting random bodyparts and obscenities), and he was even trying to establish consensus on the talk page, so labeling his edits as such is a breach of AGF. Also, you may want to read WP:Fancruft. Attaching that term to someone's edits is generally considered to be uncivil.

Alucardbarnivous - Remember that just because a previous consensus had been established, consensus can (and frequently does) change. When you saw Yonskii's comment on the talk page, did you read what he suggested about possibly moving the information to a different article, or did you see the vandal warning on your page and immediately bump the issue to DRN without bothering to consider Yonskii's rationale?

I'm going to suggest that we back up here for a second and look at what we have here. If the previous consensus was to include the material, there could have been a good reason. Is there now sufficient reason to change that consensus beyond the fact that one editor believes it to be cruft? Is it, in fact, cruft? Should the material, as Yonskii suggests, be moved to the TV series article? Let's try discussing this rationally and calmly, without labels or unneeded uw templates. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As several villains listed came about after the initial Space Ghost series, I felt they should be attached to the character rather than several villains sections be made for several individual series when it is attached to a single character. I decided to bring the issue to the noticeboard because of the claim of vandalism. It was my opinion that after discussion led to that as a response, we could no longer settle the dispute amongst ourselves. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Comment: I'm not saying you were wrong to bring this matter to DRN. In fact, if you felt that you could not have a discussion with the editor without some type of input from outsiders, you did exactly what you should have done as that is exactly what DRN is for. And I've already addressed the fact that the vandalism warning was a bit harsh. However, my question still stands: did you take the time to consider Yonskii's rationale and consider that he might have been right? (I'm not weighing in on one side or the other; I'm just moderating the discussion.) It's easy to become polarized when you get into a disagreement with another editor, but you (like him) need to assume good faith. If we assume good faith, we can surmise that both you and Yonskii are here with the intent to improve the encyclopedia and not just to push information you happen to find interesting. That being said, which way best improves the encyclopedia: his or yours? Also, don't assume that it's one or the other. There very well may be a middle ground that the two of you (with the help of others) can reach through civil discussion. If he has asserted that your edit is "fancruft" (and I've already mentioned that that wasn't the best way to present the claim), is it possible that his point has validity? No, you shouldn't label other people's edits as "fancruft," but at the same time, "fancruft" isn't considered encyclopedic, so you shouldn't write fancruft, either. (Again, not weighing in on either side or saying that you edit is fancruft.) Since the edit in question has been labeled by another editor as fancruft, let's look at WP:FAN and see exactly what is meant by fancruft:

Fancruft ... [implies] that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question.

Look at your edit and consider the above quote. I know almost nothing about Space Ghost (I saw two episodes of the TV show once, over ten years ago), so I can't intelligently weigh in on the importance or relevance of your edit. If the article is about the character instead of about the show, it's not typically relevant to include information about a different character (in this case, a villain) unless that villain is heavily responsible for defining a key characteristic of the main subject character of the article. For example (and I don't know how familiar you are with the series), if you were looking at the article about the character (not the series) James Bond, one of the chief villains of the series (Ernst Blofeld) is not given any mention at all except for the fact that he killed Bond's wife (obviously a key part of the character's development). On the other hand, the Blofeld character is given much more mention in the article about the film series. That being said (again, I'm not taking sides), does the villain in question contribute significantly to the development of the character? If not, then Yonskii was right to remove it (even if his methods weren't particularly civil). If so, then the writeup on this villain should not simply describe this villain - it should describe how this villain contributes to the development of the main character in question. Considering all of this, do you still feel that the information needs to be included? There is no "consensus" to keep the information in the article exactly as is, or we wouldn't be here on DRN in the first place. The question is, what consensus can we achieve on how the material should (or should not) be included? Sleddog116 (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can say for sure. It's difficult to observe your work objectively, though I will say its become an accepted practice for at least super hero characters to have a listing of villains perhaps because we want to keep the entries on character pages encyclopedic rather than relate every detail of a character while villains play a pivotal role for a hero and should be acknowledged. For Space Ghost, a good example is Zorak. Zorak is a villain that has followed Space Ghost across several platforms, including the later Coast to Coast series and the comic book mini-series. I suppose if you had to say Space Ghost has a nemesis, it would likely be Zorak. Now imagine a Superman page were it's simply said the hero had fought Luthor and no other data. In my opinion, that would be a disservice to the Superman page. By including this small section of reoccurring villains, you're given a stronger understanding of Space Ghost because you know the challenges he faced. I mean, I've often heard it said heroes are measured by their villains and without the villain section, you just have a handful names without any identification. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

For your consideration: I checked Yonskii's page, and he says he plans to refrain from participating in this discussion. I don't see how that's a productive approach, but I'm sure he has his reasons. I'll leave a message on his page and suggest that he reconsider so that we can make some productive progress here, but if he is unwilling to participate, I'm not sure there's much that we can do at this particular venue. I'm going to suggest that you might want to consider leaving a request for comments on the article's talk page. If some outside opinions are brought into the discussion at the actual article, it may be easier to form a more broad consensus. Sleddog116 (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It certainly makes what we're trying to do here that much more challenging. I mean, if we decide to leave the page as it is now, I assume this will be the end of it. But, if it's decided the page is benefited by the inclusion of Space Ghost's villains, will Yonskii simply go against the consensus again and simply remove the material? As for asking for input on the subject's talk page, the page doesn't seem to attract that much attention. Take for example the new section regarding this change has only garnered interest from the two users involved. Unfortunately, this debate may best be decided here but when only half of those involved participate, it creates a problem. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So, where do we go from here? Alucardbarnivous (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to stand by my previous suggestion that you return the discussion to the article's talk page with a request for comments. If Yonskii refuses to enter a discussion and enters an edit war, your best option may be to seek mediation. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since this discussion seems to be basically resolved (even if the issue is not), I'll give it a few more days (since we have the blackout occurring tomorrow) - if no one else continues the discussion, I'll close it. Again, I think you ought to take this issue to a more appropriate venue. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What should I do about the charge of vandalism? What venue would you recommend? Alucardbarnivous (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've already addressed his accusation of vandalism, both here and on his talk page. I would take it back to the venue I suggested already - that being on the article's talk page with a request for comments. Just don't even mention the vandalism charge again - don't even bring it up. If he brings it up, seek mediation or, as an absolute last resort, notify an administrator. Sleddog116 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

James Naismith discussion

Response by Lvivske: Prior to this dispute filing, I had already posted notice for Stevio's blatant edit warrning ; this dispute resolution, while needed, is retaliatory in nature. The standard WP:MOS lede for WP:BLPs is that they be defined by their citizenship, not nationality or ethnicity unless otherwise notable for it. In the case of Naismith, he was born a British subject, moved to America, and then Canadian citizenship came into existence later on after he had already left. He then became a full American citizen. For the purpose of a BLP, a bio should be accurate and not include nationalist POVs as they can skew the facts. The lede should not call him a "Canadian" if he was not a Canadian citizen - but rather "Canadian-born". I understand that history books (especially Canadian history books, which like to be revisionist and blur British and Canadian history) refer to him as a 'Canadian', but this is a relative stance and reference to his 'Canadianness' should be defined as "Canadian-born" and not mislead readers into thinking he was a Canadian national.

I made my edits reflecting this and my summaries explained why. Stevio reverted each and every time, disregarding the reasons, and engaged in an edit war and article ownership. I then tried to start a talk page discussion, and he wasn't having any of it. I explained the MOS's stance, and he contested that he doesn't care about citizenship, and that it doesn't matter. I tried using {fact} and {dispute} tags to indicate the ongoing discussion of the contested material, and his answer was still to immediately engage in reverting and edit warring. Many of his edit summaries and talk page points show some battleground behavior. He finally started adding a "source" to the lede knowing full well that it didn't prove Naismith was a citizen, but he doesn't seem to care.

Stevio has shown complete disregard for editorial process so far, and contempt towards me for contesting his unsupported edits. I tried 3 different tactics in dealing with the issue (summaries, talk page, tagging & asking for sources) and all resulted in reverts. Dispute resolution is sorely needed on this matter, that's for sure, but it's not to do with me.--Львівське (говорити) 23:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Response by Steveio: I will address your view of historical accuracy first and then secondly I will proceed to discuss your dispute that you filed against me. First, from my understanding after reading the WP:BLP, it only applies to a person who is currently alive

Shortcut

• WP:BDPWP:BDP

. So, James Naismith being deceased does not fall under the WP:BLP category. As I pointed out in the talk page, being Canadian does not rely solely on citizenship but there are other factors involved such as genetic, residential, legal, historical, cultural, or ethnic. James Naismith meets these requirements. Your characterization of Canadian history as being bias is completely unfounded and strictly your opinion. Furthermore, if history went with your standards then many important historical Canadian and American figures, who were born prior to their country's official foundation would be called 'British.'

Now I will address the dispute that you filed against me. It is important to note that this dispute was declined and it was the opinion of the moderator that it was you who were actually enganging in an edit war. I will apologise for my aggressive comments that I directed at you on your talk page but, I strongly disagree with your view that it was me who started this edit war. Even after I edited the page with a source confirming Naismith's Canadian identity, you continued to revert my edits without proper discussion.

This quote is taken directly from a mod, and it was directed at you regarding your complaint against me: "Declined — Your diffs cover a period of several days, and you seem to be the person who usually reverts back. Should we block both of you? Consider opening an WP:RFC or getting more opinions. Check other articles for people born in Canada 1800-1867 and see what is given for their nationality. Your criterion sounds a bit unusual, since it would make well-known people like the first Prime Minister of Canada British. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)" Wikipedia:AN3#User:Steveio_reported_by_User:Lvivske_.28Result:_Declined.29

This comment only echoes what I have been trying to say to you this entire time, that Canadian people born prior to 1867 are still considered Canadian by historical standards. I don't know how much more discussion is really needed on the matter. --Steveio (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, obviously I meant bios and not bios of living persons. Seeing as BLP was never what I told you several times...why are you continuing to ignore WPMOS? I don't care if "being Canadian does not rely solely on citizenship" if the lede format is supposed to be citizenship. Again and again you are trying to warp the standards. Furthermore, Canadian history is biased; even Macleans made fun of how people like Naismith are considered Canadian recently.

To say that pre-Confederate or pre-Revolution figures would be 'British' ignores obvious facts that I've told you several times - like how Naismith had already left Canada before citizenship was introduced. By your very own standards, ("genetic, residential, legal, historical, cultural, or ethnic.") he is British for the genetic, residential (british empire), legal (already cited), historical (?), cultural, and ethnic. By what standards is he really Canadian? Oh, he was born in Canada, a British dominion. You intentionally ignore the fact in order to push in what is nothing more than contemporary public opinion. By your standards, Rudolph Hess would be Egyptian.

Finally, your "source" does not confirm the citizenship assertion. It merely refers to him as 'Canadian' by your own loose definition and proves nothing in the end to what is being discussed here.--Львівське (говорити) 16:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk comment: Okay, first of all, the both of you need to calm down immediately - this has turned into a shouting match from which nothing productive can occur. If you're not willing to get past vandalism accusations, accusations of "bad faith", etc., we are wasting our time here. The fact that we have a full-blown edit war over what is, quite frankly, an issue of semantics is testament to the fact that everyone involved needs to cool down and take a few steps back. The both of you have lost sight of the encyclopedia and have dug into a position that you are right and the other is wrong, and it is impossible to improve the encyclopedia when the editing has become polarized. Don't wait for the other to drop the issue, because it isn't going to happen.

That being said, let's consider how the lead section should be written. My first action in cases like this is always to consult the Wikipedia style manual, and in this case, we'd go to the biographies article of the MOS. To quote the MOS:

In most modern-day cases [the context] will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.

The bold section of the above quote is the relevant part of the quote here. The question, then, is this: is Naismith notable as a British citizen, or as a Canadian? If you look at articles of other Canadians born in that time (for instance, William Lyon Mackenzie King), they list the person as "Canadian" in the lead, even though they were born British subjects. It all comes back to notability. Since this person is notable for past events, it is most apropos to list him as the nationality for which he is most noticeable (per the MOS). I also see that this issue has already been addressed by an administrator, so I suggest that both of you abide by the admin's decision (or discuss it further with the admin). Sleddog116 (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am already abiding by the decision of the admin since its in agreement with historians view. Lvivske continues to ignore obvious historical protocols. And no, Lvivske under my view Hess would not be considered Egyptian. Notice how I said American and Canadian figures not German or any other nationality. American and Canadian people are two obvious exceptions, because a great deal of them born before their county's official foundation, where born under the British Empire, yet historians refer to them not as British but rather Canadian or American. This isn't a Canadian take on history but its a universal practice. This also extends to events, the Canadian Rebellions of 1837 are not referred to as the British Rebellions in Canada of 1837. Furthermore the majority of participants in those rebellions are considered to be Canadian not British. Macleans view of history is irrelevant, again you look towards sources which are not academic to try to prove your point. Maclean's is also notorious for its political agenda, so its not surprising that they had an article making 'fun' of James Naismith's identity.

I didn't want to be forced to do this but lets look at track records. Lets look at your talk page Lvivske, you have numerous people complaining about edits and reversions that you do to articles over a vast period of time. This is relevant since the editor in question, which is you, have a tendency to engage in editing conflicts over peoples nationality. But, on Wikipedia we don't go by my standards or your standards, we are supposed to follow the Wikipedia guidelines.

I am in agreement with EdJohnston and Sleddog116, the discussion on the issue has become redundant. I suggest you accept the decision of the moderators. --Steveio (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Steveio, that wasn't necessary. If you "didn't want to do it," then why did you? There's no need to bring up the other editor's record here, and just because the argument is going in favor of your argument doesn't mean you need to "rub it in". As you said, we follow Wikipedia's guidelines, but keep in mind that the Manual of Style, like almost everything else on WP, appears as it does because of the process of consensus, and consensus can change. DRN has no enforcement power; we just try to help editors resolve their differences (sysops, of course, have a little more ability to enforce decisions, but that isn't the point here). There are likely valid arguments that can be raised against what seems to be the dominant perspective here. Sleddog116 (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes discussion

K-Multimedia Player discussion

Iiuc, there are three possible problems with the current paragraph: Missing sources, Original research and missing NPOV. The paragraph claims five things: 1) That Gabest, a well-known open-source multimedia software developer (the original author of Media Player Classic) claimed that KMPlayer is violating his copyrights, 2) that KMPlayer denied the allegations, 3) that KMPlayer solved the issue, 4) that FFmpeg developers claimed that KMPlayer is violating the copyright of the FFmpeg authors and 5) that this was denied on the KMPlayer forum, explaining that no sources are necessary to comply with the GPL. For all of these points, the necessary sources exist and are provided afaict. Regarding Original research, I just removed (again) the sentence that SF007 said is Original research. Concerning NPOV, I can only repeat what I wrote on the discussion page, currently two sentences in the paragraph contain the allegations from Gabest and FFmpeg, three sentences contain the answers, the tone is neutral afaict, so somebody will have to suggest improvements (I am not a native speaker).--Regression Tester (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is my view why that section is not complying with policy:

• No reliable sources, not even what I call "semi-reliable sources" (news websites or blogs of "medium" or "small" dimention but still with some reputation)
• All sources are self-published sources, with no peer-review whatsoever
• Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence - Not only is the accusation badly sourced, accusations of this nature require even better references than "normal statements" - I've also have not found ANY "hard evidence" of a violation published, like strings in the code, comparisons of the code, etc. (not even by the accusing party)
• Burden of evidence - similar in spirit to the entries above - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it"
• Possible Original research and/or Synthesis
• Possible libel - quoting from the policy "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" and "[…] It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. […]"
• Likely violation of Biographies of living persons policy - while this article is not about a person, the (poorly-sourced) statements about the developer(s) violating copyright law can be easily viewed as a breach of policy: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis is from the policy, not mine)
• WP:NPOV - giving undue weight to badly sourced accusations

--SF007 (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of the discussion is contained in the talk page, so please reference that for the views other than SF007's. We have two separate, well-respected open source projects that have stated that KMPlayer has violated their copyrights and license. KMPlayer has made what appears to be an official response in their forum, but it is difficult to determine if it is an official response or not as it is unclear who actually developers KMPlayer. We have the current KMPlayer download which contains open source DLLs from multiple open source projects (LAME, etc) as well as the actual GPL and LGPL licenses within its installer and when installed. The download contains no source code nor instructions to obtain the source code. We have the FSF's statements that using GPL licensed DLLs with a closed source program is a violation of the license and that publisher's are required to distribute the source code for GPL/LGPL binaries they distribute even if there are no changes. The only thing that gives KMPlayer the right to distribute the open source software are the GPL and LGPL licenses which were created by the FSF. None of these facts are in dispute. And all of them are mentioned in neutral tone and properly sourced. 98.14.114.27 (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Question - are there any secondary sources that mention these claims? Most of the sources in that section are forums which are NOT considered reliable sources (see WP:RS). Ravensfire (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Searching for kmplayer gpl produced only extremely poor results: the wikipedia article, third-party forums, mirrors of wikipedia... We have this page of "Media Player Classic Home Cinema", but is very likely a copy of Media player classic#Alleged GPL violations using MPC code, providing no evidence or reference to other sources. --SF007 (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. Right now, I think you've primary sources making the claims and some WP:SYNTH pulling in the GPL sections. There's also no information about WHEN the claims were made in the article. I'll be honest, the sourcing is a fairly big concern to me. 98.14.114.27, have you read over the reliable source page, in particular the self-published sources section? In the current version, there are 7 sources, 1 from sourceforge.net forum, 3 from kmplayer.com forum, one from libav.org forum and one from gnu.org. Do you think these source fall into the SPS section and based on that policy, do you think they meet the RS criteria on Wikipedia? Ravensfire (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oxford English Dictionary definition discussion

(I think it will take considerably longer than a week, unless we just revert the article to some point near 31 Dec 2006.) htom (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please give a clear summary reason/s for its inclusion in the article. The onus is on those who want it in to give reasons for inclusion. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur, the editor bringing this has not even properly summarised the talk page discussion. --Snowded ^TALK 04:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

OED: It is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them; a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour".

Current lede: Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created in the 1970s. The title refers to a stated connection between the neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic") and behavioral patterns that have been learned through experience ("programming") and can be organized to achieve specific goals in life.[1][2] According to certain neuroscientists,[3] psychologists[4][5] and linguists,[6][7] NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses incorrect and misleading terms and concepts.

That's it in a nutshell. I think the former is a better definition, description, and more NPOV than the latter. htom (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the lede is to summarise the article and the material in the sentence you want removed is supported by reliable sources. I have suggested on the talk page that we look at the final sentence. However the desire of some of you to revert to a 2006 version and have editors you disagree with banned for a period so you can sort the article out, is well, perverse --Snowded ^TALK 06:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, The purpose of the lede is to be honest, and NPOV was obviously violated by your forcing edits that replaced The Oxford English Dictionary definition with the Skeptic Dictionary one. I mean think about it....

The Oxford English Dictionary is a tremendous academic work. As stated on their website, "[The] process of adding ANY new word, or a new sense of an existing word, is long and painstaking, and depends on the accumulation of a large body of published (preferably printed) citations showing the word in actual use over a period of at least ten years. Once a word is added to the OED it is never removed; OED provides a permanent record of its place in the language." The dictionary's testimonials are extraordinary. The Nation writes that, "[Oxford English Dictionary is] one of the monuments to the patient persistence of scholarship and one of the most sterling illustrations of that strange piety which only scholars can understand."

In the Skeptic Dictionary by comparison, the author discloses in the introduction, "The Skeptic’s Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account...."

You have unfortunately proven through your auto-reverting that Administrative intervention is necessary.--Encyclotadd (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

1. If you would like "Administrative intervention" you're on the wrong board; try WP:ANI.

2. No one is disputing the OED.

Please stop making accusations and start explaining exactly how you wish to improve the text and sourcing of our article. Please. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• It would be helpful to know what changes are being proposed. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll look for the exact change that was reverted and post it here.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem, Here is the way I'd like the edit to be added:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=469241014&oldid=469234196 --Encyclotadd (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. See below. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Any interested editor should look at the talk page of the NLP article. We have a small number of mainly SPA accounts who are trying to write an promotional essay about NLP and who seem indifferent to normal wikipedia process. We have made many requests for them to make specific proposals and come up with supporting sources. The response tends to be repetition of arguments, lists of context free sources based on skimming the abstracts etc. etc. without any argument or reference to policy. They recently set up a RfC on the neutrality of the article which did not produce the result they wanted although thankfully it brought in some new editors. There have been multiple personal attacks (the editor bringing this case has been formally warned by a senior admin), accusations of sock puppetry (even after the accusation has been dismissed when it was raised), references back to an ideal state in 2006 (repeated above). There are off wiki web sites that make those accusations, repeated by a long succession of SPAs created over the last few years, several of who have been blocked for personal attacks or sock puppetry. Its the sort of mess you tend to get around cult and pseudo-science articles. --Snowded ^TALK 06:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Snowded is referring to a warning that appears on my talk page because of a disagreement we had here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded&oldid=460486003#Snowded.27s_Conflict_of_Interest_.28COI.29 and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded&diff=460486555&oldid=460486003 As a result of that disagreement, I received a warning and promptly apologized. I'm new to Wikipedia, and that warning taught me that other ways are much more appropriate on this website for expressing such concerns. Won't happen again.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Original warning 14th November. Issued again 28th December after multiple failures to abide by your undertaking. More recently you repeated them again using "most active editor" instead of the name which is pretty pathetic. Oh, and you've just repeated it again despite the accusation being dismissed when a previous SPA took it to CoI last year. You need to address content issues. Just look at the way you have posted this dispute: demanding that editors who disagree with you be banned so that you can sort out the article; saying that people have disputed the OED when they haven't and so on. Give up on the conspiracy theories, read up on the five pillars and start addressing content issues, please --Snowded ^TALK 08:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, The only conspiracy is your attempt to remove an extremely reliable source in the article: the Oxford English Dictionary. You have expressed a preference for a dictionary of lesser repute. It's a very simple situation with an obvious solution.

As to the warnings, I regret pointing out your conflict of interest on your talk page. I've repeated apologies for doing so. If you hadn't brought it up on this talk page none of these Editors would have known about it. Take this opportunity to direct everyone's attention back to the sources we are ** trying ** to discuss.--Encyclotadd (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you deleted "pointing out your" and replaced it with "accusing you of" then I might believe you had apologised. --Snowded ^TALK 09:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my. Really? You sincerely think you do not have a CoI in editing an article about a psychotherapy technique that at first blush you seem to be selling a derivative of as scientific management tool? Don't bother, I'm sure there are differences. And doing so by claiming the psychotherapy technique is a pseudo-science and unscientific? Reaction formation, anyone? htom (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_41#User:snowded ... and here we are at dispute resolution. htom (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Previously raised at CoI and dismissed. Deal with content please --Snowded ^TALK 20:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street discussion

I really only have one thing to add to this discussion at the moment. And that is...if you are going to bring a Dispute Resolution discussion to these boards about quoting........perhaps it would be a good idea to be accurate when "quoting" another editor. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If there are any misquotes you have my apology. B^e——C_ritical 03:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I might find the apology acceptable if you actually corrected it.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Show me a misquote and I will. B^e——C_ritical 03:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel it better to leave your misinterpretation of my words and the situation to stand for itself. You seem like a decent person in the few interactions we have had, but we all have to do what we feel we are within are rights to do. Sadly, I can only say, it is a shame you are not being more honest or at least more accurate here. I'll leave it at that. Thank you again.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It is my opinion that it is not helpful to the discussion to accuse another editor of being less than honest in his representation of the situation but refuse to point out exactly where he is being inaccurate.Gandydancer (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not helpful to the discussion for an editor to bring a dispute resolution with information that is not correct. It is also a separate issue that, if need be, I will bring up when and if it is appropriate. But he did quote me wrong, and in such a way as to make it look as if I am some right wing nut job. It's a bit of character assassination. Mild, but it was directly aimed at producing an outcome less favorable to me.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

We choose sources per significance, reliability, and judge their "weight" per weight in mainstream sources. We don't choose sources based on some principle of equal time for each source. A television channel is another source and we should judge the reliability of content broadcast on a channel as we would any other source. We don't look at sources and decide to take content from books and then balance that with content from news articles. We're looking for content, and have to create neutrality with the content, not with the "container" for the content. A TV channel like a book is the "container" for content, not the content itself. Its the content that concerns us not the container. Whether someone's head explodes from Fox news is not our concern nor is it our concern to pay some kind of homage to TV channels by selecting content from each. To do so is misreading and misunderstanding our policies.(olive (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC))

Correct. As I said it is less than honest of Becritical to claim I am against news sources as I stated in the discussion I began that it is a matter of dropping 3 separate box block quotes, or just block quotes from the same source. The issue of "Fox" news was simply an illustration of reaction the group HAS had about someone placing Fox news sources before. If they were to do precisely the same thing with any "Source" with such undue weight to that source and drawing immediate attention to it would still be against the current consensus. The original article had block quotes from Adbusters and from other sources. They were all removed and a discussed about such uses on this particular page as controversial being inappropriate. In the current discussion I told Becritical that news organization are simply scholarly sources and that any "Opinion" weighted in such a way almost begged to be balanced with counter opinion if one existed. It's not like there isn't a different opinion of these sources. If they were facts we wouldn't need to quote them, but since they are the opinion of the source author it should be done in with due weight to the information and source. There is no dispute with the source. There is no dispute with the information, although it adds nothing new except large chunks of quotes very near each other that stand out and are not being used to counter other opinion but simply placed near the same opinion to add more weight to that. It isn't a matter of paying homage to a TV channel, although oddly that was my impression of what Becritical was doing. We wouldn't race out to get more channel quotes. We would balance the opinion of the source if such counter opinion exist (it does) and was from reliable sources. My point of the of the original move was to pace the information in the media section and copy edit for due weight, but it didn't get that far.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The quotations were placed in particular sections, and the info in the quotes is specifically relevant to those sections. It was useless where you put it. Anyone reading the quotes will see that they add a lot in context. B^e——C_ritical 20:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since in my experience BeCritical has been extremely willing to use the talk page to discuss his edits and is careful to gain consensus before editing the article page and in this discussion Amadscientist refuses to point out where his representation of the situation is not accurate, I take BeCritical's representation as accurate. It has been my impression from the talk page discussion that each time BeCritical reached for agreement, a new hoop was set up to jump through or the bar was raised on exactly what's acceptable per policy. I did agree with Amadscientist that boxed quotes give too much emphasis to a particular quote, and it seemed to me that BeCritical did not argue that, but accepted the different point of view. Gandydancer (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer. There was no reason for this discussion to become nothing but a back and forth between Becritical and myself of accusations and defense. That would be little more than a fight and is not appropriate. Is there something specific you would like me to clarify? Also...what you said on the talk page was "I generally don't like block quotes because they do give the suggestion that the enclosed information is somehow more important than info that is not block-quoted. I don't believe that they should be used at all in an article such as this one. Gandydancer (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)" You didn't mention boxed block quotes. In short I took that to mean you disagreed with even Becritical's revert to different quote formatting just as I did for the same reasons.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was willing to take out the {{quote| and blockquote formatting, or even to paraphrase instead of quote. The problem was that instead of working with me, he just kept taking the information out entirely. B^e——C_ritical 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps this is a perception problem Becritical. I know I have worked with you in the past. I don't believe there have been any disputes between us before. I have reverted you before when we first encountered each other on this article but you made a discussion and explained clearly what your reasoning was and I agreed. I don't remember you ever claiming that I was a problem to you or the page we edit on, or that we have been bumping heads in any way. We have contributed to consensus for and against each other's opinion without any dispute that I am aware of.

Diffs, part 1

Here is my first edit=

The page is large and to make it easy for loading on my computer I edited through the section itself, by deleting the material with the intention of then adding and copy editing it. The edit summary reads :Undue weight to CNN in these sections. Moving to the media section So anyone who may have the page watched would know this was not a straight deletion, but a move for the moment.

Here is my next edit (and next in edit history)=

This moves the exact information fully intact. I purposely made this edit with no further work to just get it back on the page because I had edited quickly through the single section with it's deletion. At this point it's just a move. Intact still in boxes.

Becritical's revert=

My revert=

My next edit=

I then made a two subsequent edits that I was already in the process of doing with consensus, which split the page and summarized the Reactions section unrelated to the section the information being discussed originated in, but does contain the section the information was placed into, so it moved with the split.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Issue of discussion

In reading Becritical's first line in the DR I am confused. He states "The discussion has been extremely frustrating" (I can accept that) and goes on to claim "he said" or "He has made statements". But he also claims that I edited before discussion. First....anyone can edit without discussion (it isn't a requirement, it's just common sense if there is a dispute to attempt to resolve it on the talk page and not the edit summaries), and second, I am the editor that initiated the discussion on the talk page. What actually happened was simply that Becritical made a demand for no edits without discussion but refused to actually start that discussion....so I did. So yes...there was discussion and it leads right here with Becriticle's last post on the thread directing the discussion to an ANI that then directs to this DRN.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I accept you as a well-intentioned editor.

Here are the edits

Amadscientist removed information

04:58, 15 January 2012

My revert asking for discussion.

05:47, 15 January 2012

Amadscientist's counter-revert.

06:06, 15 January 2012

Amadscientist's first talk page edit on the subject

06:11, 15 January 2012

As you see, he reverted in contraversion of WP:BRD, and didn't go to the talk page till after counter-reverting. The discussion did not go well from then on as detailed above. Just now, he seems to think it was my job to start such a discussion, saying I "refused to actually start that discussion." That's an example of several misunderstandings of how Wikipedia works, and he doesn't seem willing to be corrected. It's nice he kept the quotes in the article, but the quotes are useless to the article when removed from the sections where they're relevant. The quotes are irrelevant and undue weight as media reactions. B^e——C_ritical 23:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And yes, things have been good in the past, for example . I'm not sure why he's editing so aggressively now and not working with me. However, if you read that talk page section, you'll see what seems to me to be strange misunderstanding. B^e——C_ritical 23:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Uhm..*Because it's a content disput.* Not working with you....? I started the discussion, but you continue to whack me over the proverbial head with it. Uhm...Becritical...

BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

...and in all honesty I hadn't even seen this until just now. What I am saying is this....you took a disagreement with content and how and where it is used in the article as an excuse to take me to ANI asking for a block I believe and when they directed you here it looked to at least one that I was excluding news sources or asking to balance with more news sources. No. It not that easy. It about the current consensus. Did the article have any other block quotes or boxed block quotes. If there was a change the consensus I couldn't find a discussion to show it. But in reading the article as it looked then it was not something I saw as neutral. Why do I have to agree to do exactly what you want to be working with you. Why is it not at least as important that you work with me? Because the expectation is not enough it's your action. Going straight to ANI over a content dispute is going for the throat. You could easily have used a content dispute route but your didn't even start there. You took this to the Admin Notice boards as an incident. Why not Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard Editors should not have to fear that just because of a content dispute that they are going to see an another editor jump the dispute resolution process in huge leaps like this. I understand we are both confused but....I didn't bring this here. There are steps we should take for disputes. While it is only a guideline it is still something that we should consider before we take content disputes directly to ANI and without any further steps from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution--Amadscientist (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow... I just hope someone else will come along here. I tried to work with you. And I brought it to AN/I (not requesting a block, just wanting an admin to talk to you) and here because you're being disruptive, and more and more so as things progress. I don't continue to beat my head against a wall when what I say is not absorbed, since that's how things get out of control. Again, you kept removing the content, instead of trying to work with me. B^e——C_ritical 01:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Becritical, did you ask for a third opinion? First...did you even have consensus in the discussion that was started? That's why when someone else added to also not really liking block quotes I felt I still had the old consensus from the removal of the adbuster quotes and the discussion from that. Because so far you didn't have support and the discussion was at no consensus with no support for inclusion, but I was trying to get it into the article in some manner. You didn't agree with it's move. You didn't agree with the removal of box or block quotes and your main reasoning is that it's not an over use of quotes from one source, boxed or block quotes are fine for this article and do not draw specific attention to them with any undue weight, and I violated WP:BRD. It was kind of a discussion killer to bring this here in this manner out of frustration. I am sorry and do indeed apologize if I pissed you off. I assure you I was not trying to do so it just seems to be a reaction here sometimes, but you have to continue or at least try to continue with a rational that will gain at least the support of someone who is not diametrically opposed to your view. I still don't see it sir. Really I don't and I did feel I had the consensus behind my edit and was being reasonable to try to copy edit into the media section. Did I do everything perfectly....? Please, of course not, but if this becomes a checklist of violations it kinda looses the point of resolution. Bottom line is you want the information to stand as it was before I edited it and haven't really argued that far before getting upset and looking for administrative action.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And instead of working with me, you continued to be disruptive. I say disruptive for the reasons already described above. But here's another chance: put the blockquotes back into the article as they were before this edit, and I'll do as I already offered several times to do. B^e——C_ritical 02:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No. How about we take this back to the talk page and continue from where we left off and attempt to gain consensus whether or not to include the content and where and how.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No. You had no consensus for removing the longstanding content you edit warred out. Put it back, thus reverting your disruptiveness, and I'll know you are working in good faith. B^e——C_ritical 03:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The difference in what we are saying is that you feel I was wrong for not gaining a consensus before I made an edit. This is where we differ in our interpretation of the spirit of Wikipedia. I believe that my edit was justified by long standing consensus from former discussions and I perceive you believing that the silent consensus you feel you had prior to my edit should be what stands. The talk page on the article is the best place for this but you feel my not working with you is an issue instead of simply attempting to gain consensus for inclusion.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Per BRD, your first edit was fine, your second and third removals were disruptive. And there was no consensus for any of your removals, though there was a developing consensus for not using quotation blocks of any kind. Any former consensus about quotation blocks is completely irrelevant: the formatting of quotation blocks can be removed without removing the quotations themselves. And no, I won't go trying to convince you to include. It's up to you to justify your edits, not for me to try to gain consensus for reversing your edit-warred fait accompli. I've offered compromises the whole time. B^e——C_ritical 04:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So are you ready to go back to that discussion on the talk page as to whether or not to use them where you want or are you still asking that I put them back as block quotes.... on the main page where you had them. Because that was part of the whole thing. My moving them to a different section where having the three sources would be more appropriate. Now that's my opinion but so far no one has weighed in on that either way.....still. It's about gaining consensus for the use of the content and where it is best used. Right now you want them back on the page and I think they belong in the media section. We can discuss it on the talk page or we can just leave this here and see where it goes, I guess.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing I deeply disagree with concerning the way Wikipedia works, is that aggressive, disruptive editing such as you did gets rewarded, and those of us who choose to edit more gently and collaboratively can be pushed aside. I won't contribute to that dynamic. It makes me want to get a badhand sock, but I won't do that either. The quotes, with or without blockquotes, should be returned to the sections where they were. We can discuss further modifications once we're working on what's in the article. For instance, you don't think they're relevant, I think they are directly relevant to the sections they were in. You may want them paraphrased, and that's a compromise I'm willing to accept. Rather than put them in the media section, they should be removed from the article. You think they are copyright violations, we can take that to a noticeboard. Anyway, we can try to work it out. B^e——C_ritical 05:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I generally accept the concept that we don't paraphrase. I believe we write original prose summing up the information in a neutral manner. To paraphrase may actually be altering the original reference or add undue weight to the idea by sometimes writing Wikipedia as the authority or the voice of that opinion. It isn't that I don't think they are relevant, but not relevant necessarily where they were when I found them. I am an editor that is not afraid to make bold edits. For that I make no apology. However, the history of my contributions shows I accept the consensus of editors when it is clearly against my opinion. It's not a black mark to have consensus not agree with an edit. People bring things up over and over again. I am not that type. I do have areas of interest that range from images to social history, social archaeology and contemporary views and outlooks in general but I don't obsess over the issues. Before we attempt to compromise between our two views lets see if the community wants to bring back block quotes first. If you want the information back on the main page you could do that in prose in a neutral manner but I don't see how that can be done outside the media section without CNN being undue weight unless severely compressed into something with due weight. Even spread out it still looks like we are turning to one source as the over arching "source" for the article and I'm not sure we've established that.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is deadlocked. Take it to talk and get consensus for removal.(olive (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC))

I'm a mediator/clerk here at DRN. Let me begin by admitting that I have not looked at the contending edits and, thus, have no opinion about what the "right" answer is. What I would like to comment upon is the argumentation and the process. Several references have been made to "violating BRD". It is not possible to "violate" BRD because BRD is not a policy or guideline or even an information page. It is merely an essay containing recommendations about one very good way to reach consensus; it carries no binding weight whatsoever. The policy on how consensus is formed is the Consensus policy. What it says, in brief, is that (a) if you boldly make an edit or propose it on the talk page and no one objects you have consensus by silence, the weakest form of consensus and consensus can change, (b) if you boldly make an edit or propose it on the talk page and someone objects, then you need to achieve consensus by discussion on the talk page, (c) if you cannot obtain consensus by discussion on the talk page, you can attempt to obtain consensus one way or the other by attracting other editors in a proper manner. It does not say that the editor first proposing the edit loses unless they can obtain consensus to make the proposed change, but instead presumes (perhaps a bit blithely) that the editor desiring the change will pursue the matter until there is a clear consensus either in favor of or against the edit in question. An exception to that policy comes if there is a policy or guideline which clearly says that an edit should or should not be done. In that case, the policy or guideline controls (see WP:CONLIMITED) whether or not the edit ought to be made (unless an IAR local exception is made but an IAR exception must also be achieved through consensus). (What, then, about the Be bold guideline? If you read that guideline carefully, it boils down to this: You should feel free to edit boldly, so long as you do so carefully and responsibly, but if you get reverted you've still got to obtain consensus for your edits.) (Let me also mention in response to something that someone said somewhere in this or the talk page discussion, sorry I don't remember who or where, that the three revert rule specifically says, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.") So, I'd like to kick this discussion back to the article talk page with two goals: First, are there any policies or guidelines which control this issue. (In that context, I would note that Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing_quotations, mentioned in the discussion, is an again an essay, not a policy or guideline, and is not binding in any sense.) And second, if there is no policy or guideline which controls this issue (which I suspect, but do not know for certain, is the case) then using the suggestions at attracting other editors in a proper manner to attract other editors to the discussion to attempt to reach a consensus one way or the other. I recognize that one of those suggestions is to come here to DRN and, for that reason, I'm going to leave this discussion open for a few days to see if anyone cares to opine about either the applicability of policy/guidelines or, failing that, what is best for Wikipedia (which is always the proper and only subject of a consensus discussion). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. I referred to BRD because though it's just an essay, it's a description of policy: what one's choices are if one is to both not give up and not edit war. Are there any options other than BRD? B^e——C_ritical 02:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Coleman (news weathercaster)

Clerk note: I've left a message at the biographies of living persons noticeboard about this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about information that is not only honest but verifiable. I undid your edits as you removed references and installed new info that was not backed up. You also seemed to remove references that I can see are good but maybe not that flattering to you. Many parts of the page were a mess from your edits. There is a reason people do not edit their own pages, and you showed exactly why. You put emotion first and not verifiable facts. If you see something that needs changing post it in TALK section of the wikipage and make sure to give good references. If it is honest, verifiably, and noteworthy then it may get edited into the page. Remember Wikimedia is not a site to only post positive things about someone but everything that is honest, verifiable, and noteworthy. --Sallynice (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Also forgot to post this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography
"Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged..."
--Sallynice (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a clerk/mediator here at DRN. Without either agreeing or disagreeing with Sallynice's edits, let me note that she is giving good advice in referring you to the Autobiography rule, and I would direct you more specifically to the "If Wikipedia already has an article about you" subsection and the immediately following "Problems in an article about you" subsection of that rule. It is difficult to write an article about anything here which will survive editing without being fairly well versed in Wikipedia policies and having a good deal of editing experience, to write one or make extensive changes in one about yourself is likely to be an exercise in frustration. Those subsections give some suggestions about how to go about enlisting the assistance of experienced Wikipedia editors to deal with problems that you see with the article. Just remember, however, that even if you receive that help you may not be able to get everything that you want if part of what you want does not conform with Wikipedia policy. To get a quick, but by no means exhaustive, introduction to policy you might want to read my advice to new users essay. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems John Coleman has taken the low road and come up with another ID, Lakeside0. I and other editors have already reverted the same edits that were made. I have also made a sockpuppet request to look into it but it seems pretty clear by the edits almost being word for word the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MRWX I was really hoping he would take the high road as there seems to be little info on how he was removed from the Weather Channel and has a negative opinion of the people that did so. I was hoping to fill in those blanks as that was the original reason I read his page. sigh... --Sallynice (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legio IX Hispana discussion

Clerk's Comment: Ok, I've read through the issues on the article, the article talk page, and the individual talk pages of the involved editors.

• 99 IP address, IP addresses are treated as second class citizens and any contraversial change by an IP is almost always reverted with little thought. Consider registering for a user name so that you can be afforded the same privileges and protections as every other editor.
• Dougweller, Consider that your warning after Barsoomian warned the IP address is significantly BITE-y. Before you dash off a talk page posting to a user (regardless of the user's tenure on WP) consider if they've already been warned due to a specific issue and not moved forward.

Now, Let's all put town the "Bad Faith" clubs and take a look at the article. Can we agree that up to today the BCE has been the unchallenged consensus? The IP address Boldly changed the era, Barsoomian reverted the change, and now the appropriate action is to discuss this and try to come up with a reasonable compromise. Can either side show reliable sources for BC/AD or the BCE/CE labeling of years? Hasteur (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there was an earlier warning about misleading edit summaries. My informal warning was meant to enforce that. On the IP's talk page the IP writes " At first I thought these date styles were typos,". However, before his first 'typo' edit summary there are about 6 edits where he cited WP:ERA or wrote "style made to be harmonious with related articles". I don't have a lot of patience for SPAs on this issue, whether they are editing in favor of BC/AD or BCE/CE (although I prefer the latter). Sooner or later that sort of behavior ends up in drama. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology#ASPRO chronology I make it clear I'm in disagreement with an editor who seems to be trying to replace BC/AD with BCE/CE and say "However much I prefer BCE/CE, we can't and shouldn't do that." The claim that "User:Dougweller seems to have a pattern of changing date styles without a good reason and without a consensus, then he uses his/her power as an administrator to threaten those who revert those edits." is simply false. I do revert unexplained era changes at times as those are usually done for pov reasons. In the past I've usually (but probably not always) tried to ascertain the original style used and not revert if the change has been to the original style, but the wording of WP:ERA has been changed and this area looks a bit tricker now (there's a discussion going on about this).

As for the actual article, there is a discussion on the article's talk page. I'm surprised this was brought here at this stage of the discussion. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You can find any number of reliable sources using either style. It's more a matter which is more suited to the general tone and subject area of the article . Most of the editors on Legio IX Hispana (aside from a few IPs who ONLY changed the date formats) had used BCE/CE, and this seems to be the style used in modern archaeology. I opened a discussion on settling on one or the other last September. No one advocated BC/AD. Barsoomian (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I, like my colleague Hasteur, am a mediator/clerk here at DRN. I've been studying the page history of the article and it appears to me that the article uniformly used BC/AD for 8 years from the time of its creation on 17 November 2003 until this edit on 13 June 2011 which caused both BC/AD and BCE/CE to be used in the article. The BC/BCE wars then started with this edit on 26 July 2011 and this edit on 12 August 2011 followed by this reversion on 12 August 2011. In light of that history, it appears to me that BC/AD was the uniform style for this article and that the edits by the IP editors (whatever their motivations: we judge edits, not editors, and as much as some of us, myself included, would like to devalue the edits of IP editors their edits are, by policy, no less valid and worthy of AGF than logged in editors) were correct in beginning to restore the article to its uniform style in accordance with ERA. While ERA may have said something else in the past, or discussions may be under way to change it in the future, what we do now should be controlled by what it says now. Just for full disclosure, I agree with Dougweller that I prefer BCE/CE but also like Dougweller I prefer consistency and uniformity more, in line with ERA. ERA says this article should be uniformly AD/BC as it was for 8 years, unless consensus can be had to go the other way supported by "Reasons for the proposed change [which are] specific to the content of the article". Said more succinctly, the default "right answer" for this page should be uniform BC/AD unless consensus is established for BCE/CE supported by reasons specific to Legio IX Hispana. Unless I misread the discussion, it seems to me that there is an attempt to derive such "reasons specific" from what is done in reliable sources about the article. I think both that and what Barsoomian says above about "matter of which is more suited to the general tone and subject area" of the article both miss the point of the "specific to the content" standard. Neither are specific to the content; what's done in other sources is simply irrelevant and "most suited" does not equal "specific to." "Specific to" would seem to me to mean reasons arising from and directly related to the particular content of the article. But that's just my opinion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see how "general tone and subject area" is different from "specific to the content". And WP:ERA says "Reasons for the proposed change should be specific to the content of the article; a general preference for one style over another is not a valid reason". By "general preference" I think it is saying this should not be done as part of a campaign to change the style in every article, regardless, as some evidently try to do. "Specific" does not mean that the reasons have to be unique to the article, but that they should arise from consideration of its specific features. And the reasons I stated are specific to the content. In any case, WP:ERA first says: "establish a consensus for change at the talk page." Which was done -- and I will point out that at the time, this was not a "change", the then current state was inconsistent, and why on earth should what was in the article in 2003 be relevant? Philosophically, I don't agree with this concept of locking down an aspect of an article, forever. It seems an ultimate expression of WP:OWN. WP:DATE states that "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor," and there was such a discussion, a style was proposed and established for several months until the IP made his edits (the only edits he has made to this, or any other article, are to change date formats to BC/AD) and when reverted, instead of discussing it, dragged us here. (These remarks have been revised since first edit) Barsoomian (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP seems to have disengaged from this conversation. It's pretty clear this editor has a bit of a grudge against me, and for the record I think it's likely this is the same as Jgw71 (talk · contribs) who has been on a campaign to change BCE to BC: . Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Pending the IP address coming back and explaining, I'm going to close this in 36 hours as stale. IP address making the claims has not responded. Hasteur (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that I am new to wikipedia and I don't know all the do's and don'ts. When I went to school there wasn't any such thing as BCE. I am a retiree so I spend a lot of time reading history articles, and I noticed some with BCE, so I changed them to BC thinking it was a typo. Once I realized this is something new, I read the rules at WP:ERA which address this matter clearly. Once a date style is established it should not be changed without good reason (it states preference is not a good reason) and a consensus must be reached on the talk page. It does not state a consensus can be reach by changing it and hoping no one notices or complains for a while. This seems to be a hot topic throughout wikipedia. The solution is easy: follow the rules to the letter. I have offered to revert any changes I made in error. I apologize for my ignorance on the subject; however, that doesn't change the facts of the page in question. If they want to change the date style from the original date style, they should follow the rules! 1) what is the reason for the change? Preference should NOT be a reason, so why is it important that this article be BCE/CE when the original style BC/AD is perfectly acceptable per WP:ERA? 2) Once you have provided the reason for the change, initiate a discussion on the Talk page. These are the rules, so why are they not enforced? 99.101.160.126 (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I will be using a login account in the future, but when I login, I no longer can see when I have messages on this IP99.101.160.126 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You're obviously not "new to Wikipedia". You made edits in Feb 2011 referring to WP:ERA. Months later later you're making edits like this falsely describing your changes as "fix typo". You're the one who has gone through dozens of articles changing them to suit your personal prejudice. So to be lectured by you about "following rules to the letter" is risible. Regardless, when you use your login account, you can add User talk:99.101.160.126 to your watchlist. Barsoomian (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As for Legio IX Hispana: I did not change it so suit my prejudices. I had been working on the article for some time and noticed the inconsistency and saw it needed to be decided, so I opened a discussion and tried to reach a consensus with other editors involved in the article as to which way to go. A process fully consistent with WP:ERA. (And exactly the process you unaccountably complain was not followed.) Instead of joining in that, you just changed it and then when reverted immediately came here. Barsoomian (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Barsoomian is harassing and bullying me. Please read my talk page. There is no reason for someone to continue attacking someone in this way. As for "not being new." I am not sure when I first made an edit, but I can say, I have only made a handful of edits and I do not know all the do's and don'ts. I admit I may have made mistakes, and I have told Barsoomian that if he/she would point them out to me, I will change them. The edits he/she has pointed out have already been reverted by him/her. Ironically, he/she reverted an edit that went unchallenged for one year, yet says the article in question shouldn't be reverted because a consensus by acclimation has happen because it has gone unchallenged. How can we expect anyone to know the rules if there are double standards? The solution is easy: make everyone, without exception, follow the guidelines as specifically laid out at WP:ERA 99.101.160.126 (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have placed warnings on 99.101.160.126's page regarding his misleading edit summaries, found in his edit history going back for over a year, and responded to his comebacks. That is what he describes as "harassment". He has never reverted any of his own edits despite his admission he knew he'd made mistakes. Otherwise, in Legio IX Hispana I opened a discussion in September last year on the date topic. I did not make surreptitious edits, described as "correct typo" as 99.101.160.126 does. Barsoomian (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I admitted making mistakes based on you telling me I did. I took your word for it. I did go there to revert them, but there was nothing there to revert. You already made those changes. This is exactly what I mean by harassment. How can I change something that has already been changed? Then Barsoomian tries to use that fact against me, making it look like I am doing something I am not. I have now asked this person to stop contacting me TWO times, but that doesn't stop the snide remarks and twisted accusations. This is not constructive, and it doesn't resolve the situation at hand. 99.101.160.126 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated the discussion on the talk page of this article. Unless the criteria at WP:ERA is met, I intend to revert the date style to its original format. Having said that, WP:ERA states four key points: 1)"No preference is given to either style." 2)"Do not arbitrarily change from one era style to the other on any given article." (This is what took place when the original style was changed.)3)"a general preference for one style over another is not a valid reason." 4)"establish a consensus for change at the talk page." The only previous discussion on the talk page lacked a valid reason, and had two "for" and two "against." If there is a valid reason the original style should have been changed, please give it now. If not, let's revert the date style and move on to something more constructive. 99.101.160.126 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now asked Barsoomian THREE different times to stop contacting me via my talk page. How can I stop this or will this person be able to bully me with no end? 99.101.160.126 (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As to all the accusations by Barsoomian I would like to point to the following: WP:AGF 99.101.160.126 (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's bit ironic considering the accusations (which I deny) you made against me at the start of your complaint. But I've asked him to stop posting to your talk page concerning this, although if you continue SPA editing that would be a different situation. And I still remain entirely unconvinced that you started changing from BCE to BC with your first edit from this IP address. I'm hoping you are sensible enough to be very cautious about your edit summaries in the future as any more misleading summaries are, as I said, the sort of thing that can easily lead to your being blocked. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As to all the "accusations" made on the IP's talk page, the accompanying links to the edit history prove them. The user's talk page is a correct place to note such concerns. I will not continue posting on the problematic edits already mentioned, but if new ones are made or come to light I will report them in the appropriate venue. Futile though it is to report an editor using an anonymous IP. Since the IP has ignored my responses on the purported topic here, and has posted in Talk: Legio IX Hispana that he has declared himself the victor and will proceed to reapply his changes, this is getting pretty pointless. Barsoomian (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears that this is stalled and has degraded into squabbling over user conduct. I am going to close it with the recommendation that the IP editor take the issue to a RFC or, with less recommendation, MedCab, if he still feels strongly enough about the issue to do so. The article is now uniformly BCE/CE and, while I do not believe that was the proper result since there was no consensus (regardless of the reasons or lack thereof for the consensus) to change from the article's original uniform AD/BC usage, if no further action (by RFC or by some other means) is taken then the current BCE/CE usage will become, by consensus through silence the new stable state of the article which will (or perhaps I should say, "ought to") take consensus to change back. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All My Loving, Something, Hey Jude discussion

Hi NimbusWeb, as a non-involved mediator at this board, I'd like to briefly outline the issues I am having. I do not think that bringing this issue to the DRN is helpful, when it does seem that consensus has been established on the talk page. The broad consensus is that the technical music theory should be left out - you are the only dissenting voice. As to whether this opposes the WikiProject Song guidelines, I do not think that it does. The guidelines suggest that the basic structure, key, time signature and recording techniques may be included if relevant. There is nothing to suggest that musical theory to the extent currently in the article is necessary. As I do not believe this to be an issue of dispute, with consensus supporting the removal of the theory section, I am closing this discussion. If you have any further issues, please contact me on my talk page. I will also write a brief note on the talk pages of the articles in question. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:85.96.155.137

Dispute overview

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

Error: The overview field is required. Please fill in the overview field with an outline of the dispute, with diffs if appropriate.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• 85.96.155.137 (talk · contribs)
• 85.96.155.137 (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=User:85.96.155.137}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

• How do you think we can help?

85.96.155.137 (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

User:85.96.155.137 discussion

Re-editing request of Lurs article at Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurs)

Dear Sir,

Several times I tried to correct the article under title 'Lurs' in the Wiki English page. But each time I correct the false information at article; they've been deleted by a Wiki's author called Winter Gaze.

Based on above information we can not deny Lurs ties and connection with Kurds. For that, I insist of reediting of Lurs article in Wiki.

Please do not give the right of editing the article of Lurs only and only to the Wiki's editor/author so called Winter Gaze as it will not be fair.

Sincerely Yours,

Bave Sherko

21.01.2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.184.231.173 (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you'd be best served by taking your issue to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. fredgandt 20:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not the correct venue to raise these issues. Please try Talk:Lurs. If, after some days of discussion among the editors there, you do not reach a satisfactory resolution, please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Jayron32 20:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I would add to the advice of Fred Gandt and Jayron that you should read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. It is not only Winter Gaze who reverts your edits; you are being reverted by several editors. They revert you correctly because you do not cite reliable sources, your sources do not support your content, or you remove sourced content. Note that Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. —teb728 t c 21:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sir, Be honest and tell me that you have read my entire article. I am 100% sure that you did not. Not even checked my given references? Yes I tried to resolve the problem in the Talk area but nothing has changed. For that reason alternatively I tried it here that it could make any sense.

Yes, -for that I am a novice at Wiki- I may lead some mistakes in my attempts to try to correct the articles but it doesn't change the necessity of changing the current article. Because it is not relaying on the facts. And I think I tried the Dispute resolution. But I think my request has been deleted. Let's say I am a novice and I am a rude person. Does that gives you the right to continue to publish wrong information regarding Lurs. As you mentioned above that several editors reverted my articles, you and all other editors believe that I was totally wrong in my articles? And, this happened after reading my entire articles and given references, none even one of my words was true? What do you mean exactly? Am I inventing history by myself? You mean my whole attempts were relied on lies? Did the editors and you read my references? If not satisfied, did you get the books that were given as references?

What do you mean by satisfactory resolution exactly? So, you want me to believe a student desertation texts which written by Limbert, John? Or want me to beleive a Turkish guy Hakan Ozglu that he is making demagogy regarding Luristan map. He and I we well know that in Ottoman era Luristan was attaching to Kurdistan. All maps are in the Turkish Libraries. You may not believe me then you better have a visit to Istanbul and visit Turkish National Library to see by your eyes. Of course now-days Luristan wont attach to Kurdistan because there is no country so called Greater Kurdistan. Even that, Today Lurs become a free nation.

You mean you do not satisfy with Vladimir Minorsky's books and articles? Or with articles from Oscar Mann? And you don't believe Sharaf Khan Bidlisi, a 16th century historian? Did you read his book Sharafnama? So you mean he is also lying? For the sake of God. All these are expert people that made rehearses regarding Kurds, Persians and Lurs. Do the editor Winter Gaze and the others know that Sharafnama was written in 16th century and is a history book? So, you are treating his book as phony lies?

Even that. I am asking you. Why info regarding Lurs in the Wiki Turkish and in the Wiki Kurdish are differing from the Wiki in English? I am asking you. Which one is true? Rather Wiki Turkish and Kurdish must be wrong or rather Wiki English? So, whenever I tried to correct the main idea of the Turkish text you wont let me to change it? You are so confusing.... In fact to me, lazy people to read.

Anyway I am not working for the Wiki and it is not necessity for me to do so. I believe what I believe and you do what you want. I just wanted to put the things on its way and I could not success it in your pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.155.137 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

9/11 conspiracy theories discussion

Does Wikipedian "neutrality" indirectly provide mainstream legitimacy? I stumbled upon this dispute and have never been involved in the particular article writing, nor do I really intend to start. My question though is does allowing a supposedly "fair and balanced", non-neutral write-up on the subject actually give the subject more validity than it actually has in reality. By allowing this article to write the "facts" about the conspiracy without allowing the debunking of these facts could lead the casual reader [or researching child] to believe that the debunking isn't in the article because the "facts" haven't been debunked. For example, just me doing a quick read of the "Suspected insider trading" section, I finished thinking: HOLY SHIT, how do you explain that away?. Then I started to think about it and thought, ok, maybe the buyers of Puts were actually al-Qaeda members or funders. Most of the big brokerage firms have clients all over the world, including in the countries where the hijackers came from, so it's not at all hard to see how terrorists or terrorist funders might open an account and then trade on an event they know to be coming.

The point is if this article tries to explain 9/11 conspiracy theories in a "neutral way" without the debunking included, is it truly neutral? Or does the absence of the debunking actually give it a bias towards suggesting the conspiracy is real? A self perpetuating loop can then exist where people researching the topic for whatever reason are actually swayed by the style of write-up, and the seed of doubt is planted, whether valid or not. (This was my exact experience reading the insider trading section of the conspiracy - had I not seen the other explanation on my own, the only one I'd be left with is the seed planted by the article - that in turn can allow an individual to give undue weight to the whole conspiracy in general).

I would also relate the above to other widely pushed conspiracy theories. Such as the moon landing being faked or Holocaust hoax theories. Just jumping to Wikipedia's entries on both subjects, they are not written in the supposedly "neutral" way espoused here. They actually have the debunking included, so people can make their own call which is real, and not be persuaded by the absence of material to balance the article otherwise. Norbytherobot (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the "conspiracy theory" material has been excluded from the main "9/11 attacks" article, one could argue that that article is no longer NPOV, since some points of view are excluded as being "conspiracy theories". So the material is actually split into two articles, a main article, which is not allowed to be "debunked", and the "conspiracy theory" article which is systematically debunked. The debunking is not what this is about however, that's another issue. My concern is that certain facts are being excluded from the article, like the fact that the 9/11 attacks have been compared to the Reichstag fire, or that a group claims to have collected the signatures of more than 1,000 architects and engineers calling for a new investigation. Facts about the collapse of WTC 7 have also been deleted from the "9/11 conspiracy" article (first time in world history that fire caused the total collapse of a modern skyscraper http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-08-21-wtc-nist_N.htm ). It's these deletions of relevant, reliably sourced facts that is the issue. BTW, I don't really know what happened, I'm not a believer in any particular theory, but readers should have access to factual information this issue, not just the official version of events. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article about the "conspiracy theories" being kept out of the main article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/business/media/on-wikipedia-911-dissent-is-kept-on-the-fringe.html?_r=1 Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

WP:NPOV applies to all articles, even articles about fringe theories. Yes, we should explain the fringe viewpoint, but we also need to explain the majority viewpoint. As Norbytherobot correctly points out, if we only explain the viewpoint of the conspiracy theorist, we are presenting a biased, one-sided version of the events. There are several problems with Ghostofnemo's edits, but biggest one is that their edits only present the fringe viewpoint. I've never seen them ever explain both sides of the issue. That's one reason why his edits are reversed. Me and several other editors have tried explaining how WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE work but Ghostofnemo also suffers from a severe case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

In fact, this has been going on for two years now. I previously reported Ghostofnemo ANI. For everyone's convenience, here's a full transcript:

An admin attempted to discuss the situation with him on his talk page. Again, here's a full transcript:

But unfortunately, it didn't go anywhere. So, here we are, 6 months later, and we're still dealing with the same basic problems as before. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

Seems to me that, while Nemo's specific insertions are clearly meant to favor a POV, the content of the changes he has suggested are a subject of legitimate discussion. The various exchanges on the noticeboards provided above show several uninvolved editors who, as far as I know, do not have a bias towards the conspiracy theories supporting the inclusion of much of the material AQFK is removing. Yet AQFK is using that lack of consensus as a basis for reverting by saying Nemo did not get consensus in those discussions, AQFK ignoring that he didn't get it either.

I suggest AQFK that you pursue alternatives to reverting. Several of the reverts noted above show your only objection as lack of appropriate citation, even though I am sure you are aware that these are commonly cited claims of conspiracy theorists and would probably have little trouble finding appropriate citations. In one case, comparisons to the Reichstag fire, someone even noted a citation already included in the article that supported the material. WP:V should not be taken as a license to remove poorly-cited material if you know there are sources that could be used for proper citation. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is comprehensive and thus if a claim is prominently-related to the subject of the article it should be included in the article. While mentioning a subject elsewhere may violate WP:FRINGE, an article on the subject naturally has fewer limitations in that respect. Given that the article mentions the no-planes theory it seems a little excessive to suggest it should exclude or greatly minimize some of the most prominent arguments given by conspiracy theorists.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In the case of the Reichstag fire, what I actually said was:

The content you added has several problems:

1. The Reichstag fire is rarely (if ever) mentioned in secondary reliable sources in connection to this topic. When we give prominence to minor aspects of a topic, it's against undue weight. This might belong in the body, but not the lede. (More about this below.)
2. The lede should summarize the article. If you want to add new content to the article, start at the body and work your way up to the lede.

But even still, we already have a representative example of historical precedents (Operation Northwoods). Do you want to replace Operation Northwoods with the Reichstag fire? I'd rather stick with Operation Northwoods. It seems to be cited more frequently in the literature than the Reichstag fire.

Ghostofnemo then admitted (albeit inadvertently) that it was undue: "We rarely see this topic discussed AT ALL in the mainstream press" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not take his comments out of context and misrepresent them. He was saying the conspiracy theories themselves are rarely discussed at all in the mainstream media and therefore having just one or two major mainstream media outlets mentioning the comparison was significant. Comparisons were prominently made to Northwoods, but there have also been prominent references to the Reichstag fire. I see no argument for excluding either as both would have significance to conspiracy theorists and their claims about motive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The context was undue weight. It seems that you're the one taking it out of context, and if you don't see an argument then obviously you didn't read the discussion. Can you please read discussions before commenting on them? Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

By "see no argument" I meant "see no legitimate argument" since WP:UNDUE doesn't apply here. Your use of WP:UNDUE ignores that the article is about 9/11 CTs so it only makes sense to present common arguments made by conspiracy theorists when they can be verified. Including this information in articles that aren't about the CTs would be giving undue weight, but including them in an article about it is perfectly kosher. As a subject that gets little discussion in the mainstream media it is to be expected that more particular facts about the theories will be severely neglected in such sources. Using that as a basis for excluding the information when it is clearly relevant to the subject and verifiable to at least one reliable source is using WP:UNDUE to justify improper removal of material.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT apply to all articles. There are no exceptions. To determine weight, we look at what reliable sources think is important, not what 9/11 conspiracy theorists think is important. If conspiracy theorist A makes claim B and claim B is largely ignored by reliable sources, then we do, too. NPOV is one of the five pillars and is not negotiable. Instead of arguing, I recommend you take some time to understand how our policies work. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been removing, among other things, information about drills on 9-11 that are widely-mentioned as evidence by conspiracy theorists. I am sure you are aware this is the case and that it could be easily cited to reliable mainstream sources, though for the purpose of this article that isn't even entirely necessary. Like any other article about a theory, fringe or otherwise, sources advocating the theory are legitimate for sourcing information explaining the claims made by advocates so long as the material itself is strictly neutral and descriptive. That we even have major mainstream sources attesting to some of this material just makes it all the more valid for inclusion. What makes a source reliable in one circumstance may not make it reliable in another. For the purposes of sourcing claims about what conspiracy theorists believe, a major conspiracist source would actually be a reliable source, because it is reasonable to believe they would be knowledgeable about their own beliefs. Where possible, it is better to include an objective or less biased source, but it is not required for including material that objectively describes a viewpoint.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's undue weight even within the context of 9/11 conspiracy theories. I've already told you that it doesn't matter what 9/11 conspiracy theorists themselves think is important. We look to secondary reliable sources to determine weight. Within the context of secondary reliable sources, this rarely gets mentioned as Ghostofnemo already conceded, "We rarely see this topic discussed AT ALL in the mainstream press". Look, I asked that you stop arguing and take some time to understand our policies. You clearly haven't done so. I'm not sure what the point is in repeating the same things over and over again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the most relevant quote I could find from the WP:FRINGE guideline:

This is consistent with various other parts of policy including WP:UNDUE:

Policy clearly supports that views significant within the conspiracist community are appropriate for inclusion in an article about a conspiracy theory.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The first quote is saying that it's OK to use non-peer-reviewed sources in an article. It has nothing to do with this discussion. (No one is objecting about using non-peer-reviewed sources.)

The second quote is about WP:WEIGHT and again, we determine an aspect's significance to the subject by looking to secondary reliable sources. This has already been explained to you several times now.

Dude, I don't get paid to edit Wikipedia, and I don't see any point to me repeating the same things over and over again. This is my last post to you in this discussion. Have a good day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Key part of that first quote is that the "views of adherents should not be excluded" as opposed to what you are saying, that they can be excluded based on the fact that only a few secondary sources mention them, you aren't even arguing that there aren't such sources mentioning them. You also are ignoring the context of that quote, where it is clearly suggesting the sources that advocate a fringe theory can be used as sources about the view of the theory's adherents. In other words, not only does policy support including any significant views of adherents, but even supports using fringe sources to back up material describing those veiws. Such use would be consistent with WP:PRIMARY.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The deletions continue

Here's a diff of a recent mass deletion by A Quest for Knowledge of material that seems to be relevant, NPOV, and reliably sourced: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=470476708&oldid=470462003 Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The material is obviously legitimate for inclusion in some form Nemo, but you should use sources, preferably secondary sources, that explicitly connect these arguments to the conspiracy theories. I think you satisfied that with the "Dancing Israelis" but the bits about NORAD, the Saudi hijackers, and building 7 would need sources connecting their relevance directly to the conspiracy theories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The text I added to the article simply states material from the references, and doesn't imply anything not stated in the articles. If you can find reliable sources that draw connections, those would of course be better, but at least we should be able to state facts from reliable sources without drawing conclusions (if that is all we have due to the reluctance of the mainstream press to deal with this topic). Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.