Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 54

Opening comments by Dr. Vicodine

I said that this is ORIGINAL RESEARCH and I said it on numerous occasions why it is so. But all I see in return is some blabber about this being something "long held practice", "has been present in these articles for as long as I can remember", "routine calculations", "simple math". How long, who started it, when? Routine calculations? Which include boolean algebra and a lot of: if this and that then this OR if this and that or this and not that then this OR if than and this by that and not this then this. For example it's okay to go on Premiere League season page and go on with Arsenal will get: 4th place if they defeat Wigan AND Everton lose to Southampton OR they draw with Wigan AND Chelsea defeat Fulham by 2 or more goals AND Manchester United draw with Norwich, 5th place if this or that and so on for a total of 20 clubs. And Sven can change my name in his paragraph and all he said applies to him. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Motsjo

My views are that the next match day section has been present in these articles for as long as I can remember, and I really don't see why they have to be removed now. They are all mathematical facts and thus should not count as original research. If this practice is changed then many other would have to be changed as well. Motsjo (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Schnapper

My point of view is also already described in the 2012 CL groupe stag talk article. These scenarios are based on verifiable and official sources (the tie-breaking rules for the competition) and can easily be found out after some time. I consider them as routine calculations and also as useful information. I've always liked Wikipedia's football articles for containing such clear and precise information on what would happen. It has always been used so long I remember and nobody had never complained about it before. I don't see why it has suddenly to be forbidden now.

Opening comments by Sven Manguard

I became involved in this a few weeks ago when I noticed that a user Dr. Vicodine had removed large chunks of text from an article in my watchlist. I reverted him, and then went to his talk page where I realized that he had a long track record of not only making this change, but getting himself blocked for 3RR violations... for continuously making this change. I ended up reverting him again, and wasn't alone, and eventually he got blocked, again, for 3RR violations.

Today, I saw that the section was missing again, however this time it was because he stuck eight different OR tags in the sections, which were then removed by someone else. While it's nice to see that the user is no longer edit warring, he's still engaging in battleground behavior to make the change. I would, ideally, like to see him topic banned from all pages related to the UEFA Champions and UEFA Europa leagues.

As for whether the sections qualify as OR or not, I don't think that they do, and I think that even if they do, they can probably be sourced, since Wikipedia isn't the only website to do this, and I've heard the on air commentators say things like this too. That is to me, however, a secondary concern to Dr. Vicodine's conduct. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group stage discussion

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I'd like to note that there was an extended discussion of this issue back in June at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 69#Next match day scenarios, involving Dr. Vicodine and a number of other editors, pro and con, who are not involved in this dispute. I'm not suggesting that anything was (or was not) resolved in that discussion or, indeed, that even if consensus had been reached that it would have meant anything. (Consensus decisions made at WikiProjects do not have the ability to set enforceable standards for articles, even in the subject area of that project, unless proper steps are taken to elevate the decision to policy or guideline status. See WP:CONLIMITED.) Consideration of that discussion may, at least to some extent, avoid the need for reinventing the wheel here, however. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me start out by noting that my only concern is what's right for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. If you care to take a look at my editing history, you'll see that I do not regularly edit in the sports area or, indeed, in pretty much any one topic area. I'm going to start with some general principles and work to specifics:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I'll come back to this.
• Except for certain matters such as legal threats and slander, Wikipedia is edited and governed by consensus.
• Policies and guidelines are important here because they are the established consensus of the community.
• The verifiability policy establishes that edits which are challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source.
• The no original research policy establishes in this section: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (Emphasis added.)
• The Wikipedia is not a newspaper section of the What Wikipedia is not policy says that day-to-day sports news is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." (Emphasis added.)
• The Wikipedia is not a crystal ball section of that same policy says: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included..." (Emphasis added.)
• The Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information section of that same policy also says that we should avoid "Excessive listings of statistics".

Based on those policies and principles I simply cannot see any way that the material in question comports with Wikipedia policy.

The arguments that it has been included for a long time and that it is only included for a few days before being removed are irrelevant. Many inappropriate things exist in Wikipedia for a long time before being discovered and removed; they should have been removed long ago, but it is a well established principle that their longevity is not a reason for their retention if they should not have been here in the first place. Similarly, the fact that the material is so time-sensitive that it will only be present for a few days flies in the fact of the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" policy and the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy and, frankly, with Wikipedia's essential essence as an encyclopedia.

The argument of "what harm does it do?" is also answered by the fact that it detracts from Wikipedia's core function and mission. That is true regardless of how beneficial it may be or useful for sports fans or whatever. If it does not comply with Wikipedia's rules and purpose it simply does not belong in Wikipedia. That's not being a "rules Nazi," it's simply a recognition that Wikipedia is here for a particular purpose and a particular function and must resist being expanded beyond that function.

As for the argument that this is simple math, that argument is a red herring and irrelevant. The problem is not the math, though I understand from the WikiProject Football discussion that the math may not be so simple as it is suggested to be, but instead the analysis that if X does Y that Z will be achieved. It is the conclusion that something will be achieved if Y happens that is the original research regardless of how simple the math that supports that conclusion may be.

Even if none of those problems were present, the material has been objected to and, having been objected to, it is absolutely inappropriate if it is not reliably sourced with inline citations to reliable sources. Please understand: inclusion of those sources would not mean that the material should or must be included in Wikipedia, but without sources it is absolutely unacceptable. It would still be unacceptable for the reasons discussed above if it were sourced, but it is doubly unacceptable without sources.

Other DRN volunteers may feel differently, but that's how I feel about this dispute as an entirely neutral observer. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A clear case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. WP:CONLIMITED will almost certainly apply to any consensus claimed, given the narrowness of the subject. Leaky Caldron 18:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur with that analysis. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a good external link that could be used in the article. Those soccer tournaments are super popular, and there must be dozens of reputable sites available, many with the "forward looking" information that is in dispute here. The WP article could include an external link to a stable, top-quality site, so the WP readers can get to the information with a single click. That would be a win-win situation: readers have access to the data, but the encyclopedia is not cluttered. --Noleander (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well then, why is it okay for teams to be colored, i.e. to be confirmed as group winners or as being qualified for the Europa League? In Group H, Manchester United are marked as group winners (or runners up). This is fairly obvious (although the same basic math has to be applied to verify), and can be widely referenced. However, take a look at Group G. Barcelona are qualified at least for the Europa League, but all the other teams in this group can get at least 9 points. I know all the other teams can't achieve maximum points at the same time, but is this obvious for the non-fan? I doubt you can find any references to this either, as Barcelona are widely expected to win the group. Motsjo (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Question for editors that would like the material to stay in the articles: Is there a reliable source (i.e. a respected, stable, accurate newspaper, magazine, or web site) which lists the "next game day" facts? That is a critical piece of information that is needed to close this DRN case one way or another. --Noleander (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I did find a source for this information: Motsjo (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That article didn't explore all the possible results, as you will do on CL article. And for the Europa League? I don't think the question is resolved finding a ref in this particular case, also because it is the ONLY one on the web , because there is also other problem as for example WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:CRYSTAL. Stigni (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Motsjo: thanks for supplying the link to the ESPN article on the Europa league "permutations". Unfortunately, that doesn't look like it is a permanent url/page that could be used in the Europa League article. In other words, the link is to a transient article that may go away at some time, and thus is not suitable for a permanent external link in a WP article. Focusing on the more prestigious UEFA champions league: are there any quasi-permanent sites/links that present the "next match day" data? As indicated above, these sources are important because a lot of logic/computation is involved, and WP policies don't permit editors to do such calculations. --Noleander (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've got an idea that could hopefully reach to a good consensus: what if we wrote the scenarios on the Talk Page? Nothing in the article itself would stand against the rules. And the people who want scenarios to stay (and there are a lot) would continue to happily access this information. --Schnapper (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here for self-serving purposes. The addition of non-encyclopaedic material on the article talk page will be useful only to those editor's who want this material in article space, where it is prohibited by content policy. Leaky Caldron 10:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I give up. Reaching a consensus with such closed minded people is just impossible. Why have you even created a dispute resolution thread if no consensus can obviously be reached? And no, it's not useful only to those editors, it simply brings further information useful for all interested football fans who want to know what can happend on the next matchday and who can hardly find such information on another websites (if not impossible). I wait your consensus oriented propositions. --Schnapper (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You've had mine and if you don't like it that's tough, but you can cut out the "closed minded" jibe because that verges on a personal attack and there is a policy against it here WP:NPA. Wikipedia is not a fansite WP:FANSITE. Leaky Caldron 11:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Where is it then? Just giving your point of view does not consititute a proposition. --Schnapper (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the proposed content is not acceptable per content policy and guidelines covering WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH. Consensus should be based on policy, not necessarily trying to find an answer that suites all sides in a dispute. Leaky Caldron 11:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL states: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable [...]" The anticipated events we are talking about are all verifiable on the basis of the official tie-breaking criteria rules.

WP:OR states: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Again, the tie-breaking rules are all verifiable. Moreover, I consider this as routine calculations (which do not count as original research) as basic math is used to determine the scenarios.

WP:SYNTH states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." There is only one source: again the official competion rules by UEFA, which contain the tie-breaking rules. Based on those, scenarios are then determined with routine calculations.

See? It's all about an interpreation of the policy. --Schnapper (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Section 7.06 of the competition regulations applies on completion of the group stages' . It's all a question of facts. Leaky Caldron 11:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't impact on the scenarios, just saying. --Schnapper (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In respons to Schnapper: you said "The anticipated events we are talking about are all verifiable on the basis of the official tie-breaking criteria rules." Yes, with a page of simple math calculation it is a yes. BUT I couldn't said that a page of simple math calculation is a routine calculation, and so if doesn't exist a inline ref they are not verificable, so OR; and a list of all possible scenario is agains of "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate." See also the discussion on this page on a related topic about if Toronto was eliminated on 6 September (simple math) or on 12 September (date of the first official source). Stigni (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

My opinion - I"ve given this a lot of thought, and I've come to the conclusion that the material should not go in the article(s). The data is just too transitory: it only is useful for about two weeks. The calculations are not a simple addition or subtraction: but involve some pretty fancy logic sometimes. A great compromise is to insert an external link to a quasi-official website that has the data: but there appear to be no such sites. The fact that the UEFA web site, or major UK newspaper websites don't contain this data is very telling. As much as I love the champions league (that victory of Chelsea at Barcelona last year!) I just don't see this material conforming to WP policies. --Noleander (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed closing: After three neutral independent opinions that this material is inappropriate for Wikipedia I see little reason to keep this discussion open any longer. Unless someone has something new to add, I intend to close this as "resolved against inclusion of the material" 24 hours after the timestamp on this posting. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

For clarification: will that close be "it shouldn't be in because there's no source", or just "It shouldn't be in at all"? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If I close it (now in an hour or so), it won't be more than what I said above, "resolved against inclusion of the material" but I don't mean by that to say anything more or less than what has been said in this discussion. To that end, I would note that two of the independent opinions, Noleander and myself, believe that there are reasons other than mere lack of sourcing to keep it out, the third independent opinion, Leaky caldron, has focused in his/her comments only on the CRYSTAL, OR, and SYNTH elements; the OR and SYNTH could be cured by reliable sourcing, but the CRYSTAL might or might not: based on how CRYSTAL is ordinarily applied here, however, I strongly suspect that it would not be. Just not to be misunderstood, however, let me say that I am certain that none of the three of us would say that reliable sourcing to the elements of this material would be sufficient: the only sourcing which would be adequate is reliable sourcing to a source which explicitly and expressly says what will be placed into the article without any further computation or analysis. But, again, at least two of us — and probably all three — would say that even reliable sourcing would not be enough to make the material acceptable. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I disagree with the inclusion of this material as it stands and would not support it being included in any circumstances due to its transient nature. If a RS was available it could be referenced as a referential citation in the text but not for the purposes of inserting transient tabular content. This should also apply to the Europa League article 2012–13 UEFA Europa League group stage. Leaky Caldron 15:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That makes it three out of three independent opinions that the material cannot be included even if it is reliably sourced. Noleander and Leaky Caldron believe that a link to it might be provided, but not set out at length in the text; I express no opinion on such a link, pro or con. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:17, 13 November 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.

Opening comments by AmongTheliving66

Opening comments by 71.95.82.119

The Poison discussion

• Welcome to DRN. First, the true name of the song is determined by two things: The album's liner notes and iTunes. So, the name that should appear is the one shown on both of them. I guess this may solve the issue, but we can have a discussion here to clarify everything and avoid future disputes. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:31, 10 November 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.

Opening comments by MorelMWilliam

RobertRosen regards the personal details of Aruna Roy supported by multiple reliable sources (such as regarding her marriage to Bunker Roy, her birth, schooling and education) to be controversial and removes(1, 2, 3 & 4) these well cited info without having his concerns heard on the article's talk page citing the provisions of WP:BLP. When I confronted him at WP:RSN asking for reliable sources that prove their controversial nature, he provided a blog link and summed with a comment on Aruna's parents' 'controversial' 'inter class' marriage, after which his responses were mostly centered on my past edits history. _morelMW^illiam 06:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by RobertRosen

MonelMWiliiams is a former sock puppeteer who was blocked and given a second chance and new name because of some past good edits. (I am aware of WP quidelines called "Reformed"). Even after being unblocked he has engaged in disruptive and abusive behaviour with several other editors besides me. He has already opened 3 other discussions on WP:DR notice boards for the same incident Aruna Roy. He has tagged his dispute onto the preceding one to further confuse the matter. It would be pertinent to study the WP:ANI notice/proceedings brought by him against me. He first asked for a CheckUser against me on false statements. Which admin GiantSnowman granted in my absence. I gave my reply, MMWilliams then admitted he couldn't think of any socking done by me and made more allegations. Snowman withdrew the WP:SPI. User:No_Ent opined that MMWiliiams was edit-warring and has breach WP:DR norms. MMwilliams made more allegations. User:Collect told him the Aruna Roy material was clearly unusable advising him to drop it. MMWilliams made more allegations and conspiracy theory rants. Admin: Elen_of_the_Roads chastised him and threatened to block him under NPA. MMwilliams made more allegations aganst me and argued with the Admin. At this point I gave a detailed reply to him. He made more allegations. I then started investigating his edits and learnt he was a sock-puppeteer. I was quite "pissed off" when I learnt this, but I (unwisely) offered him a truce. Admin:BWilkins even gave me some advice which I did not understand at the time. MMWilliams rejected my truce by repeating all his old allegations. This time User:The Hand_That_Feeds_You strongly admonished MMwilliams and said he should be blocked under NPA. MMwilliams continued with his allegations. Enough is enough. MMWilliams should be thrown off Wikipedia for NPA, sexually inappropriate and abusive/uncivil behavior and multiple abuse of WP:DR procedures. Finally this page is the gateway to other WP:DR's. When 3 higher DR's are ongoing why put the cart before the horse if not to harass me ? RobertRosen (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Aruna Roy 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.

Opening comments by PRODUCER

UrbanVillager's "concern" for copyrighted material is really just an illusion. While criticizing others for copyright infringing material for one Youtube link he deemed it appropriate to personally and hypocritically place copyright violating nine links himself. At the Boris Malagurski talkpage, red herrings were abundant. Whether it's the article of the founder of E-novine not being up to par for UrbanVillager or a youtube video of Burgic irking him there are no limits to the nonsense. When a consensus was formed at the Weight of Chains article to include information regarding financial backing and done in compliance with film MOS, UrbanVillager continued to act as a gatekeeper whose sole approval is what's important and has now found it necessary to file the dispute resolution. UrbanVillager's sudden stringent concern for the reliability of sources is exclusive to sources that he personally dislikes and to which his opinion does not form to. Numerous tabloids, web portals, and blogs are cited at the Boris Malagurski article and were included at the initiative of UrbanVillager. The double standard applied by him and promotional tone set in the article is very clear. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Opbeith

(Text is disjointed as remarks alleged to be defamatory about Boris Malagurski, including reference to Wikipedia history, have been deleted without indication.)Opbeith (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The subject Boris Malagurski, producer of The Weight of Chains film, before these were released and even at the "development" and pre-production stages, they were being promoted on Wikipedia by various editors, notably Cinema C and UrbanVillager. Without robust evidence of his and his work's merit/notability, references to Malagurski's work have been inserted into and in some cases more forcefully promoted across a wide range of articles. The editors concerned resisted efforts to moderate this.

A group of Wikipedia editors have been able to draw on favourable publicity in notionally reliable sources while rejecting criticism that his work does not seem to have been notable enough to attract objective reviews that could be cited in a balanced article. I have found it a very frustrating experience watching the inflation of the Malagurski family of articles and dealing with the resolute opposition of the editors led by UrbanVillager. I have also found the apparent blind eye that these efforts to promote someone have enjoyed surprising. I'm not patient with manipulation and has certainly led me to be less than courteous than I would have been in more genuine circumstances, I do acknowledge that.

I have had an uncongenial relationship for a long time with User:Psychonaut. While I understand that he would not feel disposed to enter into discussion with me, he has not been directly involved in this issue and I was surprised that he stepped into the dispute to offer such forceful advice to UrbanVillager apparently unsolicited. Opbeith (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Bobrayner

There has long been a problem with promotional editing, and highly selective application of wikipedia rules, on articles about Boris Malagurski and his films. "Boris Malagurski" has a talent for self-promotion, and his articles have been dominated by socks of Bormalagurski (talk · contribs). UrbanVillager indulges in the same promotional editing, and the same highly selective application of wikipedia rules. For instance, the flakiest of sources are used if they look good for Malagurski; but if they say something bad about Malagurski, UrbanVillager is swift to remove them. UrbanVillager removes copyvio if it's criticism of Malagurski, keeps it if it's praise. And so on. The promotional editing has happened over and over again. It's difficult to see how we could have neutral content on the Malagurskiverse, as long as UrbanVillager and other Malagurski sockpuppets/meatpuppets continue editing these articles. Meanwhile, UrbanVillager suggests that a "prominent filmmaker" would be too busy to edit wikipedia so Bormalagurski is a completely unconnected person who just likes editing an article about their namesake - no COI there! This is just one of many examples of tendentious editing. I am wary of investing lots of time digging up diffs again, but would be happy to provide a lot more detail if there is a chance that this discussion could lead to a solution to the problem that I have described above. bobrayner (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree with much of what Pincrete says, this is not wholly accurate: "BobRayner's recent edits have all been minor and constructive and have largely been accepted."

In reality, UrbanVillager has reverted a number of my edits - and other people's edits - as vandalism despite repeated warnings about WP:NOTVAND. For instance, . Previous Bormalagurski socks had the same habit. bobrayner (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by WhiteWriter

Opening comments by Psychonaut

I'm not directly involved in this dispute as I've edited neither article nor their respective talk pages. My participation has been limited to advising User:UrbanVillager on his talk page to disengage from another editor whose objections I believed to be disingenuous and unsupported by policy, and to investigating some COI and copyright issues at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Boris Malagurski. I have never stated my opinions on the text of the articles in dispute, nor has anyone even asked me what those may be.

Regarding the sourcing issues, I can only repeat what I posted at WP:COIN: It's a settled matter on English Wikipedia that User:Bosniak's Srebrenica Genocide Blog is not a reliable source. Bosniak was banned in part for spamming links to it in Wikipedia articles, and it's been on the spam blacklist for some time now. Other blogs aren't usually considered reliable sources according to our policies. Whether or not the E-novine article can be used as a source is not at all clear-cut; in general it seems that the site may be a reliable source, but in this particular case it simply reproduced a blog post, so there are arguments both for and against its inclusion here. Indeed, UrbanVillager and User:Joy both advanced such arguments on the article talk pages. As this is a general issue it would be helpful if the discussion could be continued with participation of disinterested parties at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Boris Malagurski, Talk:The Weight of Chains discussion

Though I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN, I'm not "taking" this listing, but am only dropping in to note that the E-novine source mentioned above is now the subject of an inquiry at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and that aspect of this request ought to probably be on hold until that discussion is resolved. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be three discussions happening right now, in addition to the article Talk pages:

1. This DRN case
2. A conflict-of-interest (COI) issue: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Boris_Malagurski
3. A reliable sources (RS) issue: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#E-novine_on_Boris_Malagurski (mentioned by TransporterMan above)

All three are dispute resolution forums within the WP Dispute resolution process umbrella. Multiple simultaneous DR discussions should be avoided. The DRN case should probably be suspended until the more focused RS & COI discussions conclude (the RS noticeboard has RS experts, whereas DRN may not). This issue may end up here at DRN, but until the COI and RS discussions finish, it seems too chaotic to have 3 forum discussions happening simultaneously. --Noleander (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There is news regarding the COI issue and RS issue:

1. On Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Boris_Malagurski, User:Psychonaut concluded that: "The evidence has boiled down to this: [UrbanVillager] has focussed his edits on Serbian topics in general and Malagurski in particular, and is the most frequent contributor to the Boris Malagurski and The Weight of Chains articles, with differences of opinion as to what information or sources should be used in the article. In my opinion these facts alone are not sufficient to establish that a conflict of interest exists, as similar observations could be made for thousands of other disinterested editors who focus on a topic area of interest to them."
2. On Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#E-novine_on_Boris_Malagurski, User:TimidGuy agreed that the disputed source "doesn't sound like the sort of source that we should be using".

I believe the focus should shift to the discussion here, and sincerely hope for a resolution to this dispute. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As this dispute is no where near finished and no one seems to be giving it any attention, I'd like to share some things that I already wrote to User:Psychonaut:

I believe that User:Opbeith, User:PRODUCER, User:Pincrete and User:Bobrayner, have as their only purpose, regarding the Boris Malagurski, The Weight of Chains and Kosovo: Can You Imagine? articles, to do any or all of the following:

1. Promoting the addition of slander to the article, using as references Internet forums, blogs and fishy websites that, among other things, photoshop a "BIA" badge, trying to prove that Malagurski works for Serbia's Security Information Agency, on an original photo where there is no badge; or call Malagurski an unemployed Vancouver-based amateur "film director", apologist for Serbian Nazi-collaborating Chetniks and a racist genocide denier (this article is the disputed one carried by E-novine); while, at the same time dismissing actual relevant reliable media sources as "tabloids", including Politika, the oldest daily newspaper in the Balkans.

1. Clogging the talk pages with discussions on just how much Malagurski's work is crap, how horrible the people he interviewed are , how Malagurski is just an outright extremist , and much more.
2. Not allowing any good-faith discussion to proceed without personal attacks.
3. Personally attacking anyone who disagrees that Malagurski is exactly who they say he is. Accusing me of not allowing the addition of any sources that don't have a positive outlook on Malagurski, which is not true. I agreed to the addition of a Croatian link that described Malagurski's film as "too pro-Serbian". I've also stated several times that I have no personal interest in there not being any criticism of Malagurski and his work, as I believe (and I think Wikipedia does as well) that well-sourced criticism is very healthy for any article, but only if it's truly - well-sourced.
4. Removing sourced material (, etc.), promoting the idea that any source that has a neutral or positive attitude towards the topic is all part of Malagurski's "self-promoting machinery", and adding irrelevant poorly-sourced material (, , etc.) that constitutes original research and POV pushing.
5. Promoting the deletion of these articles. PRODUCER nominated "Kosovo: Can You Imagine?" for deletion, again claiming that the sources that support the notability of the article are tabloids. When I noted that, for example, Večernje novosti is a renowned Serbian newspaper and news source which exists for almost 60 years now, also the leading Serbian book publisher, with over 5 million books on diverse cultural topics sold, 159 titles including books by Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Proust, Bulgakov, Nabokov, Faulkner, Orwell, Kafka, Sabato, Andric, Crnjanski, Selimovic, etc., PRODUCER went on to change the Večernje novosti article so that it says it's a "tabloid", without adding a source. Genius.

This looks like a very well-coordinated attack mechanism aimed at slowly destroying the Malagurski article and all articles related to it. I could provide more references to back up these claims, this is just the tip of the iceberg. I'd just add that I checked with the sources noticeboard, one editor commented agreeing with me that the absurd E-novine was not the kind of source we should use on Wikipedia . Naturally, Producer jumped to defend the source, even calling User:Joy to lend his support. All these editors seem to not have any good faith when it comes to the articles in question - almost every single edit they made was motivated by any one of the points that I listed. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Arguing that a diverse range of independent editors are part of a coordinated conspiracy to slander a minor film-maker - who is the focus of virtually all UrbanVillager's editing - doesn't help solve the problem. It just shows how serious the problem is. Further diffs presented by various editors in various places have shown the extent to which UrbanVillager has gamed the system; picked and chosen which rules to enforce and when; and behaved just like all the other Bormalagurski socks.bobrayner (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:The Weight of Chains discussion user Pincrete

I have been involved in the talk/editing process at W. of C. for the last month and was drawn into being an editor precisely because I felt this Wikipedia article was woefully inadequate and amounted to a 'press-release' for the film.

UrbanVillager is being wholly disingenuous in his account above, neither Opbeith nor Bob Rayner have attempted to insert any material from blogs. What Opbeith did, (which I supported on the talk page) was to use the 'summary' elements from 3 reviews as a basis for discussion on the talk page. Since this is a long film with many contentious arguments and claims, I personally welcomed these summaries and found them a useful 'starting line' from which to assess what the important arguments in the film were and how those arguments should be expressed in the article (where appropriate linking to Wikipedia pages which cover the 'mainstream' accounts of the events). UrbanVillager attempted to stifle all such discussion on the talk page, and now that has failed, he has taken the matter to DRN.

In fact I have just checked the edit history for the W.o.C. page, the last edit that Opbeith made there was on May 22nd last year, in which he questioned the 'official selection' status of this film at a festival. He was proved to be wholly correct. Opbeith HAS been active on the talk page, which I understand is the proper procedure for seeking to make major alterations to the main page. BobRayner's recent edits have all been minor and constructive and have largely been accepted.
As regards Producer, I partially support his argument that some information should be given about funding for the film (for reasons I give on the talk page) and believe a reasonable compromise would have been achievable. However, once again, when UrbanVillager did not 'get his own way' he has taken the matter to DRN.

UrbanVillager is again being disingenuous when he says he does not object to criticism, since he knows that the film has almost never been shown nor reviewed outside the Serbian and diaspora communities and no 'serious' review has been written even within those communities. His actions seem designed to suppress any content in the article page which might link to Wikipedia pages giving alternative (mainstream) views of events covered in the film.

I know nothing about the other participants in this dispute, nor anything useful about the Malagurski page.Pincrete (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge what Bob Rayner says above about my comments. Perhaps how I should have left it is: his edits have all been 'constructive', by which I mean that they have all been both 'within guidelines' and also intended to restore balance and realism to the page.Pincrete (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:The Weight of Chains discussion user Uzma Gamal

I closed the COIN1 case and posted a comment in COIN2. The following is the status (as of this post) of noticeboard requests concerning UrbanVillager:

• ANI1 27 February 2012‎ - Outcome: "Old edits, no need for admin action right now. OP advised to carry on editing article and see what happens"
• NPOVN 19 March 2012‎: Outcome: ended without reply
• SPI1 7 August 2012: Outcome: "No clear evidence is given anywhere in this investigation. Therefore, no action can be taken"
• COIN1 6 November 2012 (12:26) - Outcome: "UrbanVillager does not have a COI with the Boris Malagurski topic"
• Dispute resolution noticeboard‎ 6 November 2012 (19:06): Outcome: Ongoing
• Reliable sources Notice board 6 November 2012 (20:37)‎: Outcome: discussion archived without close
• SPI2 13 November 2012‎‎: Outcome: Ongoing
• ANI2 14 November 2012 - Outcome: Ongoing
• COIN2 15 November 2012: Outcome: Ongoing

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:50, 15 November 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.

Opening comments by InVultusSolis

Opening comments by Secretlondon

I think we are being hoaxed actually. None of the usual UVB-76 fan sites are covering these new additions - I can't find anything to corroborate them. One of the claimed broadcast code words was FARK, which may indicate a fark connection. Wikipedia is never a primary source. I've tried to remove it when it appears but there's just more and more of it. The article was semi protected for a while which stopped it, but it's since come back. I don't know if this noticeboard entry is needed as all this stuff is unreferenced. More semi protection? Secretlondon (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Bduxbury

I believe we are speaking about the section, "2012" that has been deleted and added multiple times. This section has become a "log book" of sorts, and has not been covered by sites covering the activities of UVB-76. Although, I have listened to strange anomalies on this channel that is noteworthy and similar to previous activity reported in 2010, Wikipedia cannot be a primary source and should be taken down until it can be sourced properly.Bduxbury (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

UVB-76 discussion

Hi. I'm a volunteer and I'd like to help the parties come to consensus. I see that we are waiting for one more party (InVultusSolis) to submit an opening statement. We can start a discussion after they do so. --Noleander (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

... I see that InVultusSolis is not very active, so if they don't comment by, say, 14 November, we can just proceed without them. --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

...... Hmmm, it looks like there may be one or more anonymous (IP) users that are involved, in fact, they are the "opposing" side that wants to include the material. They need to be notified of this DRN case. I'll do that now, then we can wait a couple of days. The IPs are: 68.158.33.241, 24.184.249.226, 189.248.165.4 , 71.167.191.153. Also User:stefs added the material. --Noleander (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, everyone has been notified. Now we have to wait 2 or 3 days. --Noleander (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't consider that the IPs would also need to be notified as I didn't think they are really users, IPs can change after all. CodeCat (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. For DRN purposes, we have to consider them users and treat them with the same courtesy as everyone else. Yes, IPs can change, and sometimes 2 or 3 IPs are actually a single person. Based on the editing history of these IPs and user Stesfs, it is unlikely that they will choose to participate. But the integrity of the DRN process demands that we give them an opportunity. --Noleander (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. Total error of judgement on my behalf in reviving that information.Stesfs (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, since there are no parties putting forth policy-based reasons for including the material, we can resolve this DRN case by concluding that the material should be excluded. Future material should be included in the article only if supported by WP:Reliable sources. --Noleander (talk) 20:06, 15 November 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.

Opening comments by Jasper Deng

Opening comments by JetBlast

I am not getting involved really. It isnt a "Dispute" I just happened to make comment on the original discussion. --JetBlast (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Windows Server 2012 editions table 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.

Opening comments by Takeaway

I reverted this edit and this edit by user Ferwert as not adhering to WP:NPOV where they use words such as "coupist Government", "coup-rooted Government", and "Government based on coercive Parliamentary procedures enabled via Oligarchic and military interventions" without backing these very strong assertions with sources as is required by Wikipedia. User Ferwert continued editing the article, this time without using these particular phrases. User Ferwert was told at the Wikipedia helpdesk when they posted a question there on how to contact me, that Wikipedia content should be based on verifiability. I didn't know that this had happened at the time but I too pointed out in the article talk page that edits should be verifiable. User Ferwert then replied that they have personal "in-depth knowledge" of the whole issue and that therefore "all quotes and verification based on the BKK. Post, Nation, ASTV should be eliminated". Apparently, only User Ferwert's own knowledge could be counted on to represent the "correct" viewpoint. I also refused to discuss content changes on Wikipedia in private via email, as User Ferwert asked for, because it is my believe that all discussions on content changes should be done in public on the talkpage of the article. Seeing that all subsequent edits of User Ferwert were done without any references to reliable sources and based only upon his word as a self-proclaimed expert, I reverted them with the following edit summary: "reverted to last revision by Takeaway: removed personal analysis, original research, unsourced content. See talk page per user Ferwert's own admission". I then placed the template for "Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material" on to User Ferwert's talkpage.

I personally think that User Ferwert is out to represent the UDD as a legitimate uprising against an illegitimate government. What I know of the Abhisit government is that it was not illegitimate, but came into being in a somewhat irregular way (see: Democrat_Party_(Thailand)#2008-2011_coalition_government). The present article is, again in my personal view, quite neutral in representing both sides without taking a side. It is my personal view that User Ferwert's edits were detrimental to WP:NPOV. If User Ferwert had come with reliable sources to back up their assertions instead of stating "Let me emphasize - I have my feet firmly rooted in both camps experientially, and accordingly can confidently assert that I represent both sides, as I have in-depth knowledge", then this whole issue would have been a true content dispute. As it stands now, it is merely a dispute about unsourced statements and personal analysis by User Ferwert based on original research. - Takeaway (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

2010 Thai political protests discussion

Closing note: I am a regular volunteer here at Wikipedia. I'm afraid that this noticeboard cannot provide, indeed Wikipedia cannot provide, the relief that you're seeking.

• Your first request asks for some kind of supervision or judging of your edits, but there is no such supervision here: the most fundamental nature of Wikipedia, its Wiki model, rejects such supervision. Any other user can choose to change your edits and their motivations or biases in doing so are irrelevant: we judge edits, not editors. The closest thing I could suggest is that, as a newcomer, you seek a mentor through the Adopt-a-user program, but even that is quite different from what it appears that you are seeking. (You also mention legal counsel in your request; it is a passing comment and speaks to certain political factions, not to Wikipedia, but let me caution you that the faintest suggestion of a legal threat against Wikipedia or another Wikipedia user is likely to cause you to be indefinitely blocked from editing, see the legal policy for more detail.)
• As for your second request, this noticeboard is not a help desk and we cannot provide you with the help with your editing that you are requesting. Again, let me recommend a mentorship for that purpose. You go on to say, in effect, that most of the mainstream media sources are biased towards one position and you say that, "If one insists that I back up everything I say with alternative media sourced reporting, it will squelch anything I say." If that is not hyperbole, then you may well be squelched. Wikipedia is based entirely upon information from reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, we do not accept information or material from any other source, such as personal information or accounts. That concept is called verifiability. (Why? Because this is an encyclopedia, not just a collection of miscellaneous information, but we we do not have an editorial board or professional editors to decide what should and should not be included; verifiability and the closely-related concept of notability provide that test, instead.)

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 16 November 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.

Opening comments by BilCat

the page for United Technologies Corporation 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.

Opening comments by Vt catamount

Editor PE2011 has proposed an expansion of VINE's "rationale for slaughter" within the Green Mountain College entry subsection "Oxen Slaughtering Controversy." His or her reasoning is two-fold, first that no rationale is given, and second that the VINE opposition is the "majority viewpoint." I contest both of these assumptions as follows:

From WP:NPOV - “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” (emphasis added).

After reviewing several of the published, reliable sources already referenced in the text, it appears that VINE's rationale for non-slaughter is in fact the option for retirement - the only sentiment I see recycled (in reliable sources) is their general "shock" at the refusal of said offer. It was the refusal of said offer that prompted what followed. The current proposal by PE2011 goes above and beyond what is required by principle, and although the language is sourced by one article (though not nationwide, as preferred), it appears that it is simply not important enough to report here. WP:SPS "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so."

I think our biggest issue going forward is "what defines a majority" re:NPOV and UNDUE. I do not think that the opinions of VINE/petitioners are in the majority - the case is still unfolding, and the focus in reliable sources has shifted away from the complaints of the protestors (minority) and onto the absurdity of the protests (majority). This is why the existence of "threats" is so important (a previous discussion), and this is why any further rationale VINE may have for making the initial offer (beyond "retirement") is unimportant.

Finally, the rationale given for the protests in all reliable sources is the fact that 11 year old working oxen are slated to be slaughtered for dinner, which is already stated within the first line(s) of the subsection.

Thank you for your help moving forward.Vt catamount (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Crazytome

As far as I understand, the timeline of this event is: 1) GMC planned slaughter, 2) protest, 3) threats, 4) slaughter cancelled, 5) Lou was euthanized.

The portion covering the second part, the protest, is succinctly covered by a properly-sourced reference with a sentence such as "The college's decision prompted opposition from animal rights supporters from around the world, including some townspeople and thousands of online petitioners worldwide." VINE, an animal sanctuary, is included under the umbrella of "protesters," as its offer to provide a retirement home for the oxen is a form of protest to the slaughter. Other sanctuaries and individual farms offered similar accommodations but are not mentioned by name.

Furthermore, as this is the Wikipedia entry for Green Mountain College, it is extraneous to include VINE's perspective on the issue. It adds no substance or important information to the article and adds weight to, in this case, an unimportant party. I suggested that if this is important to VINE, they can add it to their own Wikipedia entry.

If the mediator determines that VINE's rationale could reasonably be included, I hold that the sentence following suggestion is sufficient: "GMC declined an offer by VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary to allow the oxen to retire at no cost to the school as a humane alternative, saying that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm." Retirement holds value and the phrase "humane alternative" is an effective summation. The phrase PE2011 insists on, "is not a worthy trade-off" is not a well-supported statement in and of itself. "Humane alternative" is much more effective to the common reader. My objection to it is that it is heavily-valued while holding little substance (which is not how an encyclopedia entry should be). Crazytome (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by PE2011

Some context: GMC made the decision—not yet carried out—to slaughter two of their oxen, Bill and Lou, which prompted strong opposition from the public (townspeople, animal rights supporters, and “tens of thousands” of online petitioners worldwide), thereby making this story a “controversy” between two general viewpoints: GMC’s viewpoint that B&L should be slaughtered v. the opposition viewpoint that they should not be slaughtered. WP:UNDUE “requires” “all significant viewpoints” to be fairly represented, but since that isn’t being done, I must object to the current graf.

The current graf contains an articulated rationale for slaughter (because it “align[s] with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm”), but it does not contain any articulated rationale against it—despite the opposition viewpoint numbering in the “tens of thousands” (actual phrase in graf). So my proposal was to work in a short rationale by VINE, the animal rights organization already mentioned in the graf and covered in several pieces on this controversy (e.g., in the Huffington post, NYT, Chronicle of Higher Education, NPR, and VTDigger). That articulated rationale was cited in VTDigger, the core part being (my condensation): “meat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for their lives.” I still don’t understand why it’s so unreasonable to include this rationale into the graf; Kingsrow1975 will not explain, no matter how many times I asked him.

Furthermore, I am not necessarily wedded to the rationale specifically articulated by VINE. Another acceptable alternative (already proposed but rejected) is the rationale articulated in the care2 petition letter, the very one referenced above, which received “tens of thousands” of online signatures. For me, the overriding issue is to have some articulated rationale against slaughter--at least comparable to the articulated rationale for it--so that the opposition to slaughter viewpoint can be fairly represented, as required by WP:UNDUE. This dispute has progressed here because the so-called "majority" prefers to exclude any articulated rationale against slaughter which would balance out the articulated rationale for it. Compromise on this point is wholly unreasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE2011 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Green Mountain College discussion

Hello, and welcome to dispute resolution. I see that you have discussed this on the talk page a lot, which is great as a first step. Could I ask some questions first to see where you'd like to go with this? 1. Would you just like to continue the discussion with some moderation? Or are you looking for more of a discussion partner in our volunteers? 2. Will you all be willing to agree to abstaining from any edit warring over the article until this is complete (A voluntary 1RR for example)? 3. Would the editor who is claiming appropriate sourcing please post here with links to sources for the VINE opinion, and explain why VINE is the majority when there are other organizations out there? Thanks for volunteering to bring this matter here, and I'll try to guide you as best I can. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello gwickwire, thanks for helping us out. To answer your questions: 1. I want whatever will solve this issue quickly. I feel like this has already been discussed soooo much; I really just want to move the process along. So whatever others want and/or you are most comfortable with. 2. I'm fine with this. Crazytome (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, gwickwire, for being a part of this. Allow me to address each of your questions: 1. I do not feel that it would be in the best interests to keep the discussion going. It has become tedious, circular and without any hope of resolution. I feel that point has long passed for any suitable conclusion. Frankly, and I cannot speak for the other editors, but PE2011's overbearing and barely compromising "my way or the highway" attitude has erased any chance of true compromise (and although he will claim otherwise that he does not do it, on his Talk page he was chastised for such behavior). However, if you feel a heavy dose of moderation would help, then heck...let's see what you can do. 2. I completely agree to abstain from edit warring, provided PE2011 does the same.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, gwickwire! 1. We're looking for more of a "discussion partner" I'd suppose, someone with experience who can weigh in on what 'deserves' inclusion in this entry. 2. I would love to abstain from edit warring! 1RR sounds fine. 3. See PE2011 post below, but please note that only one of those sources (VTDigger) includes the "viewpoint" that PE would like to include in the subsection, while the viewpoint expressed in the remainder of the sources is mirrored in the entry as it stands today. I fear further addition will change the manner of controversy and turn the entry into a mouthpiece for a separate organization, but I digress. Thanks again for getting involved. I will happily compromise on whatever is *best for the integrity of the entry*. Vt catamount (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

One methodological suggestion. During discussion, we editors should strive to articulate specific reasons why we believe certain proposals are unacceptable, rather than dismiss them without explanation. I believe this is what I’ve been doing all along: when I object to some proposal, rather than casually dismiss it out of hand, I explain why I’m against it by offering reasons – others should reciprocate in this regard. The onus can’t be entirely on me to come up with proposal after proposal when no reason is provided against my suggestions other than, essentially, “I don’t like it.” PE2011 (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, PE2011, I would like to suggest this rule applies to you, as well. When I articulated my reasons for not including extraneous information, you were extremely dismissive, holding that they were my "opinion" and ignoring the logical argument I laid out.Crazytome (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Gwickwire, your guidance is greatly appreciated, and thank you for volunteering your time in what may be a long, drawn-out process, if history is any guide. :) 1. A highly moderated discussion would be perfect, though it would also help to have substantive input from other volunteers. 2. Agreed. 3. Before posting my sources below, I want to clarify my contention: it is not that VINE is the majority organization spearheading the campaign to save Bill and Lou (although true), but that VINE’s viewpoint—the view that Bill and Lou should not be slaughtered—is the majority on this issue. And even if it wasn’t true (an absurd claim which I can easily refute), it is nevertheless a significant viewpoint, so some rationale against slaughter warrants inclusion. Moreover, as indicated above, I am perfectly open to accepting a rationale articulated from a source other than VINE, such as the care2 petition letter. Now for sources that mention VINE:

1. Huffingtonpost:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/green-mountain-colleges-f_b_1967361.html

2. NYT:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/us/oxens-possible-slaughter-prompts-fight-in-vermont.html?emc=eta1&_r=0 (also references the care2 petition, “tens of thousands of online petitioners”)

3. Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/blogs/buildings/a-decision-to-slaughter-oxen-at-a-college-farm-angers-animal-rights-activists/32260 (links to the care2 petition, mentions the above huffingtonpost article, and even links to one of VINE’s open letters.)

4. NPR: http://m.npr.org/news/Science/163257176 (mentions the care2 petition—“more than 30,000 signatures from all over the world.”)

5. VTDigger: http://vtdigger.org/2012/11/04/national-animal-rights-group-blocks-slaughter-of-green-mountain-college-oxen-by-pressuring-local-slaughterhouses/ (mentions care2 petition—“47,300 signatures from across the nation and world”—that the story has been picked up by the NYT, Boston Globe, and Huffington Post, and quotes from one of VINE’s memos to GMC.)

6. TIMES ARGUS: http://www.timesargus.com/article/20121104/NEWS3003/711049932

7. Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201210/bill-and-lou-who-lives-who-dies-and-why

8. AP: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ie6N7qspIVA96Eebzwg3SOcoB6nA?docId=568d603eca1142e8a3743327e422d14b (also references care2 petition)

10. Boston Globe: http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/10/25/fire-mountain/f8mIXuOFwg201TopTbeXiK/story.html (also references care2 petition, “surpassed 25,000 signatures”)

11. one green planet: https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/superstorm-bill-and-lou-and-the-diet-for-a-sustainable-future/

13: Rutland Herald: http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20121112/NEWS01/711129970PE2011 (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Before I reply to PE2011's list of sources, another editor, George McD, asked that I post this statement from him in regards to this issue.

"I want to go on record for the conflict resolution, etc., that I am ok with any of the following edits that have been suggested by other editors (below). I feel that it is important to include one of them. 1) "VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary offered to take Bill and Lou so they could live their lives in retirement, at no cost to the school, as a humane alternative. GMC refused the offer, stating that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm." 2)"VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary offered to take Bill and Lou so they could live their lives in retirement, at no cost to the school, stating that meat from Bill and Lou is not a worthy trade-off for their lives. GMC refused the offer, stating that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm." 3)"VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary offered to take Bill and Lou so they could live their lives in retirement, at no cost to the school, as a humane alternative. GMC refused the offer, stating that it did not align with their values of sustainability." Thank you. George McD (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)"Kingsrow1975 (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I have looked over all these sources and noted the mentions of VINE in them. As you can see, the vast majority of the articles simply mention the offer VINE made to GMC. Only one, maybe two, articles give any form of reasoning whatsoever. From a journalistic standpoint, the mere mention of VINE in these articles in no way implies or proves that they were in any way a major player in the issue. So, based on the evidence below, I submit that the inclusion of VINE's opinion is giving undue weight to their opinion and as such is unnecessary. Thank you.

1. Huffingtonpost:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/green-mountain-colleges-f_b_1967361.html

The only mention about VINE is their offer, which has already been covered. - "Fortunately, VINE farm animal sanctuary has offered a loving home for the pair -- at no expense to the college."

2. NYT:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/us/oxens-possible-slaughter-prompts-fight-in-vermont.html?emc=eta1&_r=0 (also references the care2 petition, “tens of thousands of online petitioners”)

The only mention about VINE is their offer, which has already been covered. - "An animal sanctuary in Springfield, Vt., known as Veganism Is the Next Evolution, offered to take Bill and Lou into retirement. “We thought, ‘We can solve this problem,’ ” said Pattrice Jones, a founder of the sanctuary. “It just shocks the conscience of anybody who believes in kindness to animals.”"

3. Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/blogs/buildings/a-decision-to-slaughter-oxen-at-a-college-farm-angers-animal-rights-activists/32260 (links to the care2 petition, mentions the above huffingtonpost article, and even links to one of VINE’s open letters.)

The only mention about VINE is their offer, which has already been covered. It has a minor bit of reasoning, but hardly anything worth of note. - "The VINE Sanctuary in Vermont, which carries the slogan “Veganism Is the Next Evolution,” has offered to take the animals. Cheryl Wylie, a staff member there, has written an open letter to the college, arguing that “now is not the time to argue about diet or definitions of ‘sustainability.’” “The only question really should be: What is best for Bill and Lou?,” she continued. “I’m sure that, if they were able to speak for themselves at the meeting, they’d ask to be allowed retire to VINE.”"

VINE's "open letters" are mere opinion pieces and are in no way representative of the ideals of the whole movement.

4. NPR: http://m.npr.org/news/Science/163257176 (mentions the care2 petition—“more than 30,000 signatures from all over the world.”)

This mention of VINE is yet again about their offer and a bit about their disagreement, certainly not a lot of reasoning. "These two individuals have become veritable mascots for the school. They are the profile picture on the farm's Facebook page," says Miriam Jones, cofounder of Vine, an animal sanctuary in Springfield, Vt. The animal sanctuary has offered to take Bill and Lou to live there for free. Vine's Pattrice Jones says the staff was stunned when the college said no and cited sustainability as one of its reasons. "We do not believe that the way to conserve resources is to kill the elderly and disabled to prevent them from using up resources because they're not useful anymore," Jones says. "We just ethically find that repugnant."

This mention of VINE is yet again about their offer and their reaction from being denied. - "VINE offered to take Bill and Lou to live at the sanctuary for free. VINE's Pattrice Jones says they were stunned when the college said no and cited sustainability as one of their reasons."

5. VTDigger: http://vtdigger.org/2012/11/04/national-animal-rights-group-blocks-slaughter-of-green-mountain-college-oxen-by-pressuring-local-slaughterhouses/ (mentions care2 petition—“47,300 signatures from across the nation and world”—that the story has been picked up by the NYT, Boston Globe, and Huffington Post, and quotes from one of VINE’s memos to GMC.)

The first mention of anything dealing with VINE giving any sort of reasoning. - "…Veganism is the New Evolution, or VINE, to offer to take the retired oxen off of the college’s hands at no cost. VINE, which has been vocal in advocating for the animals’ lives, has posted several open letters on their blog, arguing that hamburger meat that will serve the college dining halls for just a few months is not a worthy trade-off for the lives of the two oxen. “These two members of the Green Mountain College community have gracefully and faithfully served and educated so many, and they deserve to be honored by a retirement befitting their years of dedicated service,” VINE representatives write."

There is one other mention of VINE, but it's just that they secured another sanctuary location.

VINE's "open letters" are mere opinion pieces and are in no way representative of the ideals of the whole movement.

6. TIMES ARGUS: http://www.timesargus.com/article/20121104/NEWS3003/711049932

The only mention about VINE is their offer, which has already been covered. - "It is clear to me, however, that because Bill and Lou have been offered a free home to live out their lives, they will no longer be using GMC’s resources. And if VINE is not an option GMC wants to take, there are many other working farms who would welcome Bill and Lou."

7. Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201210/bill-and-lou-who-lives-who-dies-and-why

The only mention about VINE is their offer, which has already been covered. - "VINE, a sanctuary near GMC, has offered to have them live there for free."

8. AP: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ie6N7qspIVA96Eebzwg3SOcoB6nA?docId=568d603eca1142e8a3743327e422d14b (also references care2 petition)

The only mention about VINE is their offer, which has already been covered. - "The uproar began after VINE Sanctuary, which stands for veganism is the next evolution, was contacted by students and alumni who opposed the decision. It then posted an action alert on its blog asking readers to "please contact the folks at Green Mountain College and urge them to reconsider." It provided a form letter, free of threats, that readers could send to Throop. "This took off far beyond what we anticipated, not that we're unhappy," said Miriam Jones, VINE's coordinator. VINE, based in Springfield, has offered a space for the animals, which typically live 10 to 12 years but can survive up to 20 years."

9. Boston Globe: http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/10/25/fire-mountain/f8mIXuOFwg201TopTbeXiK/story.html (also references care2 petition, “surpassed 25,000 signatures”)

The only mention about VINE is their offer, which has already been covered. - "Miriam Jones, coordinator and cofounder of VINE Sanctuary, said people looking to place animals generally are very happy to find a home for them, and she was shocked when Green Mountain College refused her offer to take Bill and Lou. “I really didn’t expect to hear anything but awesome when I called,” she said."

10. one green planet: https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/superstorm-bill-and-lou-and-the-diet-for-a-sustainable-future/

The only mention about VINE is their offer, which has already been covered. - "SuperStorm Bill and Lou is the internet firestorm raised by GMC’s decision to eat Bill and Lou despite the offer from Vine Sanctuary to retire them…"

11: Rutland Herald: http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20121112/NEWS01/711129970PE2011 (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This is about Bill's current situation. Irrelevant. - "Miriam Jones, a member of VINE Sanctuary in Springfield (VINE stands for “veganism is the next evolution”), said Sunday that her group and other animal activists would continue to work to save Bill. “We still believe Bill should be sent to a sanctuary. Our interest, first and foremost, is Bill’s welfare,” said Jones, including proper medication, including pain medication for any ailments. Jones said animals cannot be eaten within 30 days of receiving medication, such as antibiotics or pain medication. She said her sanctuary had euthanized animals, but only after they lose their will to live and stop eating, drinking and moving. “But every animal is different,” she said. VINE, which was founded in Maryland as a sanctuary for chickens, moved to Springfield in 2010, and currently houses 27 bovines, along with chickens and a few sheep, according to its webpage. Jones said her group was concerned about the slaughter of all animals, and not just Bill and Lou. “I can’t march into Smithfield Pork and demand all their pigs,” said Jones, much as she’d like to."

The only mention about VINE is their offer, which has already been covered. - "VINE had offered to take in Bill and Lou to prevent their slaughter, but the college had steadfastly refused any offers of sanctuary."Kingsrow1975 (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I will refrain from commenting further until we hear from gwickwire about moderating our discussion (something that I now highly favor), but will just note briefly two things: (1) Again, my contention is merely that VINE’s viewpoint—that Bill and Lou should not be slaughtered—is the majority here (“tens of thousands” agree with it), and (2) the fact that VINE is the main AR group repeatedly mentioned in these stories about the controversy--and not in passing--belies any claim that they aren’t a “major player in the issue.” PE2011 (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, 1) It would be improper to assign the value that the oxen not be slaughtered to VINE, as other groups like PETA, other farm sanctuaries and, frankly, the whole of the protesters held the same belief. That said, their statement of disagreement has already been covered by the statement that they protested the action (they would not have protested had they not held the belief that B&L should have gone to sanctuary), and 2) A common mention in different news articles does not indicate weight of voice. Any cub reporter worth their salt would have mentioned VINE because they made the initial offer and as such, it's a pertinent element in the history of the story, and that's it. Given the evidence that the vast majority of articles only mentioned VINE's original offer, you cannot glean importance from that. To be honest, if anyone had the "weight of voice" it would have been the general protesters themselves. They were the ones that protested GMC, the Vermont governor's office, Division of Tourism, etc..Kingsrow1975 (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011, for formatting reasons I am putting this down here rather than figure out how to include it above. You stated earlier that "I want to clarify my contention: it is not that VINE is the majority organization spearheading the campaign to save Bill and Lou (although true), but that VINE’s viewpoint—the view that Bill and Lou should not be slaughtered—is the majority on this issue. ... it is ... a significant viewpoint, so some rationale against slaughter warrants inclusion." If all you require is "some" rationale, than what is wrong with the summation description of "humane alternative"? It is succinct, effective, and makes sense to the common reader. In this light, I propose the following statement: ""The college's decision prompted opposition from animal rights supporters from around the world, including some townspeople and thousands of online petitioners worldwide, who wanted [sanctuary as] a humane alternative."Crazytome (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair warning - I will contest the use of the term "humane," not just because it isn't cited in any source, but because it implies that the treatment of Bill and Lou was at some point not humane. This is contradicted by the referenced texts; the Secretary of Agriculture states specifically that the actions of Cerridwen Farm at GMC were "not inhumane", and the school was determined to use an AWA Humane-certified slaughterhouse. We should not use charged terminology as a catch-all. But, again, I believe that the line in question involves the reason for the offer (retirement) and the reason for the denial (doesn't align), so I stand the ground that no further expansion of any given viewpoint is necessary.Vt catamount (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

A brief note (to help guide volunteers): I want to emphasize that a highly moderated discussion would be preferable, and it should focus on resolving two distinct issues. (1) Should some (sourced) articulated rationale against slaughter be included in the graf? (2) If so, what articulated rationale should be included? We should first focus on achieving consensus on (1) before moving onto (2) – that is, discussing specific proposals. Thank you.PE2011 (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Re #1, no. There is no reason to include the viewpoints of any individual groups or people. The goal of WP articles is to represent factually what happened. In cases where interpretation of events is relevant, we have to include various people's interpretations. But there's no dispute about what occurred here. Flyte35 (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Re #1, I agree with Flyte35. VINE's particular perspective (and inclusion) is irrelevant to the basic facts of the timeline and it is not necessary for language to include their "influence." Furthermore, it is not appropriate to include one specific organization at the expense of others who did or said similar things.Crazytome (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Another brief note to volunteers: the focus of the current dispute is merely about including or excluding some (sourced) articulated rationale against slaughter—it should NOT be about sneaking in, as Crazytome appears to be doing, prior graf language that has already been rejected. Crazytome’s above proposal significantly changes the third sentence of the current graf to his preferred (and rejected) version. To keep the moderated discussion focused, no proposals of any kind should be considered other than ones relevant to the current dispute. Please watch out for his antics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE2011 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The language I used was only rejected by you. If one can wade through the talk page, it is obvious that you favor language that over-inflates the animal rights/VINE perspective and the actual size and scale of the protest. Other editors favored language that was more succinct overall and the above suggested sentence you are accusing of being "sneaky" would read as "The college's decision prompted international opposition from animal rights supporters, who wanted [sanctuary as] a humane alternative" instead." A consensus was never actually reached on this issue; you just argued it until the conversation picked up surrounding other parts of the paragraph. This particular section may not be why this dispute was opened, but it does illustrate a major reason why the dispute had to be opened. Crazytome (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Crazytome, your proposed version was NOT only rejected by me but other editors as well (including, I believe, Kingsrow1975 - but he/she can correct me if I'm mistaken). My point is, let's not litigate anything that isn't specifically about the current dispute, which is whether some articulated rationale against slaughter should be included. Again the issues are: (1) Should some (sourced) articulated rationale against slaughter be included in the graf? (2) If so, what articulated rationale should be included? Your issue, if you want to pursue it, is one for another day in another forum. PE2011 (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think your assessment of the situation is more of less correct, Crazytome, but I think in order to move forward in the most responsible (and more rapid) way it is best to limit the discussion to (1) Should some (sourced) articulated rationale against slaughter be included in the graf? (2) If so, what articulated rationale should be included? The current graf reads:

The college made national headlines in the fall of 2012 over its plan to slaughter its two 11-year-old draft oxen, Bill and Lou, and serve their meat in the college dining hall. The community decision was made after Lou was injured and it was determined that Bill would not accept a new partner. GMC declined an offer by VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary to allow the oxen to retire at no cost to the school, saying that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm. The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide. The college planned to slaughter the oxen by the end of October but postponed the event, saying area slaughterhouses were deluged with protests, some of them threatening. In November, the college had Lou euthanized and buried his body off campus. Bill is slated to remain with the college.

The discussion here has to do ONLY with if a change "rationale against slaughter" should be included (and if yes, what?). Flyte35 (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Flyte35. Although we obviously disagree, I want to thank you for acknowledging that the current dispute here is only about (1) and (2). I look forward to your participation in this discussion.PE2011 (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. By making this comment, I'm not necessarily suggesting that I am going to take on this dispute: I may or may not, in equal portions. But I do want to make a comment about what's being discussed and the basis on which it is being discussed. The only proper reason or motivation for editing Wikipedia is to improve Wikipedia and to do so in accordance with its accepted norms, policies, and procedures. What I'm reading here seems to be a whole lot about whose ox is <ahem> being gored and whose position is being advanced and precious little about what's best for Wikipedia. To the scant extent that Wikipedia policy is being discussed, it's being used more as a bludgeon or totem than it is for the reasons it exists: to define what's best for Wikipedia. In a short article about a relatively minor college, a great deal of coverage about this incident is clearly inappropriate. What is in the article already seems to me to be perfectly adequate to note what happened. I'd like to ask, in that light, for the benefit of whatever volunteer chooses to weigh in on this case: How will Wikipedia be benefited by any of the edits being discussed here? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agreed with TransporterMan. This subsection of the GMC entry is fine as is. Thank you for weighing in, TransporterMan, whether or not you decide to take on this dispute.Vt catamount (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I, too, agree with you, TransporterMan, and thank you for your input. To echo the sentiments of Vt catamount, the section is fine as is. As you stated, this is short article on the page dealing with a minor college and it does not warrant a full-blown exposé of the issue.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Transporterman, thank you for your input. I agree with you that, moving forward, any proposed edits should be discussed in light of whether they will benefit or improve Wikipedia, and I would like to have that (moderated) discussion. I do want to suggest one criticism of your above comment, where you said: “In a short article about a relatively minor college, a great deal of coverage about this incident is clearly inappropriate.” First, the implication seems to be that the proposed edits regarding this current resolution dispute will mean “a great deal of coverage about this incident,” which is not accurate. I do not propose adding “a great deal of coverage,” but merely a short rationale against slaughter. Short. Second, although GMC may be a “relatively minor college,” this story is a relatively big story for GMC. Both the Boston Globe and NYT recently reported on the story again (after Lou was euthanized). I believe it’s more appropriate to judge inclusion based on how big the story is, not on how big the rest of GMC’s wikipedia page is. Once again, thank you for weighing in. PE2011 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As TransporterMan said, you must ask yourself, "What is best for Wikipedia?" The article as it stands is a clear, concise paragraph that deals with the issue, which was and is this: 1. GMC plans slaughter, 2. VINE offers sanctuary, 3. GMC refuses, 4. people get angry and protest, 5. slaughter postponed due to protests and threats against said slaughterhouses and 6. GMC euthanizes Lou. That's it. That's all that the story needs to tell as those are the facts. The rationale against GMC's decision is already in the article, though unstated: Those protesting GMC's decision feel/felt that they would be better served at sanctuary. The reader can easily infer that is why they protested. As another mod said on the GMC:Talk page, Wikipedia articles should not include a bunch of "He said, they said, she said, they said" fluff as it is just that - filler. This article, as it stands, is free of such fluff and should stay free of it. Furthermore, reporting the story again after the ox was euthanized does not mean it was a "big" story...it was just responsible journalism. On any article dealing with any topic, if new information is uncovered or there is a resolution to a a previously-reported issue, a followup article is written.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, I will refrain from discussing specifics regarding the current dispute until we have moderation, but I want to say two things: (1) Again, what I propose (and like I said, I’m open to non-VINE rationales) will hardly mean “a bunch of ‘He said, they said, she said, they said’ fluff.” Your implied characterization of my general proposal as “fluff” is a distortion. (2) A controversy that is repeatedly covered in national news qualifies as a “big story,” and notice that I said “relatively big story for GMC,” which is true. News coverage, especially national news, implies noteworthy attention.PE2011 (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a "big story" at all. For example, the New York Times ran TWO stories about the whole deal...the initial story and the followup about Lou's euthanasia. That hardly qualifies a story as big. That said, lest I be consumed into the tactic you exhibited on the Green Mountain:Talk page of using circular arguments to try to wear down your opposition, I will comment no more until a moderator steps in.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975, I must say the following. Two stories in the NYT is, in itself, pretty significant, but add to that coverage in Huffingtonpost (multiple times), Boston Globe (multiple times), NPR, Psychology Today, USA Today, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and the rest I mentioned above (and some I didn't mention). How many stories can you say that about? How many GMC stories not about B&L can you say that about? At the very least, this story is "big" for GMC. PE2011 (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011, I agree that this is a big deal for GMC. That is why, on the Green Mountain College Wikipedia entry, information about Green Mountain College is relevant. Information about VINE, Farm Sanctuary, PETA, random protesters, and 'petitioners' is not.Crazytome (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it's kinda important, we get it. That's why the B&L graf is in the article. The question at hand is: Should any articulated rationale against slaughter be included in the graf? Let's focus here. We've had the freewheeling discussion over at the talk page already.Flyte35 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Flyte35. Again, thank you for acknowledging this point: I didn’t mean to go into a long discussion on why this controversy is important, but I felt compelled to given previous skeptical comments. Unlike you, some editors do not "get it." I agree we should concentrate specifically on the two issues pertinent to this current dispute.PE2011 (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Flyte35, no, there is no need for any articulated rationale against the slaughter in the article. It is not necessary to the Green Mountain College Wikipedia entry. It adds nothing of value *about Green Mountain College* to the Green Mountain College Wikipedia entry. GMC does not have official perspectives on veganism, vegetarianism, or why it isn't okay to slaughter farm animals, so anything related to that is the agenda of other organizations or people and is therefore inappropriate to spend words on in the *Green Mountain College Wikipedia entry.* Those ideas can go on other entries, about other groups that *do* have those official positions. Crazytome (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you 100%. The incident is fully explained as is. There is, as far as I can see it, no need for any more information in the grapf.Flyte35 (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I do send my sincerest apologies for not replying sooner, I had some other issues to take care of. Basically your discussion seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong) to be mainly about the inclusion of the viewpoint, and if it is included, what form the inclusion should take. Is that correct? I'll try to "heavily moderate" but to help me do that I need to ask a favor. Could each person involved please only post once before a reply from me or another volunteer? That way I have time to moderate as requested without it getting out of hand. Lastly, could I get a brief overview of only facts about the events that transpired with this college/animal? I only want facts. No need to source right now, but if someone puts up something that isn't fact, feel free to use your one post at a time to correct them (in a new comment). Thanks, and I do await your replies. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. The dispute here is about about the inclusion of the viewpoint (why the animals should not be slaughtered), and if it is included, what form the inclusion should take. The facts are that one ox on the campus farm got hurt, the college decided to slaughter the pair of oxen and serve the meat on campus. An animal sanctuary offered to take the oxen and care for them, at no cost to the college. People (students, outside animal rights activists) protested the slaughter. Green Mountain College said it would still slaughter the animals and serve their meat on campus, because that's how sustainable farms work. GMC eventually euthanized the injured ox (and buried the body off campus). The other ox continues to live on the farm.Flyte35 (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So if I am correct the slaughter never happened? And the viewpoint in question is about the slaughter? gwickwire | Leave a message 02:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Gwickwire, thank you. You are correct in your understanding—though I’ll add, just for precision, that the discussion is about whether to include an articulated rationale for the viewpoint that Bill and Lou should not be slaughtered, and if so, what articulation warrants inclusion. Put another way, there are two competing viewpoints: (A) Bill and Lou should be slaughtered, and (B) Bill and Lou should not be slaughtered. My contention is that some articulated rationale for (B) warrants inclusion. And yes, you are correct that the slaughter has not happened (Lou has been euthanized and Bill continues to live on GMC’s farm, for now). Regarding the bare facts, Flyte35’s above summary is accurate.PE2011 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, could you further define the concept of "articulated rationale" and how it differs from including what organization had what viewpoint? The way I understand that concept is including the reasons why each could be right, am I right in this understanding?

What I mean by “articulated rationale” is the rationale actually articulated in favor of a viewpoint as described in a source. For instance, the articulated rationale for (A) is that slaughter “align[s] with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm,” and that graf language is lifted virtually verbatim from the NYT. So the concept isn’t entirely different from “what organization had what viewpoint.” If some organization O is reported, in a source, as providing some rationale R in favor of a certain viewpoint, then the “articulated rationale” is R. Does that clarify?PE2011 (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, gwickwire! Thanks for attending to this matter. Feel free to indent this comment, it just doesn't seem to follow the route PE is taking so I'm placing it here. To be frank, I believe that PE2011 is insisting on articulating the Animal Rights perspective within this entry, and I firmly believe this goes against the very concept of Wikipedia. The article is fine as it stands, the sources are excellent, and heck, the very nature of the controversy is rapidly changing; it's no longer about slaughter "being bad," it's about the absurdity of the protest and the abuse of a college farm by a vocal, online group of Animal Rights activists. Even so, the facts remain, and the facts have already been stated concisely in the entry. Thank you again.Vt catamount (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Flyte35 is correct. The article as it stands quite sufficiently and succinctly tells the story in an encyclopedic style. 1. Lou gets injured, 2. GMC elects to slaughter the oxen, 3. VINE offers sanctuary, 4. GMC refuses, 5. Protesters, well, protest, 6. The slaughter is postponed due to protests and threats against slaughterhouses, 7. Lou is euthanized. PE2011's attempt to add an "articulated rationale" is unnecessary as the article tells the story quite well. Frankly, the "articulated rationale" PE2011 insists on is nothing more than an attempt to get an animal rights voice in a place where it doesn't belong.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As it stands right now there is not any mention of VINE in the article, correct? If there is, could someone please tell me what section it's in? By the way, it's almost bedtime for me here, so I will not be able to reply until about 16 hours or so from now. Sorry! gwickwire | Leave a message 03:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is the article as it is written now: "The college made national headlines in the fall of 2012 over its plan to slaughter its two 11-year-old draft oxen, Bill and Lou, and serve their meat in the college dining hall.[20] The community decision was made after Lou was injured and it was determined that Bill would not accept a new partner.[20] GMC declined an offer by VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary to allow the oxen to retire at no cost to the school,[21] saying that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm.[22] The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide. The college planned to slaughter the oxen by the end of October but postponed the event, saying area slaughterhouses were deluged with protests, some of them threatening.[23] In November, the college had Lou euthanized and buried his body off campus. Bill is slated to remain with the college.[24]"Kingsrow1975 (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

gwickwire: VINE is already mentioned in the current graf (see Kingsrow1975’s above response), though as I said in my opening comments and elsewhere, I am open to including an articulated rationale from some source other than VINE, such as the care2 petition letter (which received "tens of thousands" of signatures worldview). VT. Catamount: First, if you could, please abide by wikipedia’s code of conduct and refrain from labeling me and making assumptions about my motivations—argue facts, not personalities. Let’s keep our discussions focused solely on content. Second, what I’m “insisting on” is, again, inclusion of an articulated rationale against slaughter--something short--which is hardly “against the very concept of Wikipedia.” If you could, please refrain from making these kinds of rhetorically overblown statements. Third, according to the principles of etiquette, one should not “ignore reasonable questions.” I asked many times why including an articulated rationale against slaughter is so unreasonable but received no answer other than, essentially, "I don't like it." Fourth, I do not believe you are accurately depicting the current “nature of the controversy,” but even if you were, your comment is a complete red-herring. The rationale against slaughter has already been articulated in prior sources—that has not changed. Kingsrow1975: First, if you could, please abide by wikipedia’s code of conduct and refrain from labeling me and making assumptions about my motivations—argue facts, not personalities. Let’s keep our discussions focused solely on content. Second, according to the principles of Wikipedia etiquette, one should not “ignore reasonable questions.” I asked many times why having including an articulated rationale against slaughter is so unreasonable but received no answer other than, essentially, "I don't like it." Thank you. PE2011 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

To facilitate discussion, without any personal attacks, I'd like to ask editors to refrain from using other editors names unless referring to a viewpoint about this discussion the editor has. I don't have time for a fullblown reply right now, I should be able to in about 12ish hours. Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 05:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion, gwickire. From now on, I’ll direct my responses only to you. PE2011 (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

First, as we have gone over extensively, there is no need to include an "articulate rationale" in the article, as it already covers the topic in a succinct and straightforward manner. Furthermore, you claim you have not received a legitimate answer about why not including your "articulate rationale" is best. Answers have been given. Citing one, for example: "VINE's viewpoint is not significant. They're a group that tried to use this "controversy" to gain attention. They succeeded, and were covered in some stories. We've represented their relevance to the story. Their viewpoint is not relevant. And no, we should not include all of those other viewpoints. There is no reason to include the viewpoints of any individual groups or people. Don't worry, a lot of people make this same mistake about NPOV. But if you read the whole thing, the goal of WP articles is not to include a long list of "he said, they said, she said", but, instead, to represent factually what happened.-Qwyrxian" Second, the rationale does not have to be "articulated" as it is already in the article as-is. Sanctuary was offered and GMC refused. People then protested. Now tell me...why do you think they protested? They protested because they disagreed with GMC's position of slaughter and felt the oxen deserved the more humane sanctuary so they could live out their lives. There is your rationale. Like it or not, we have to assume some level of intelligence of the reader and in this case, any reader of average intelligence would easily "get" why they protested. Having to specifically spell it out implies that the reader isn't intelligent enough to understand what they are reading.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. There is no merit in including the perspective or rationale of groups outside of GMC on the GMC entry. This is supposed to be a factual account of basic events, not a philosophical blow-by-blow. The reference to sustainability in this section is to remind people that the college they are reading about has an environmental mission and this tidbit is, in fact, relevant to the article. Any reference to any other group specifically is unnecessary. Protesters protested. The slaughter was cancelled. That's it. The "why" of protestors is not appropriate in this article. It can be appropriate in blog posts, op-ed pieces, biased NYTimes articles, facebook shares, or message boards. It is not appropriate in a Wikipedia article. In fact, as noted before by me, other sanctuaries and farms offered to take the oxen, so it could be argued that a specific reference to VINE *at all* is unnecessary. The sentence could just read "GMC declined offers by several animal sanctuaries to allow the oxen to retire at no cost to the school, saying that the offers did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm."Crazytome (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Y'all are breaking the rules. Gwickwire, we look forward to your return.Vt catamount (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Posting here can be confusing :( Crazytome (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I be sorry for mah indescretion. T'won't happen again! :)Kingsrow1975 (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion (you may wish to wait for another volunteer for another opinion), any controversy that can be sourced reliably has at least some place somewhere, if only as a sentence. Since this is the GMC page, maybe just a sentence saying something like "VINE (wikilinked) opposed the slaughter, and offered free sanctuary to the animals, which GMC declined." would have some place in the article. But anything more than that belongs in either the VINE article (if it exists) or an article on the controversy (if it would meet notability). Does that all make sense to the editors? gwickwire | Leave a message 19:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this is much different from what is written. I suppose the new lines would read: cut ~>GMC declined an offer by <~cut, new sentence: VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary, **who opposed the slaughter, offered** to allow the oxen to retire at no cost to the school.[21] ***GMC declined the offer,*** saying that ***it*** did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm.[22]" (***indicates new text).Vt catamount (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it makes a lot of sense. Thank you for your input.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, thank you.Crazytome (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi gwickwire. Any proposal from me on this controversy will be reliably sourced, and it won’t even take an extra sentence—just something short added to what’s already there. I’m not asking for more than that. Are you saying this would be okay? Since we’re been speaking abstractly on the issue, would it be helpful for you to see a specific proposal first? Or do you consider the matter closed and believe that the current graf should remain as it is?PE2011 (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what gwickwire is saying, I guess, but I'm not really sure this clears up the question. Given the graph as it currently exists, is there any reason to add additional information? What you're saying seems to indicate it would be more appropriate to cut most of the graf from the GMC article. Is that correct? Flyte35 (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, how about this? It seems like all of you agree that it should be in the article, but pretty much not more than one sentence. So what I think should happen is we now shift this discussion to how to best work that sentence into the article, and take out anything more than a sentence. Are all of you okay with this approach? gwickwire | Leave a message 00:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

gwickwire, I’m not sure there is agreement here at all. My (general) proposal is to work in an articulated rationale against slaughter—something short, and not even an extra sentence. Everyone else seems opposed to this idea. Remember, we’re trying to resolve two distinct questions. (1) Should some (sourced) articulated rationale against slaughter be included? (2) If so, what specific articulated rationale should be included? I don’t believe we’ve reached consensus on (1). But instead of resolving (1) before moving onto (2), would it be helpful for you to see a specific proposal first?PE2011 (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I need to see the proposal. I'm still not sure what "rationale" is needed in the article, but if I see your proposal I may understand. Likewise, if any other involved editors wish to propose an addition/deletion feel free to make one proposal so I can see where we're at, or just "second" another's proposal. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

gwickwire, before I make my specific proposal, may I ask that we keep this discussion specifically about my proposal—which is why we’re in “dispute resolution.” Any other additions or deletions should be resolved elsewhere, since no other changes to the graf is relevant to the current dispute. PE2011 (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fine by me. We can keep this about yours for now. Propose away, and then I'll allow time for each other editor to make one comment before I return, if that's okay with you. To editors commenting: If you claim something, please back it up with sourcing. No need for full out {{citeweb}} here, but just the URL will do. Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, gwickwire. I look forward to comments. Again, for purposes of this “dispute resolution,” we should proceed as if there are NO objections to anything else in the graf. Below is the whole graf with my addition in bold:

The college made national headlines in the fall of 2012 over its plan to slaughter its two 11-year-old draft oxen, Bill and Lou, and serve their meat in the college dining hall. The community decision was made after Lou was injured and it was determined that Bill would not accept a new partner. GMC declined an offer by VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary to allow the oxen to retire at no cost to the school, saying that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm. The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide who signed a letter urging that the two oxen, after being made to the work for 10 years, deserve to be spared and sent to a sanctuary. The college planned to slaughter the oxen by the end of October but postponed the event, saying area slaughterhouses were deluged with protests, some of them threatening. In November, the college had Lou euthanized and buried his body off campus. Bill is slated to remain with the college.

Rather than VINE, I have chosen to work in the rationale articulated in the care2 petition letter, the very letter referenced in multiple major sources--the one which received “tens of thousands” of signatures worldwide. So there should be no objection as to source.(Btw, the care2 letter explicitly mentions VINE, so VINE isn't just important because of the initial offer). My above condensation is a neutralized nutshell of the following language:

Please encourage Green Mountain College to allow Bill & Lou to be adopted by the VINE Sanctuary in Vermont where they can live out the remainder of their lives. They've worked so hard for the college for 10 years and deserve a better fate than ending up on someone's plate! PE2011 (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok we’re trying to resolve two distinct questions. (1) Should some (sourced) articulated rationale against slaughter be included? (2) If so, what specific articulated rationale should be included? We haven't reached consensus on (1), so I think's it's premature to try and come up with language for articulated rational, since 2 is contingent on a yes decision for 1.Flyte35 (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, we all know my answer to (1) is no, that the rationale (retirement) is given and does not need to be expanded. To take from the proposed language, though, you can see how it starts to read more like WikiNews than Wikipedia.Vt catamount (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The answer to question one is no, so question two is irrelevant.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on everything I see, and the text above, the bolded text does not absolutely need to be in the article. However, it does help a little with the flow. It's kind of impossible to deal with the questions seperately, because at least for me the final product will determine whether I think it should be included. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

1) No. 2) N/A. The language regarding this specific dispute are most sufficient and relevant as "GMC declined offers by several animal sanctuaries to allow the oxen to retire at no cost to the school, saying that the offers did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm. The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide. The college planned ..." Crazytome (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is no reason to include any additional language in the graf. The paragraph currently in the article fully reflects what has occurred and is accurate and unbiased.Flyte35 (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Seconded.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

gwickwire. I’m not sure “absolute necessity” or "necessity" is the right standard here—rather, it’s “significance.” WP:UNDUE The above rationale, in bold, is a (very) significant viewpoint in this controversy. Shouldn't the issue of inclusion turn on whether this is true? Moreover, my above proposal (i) describes one of the main reasons against slaughter (because B&L deserve to be spared after 10 years of work), and (ii) describes what “tens of thousands” were urging (spare and sent to sanctuary). Both (i) and (ii) adds informative value to the content of the graf.PE2011 (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Significant to VINE, or the petition, maybe. Not significant, important, or relevant to GMC, nor necessary for GMC's wikipedia entry. I just don't see how adding in extraneous information about other organizations or people adds informative value to an article about Green Mountain College. It's like saying Siskel and Ebert preferred 'Armageddon' in a review of 'Deep Impact.' Or something. Pardon me, haven't had my coffee yet this morning.Crazytome (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

See, if the only thing being added is what is bolded (who signed a letter urging that the two oxen, after being made to the [sic] work for 10 years, deserve to be spared and sent to a sanctuary.), then I think that actually has a purpose in the flow. Otherwise you read "The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide...", and wonder what they were petitioning for. It is assumed the petitioners are petitioning against slaughter, but we need the bolded text in order to know what they were petitioning for. Also, I feel it helps the sentence flow better. Does this make sense? Also, a note, 1 reply at a time please :) gwickwire | Leave a message 21:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Even so, this brings up two factual issues: 1) the care2 petition is not a letter, and 2) no source states that townspeople signed the petition, as may be implied by inclusion of the bolded text. The existing text is pretty much verbatim from the NYT article, I'd rather not combine sources and in doing so, create new facts.Vt catamount (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That can be fixed by a simple rewording. The sentence to be added just clarifies the protestors view. Also, verbatim? Verbatim is not allowed in Wikipedia, and combining sources is very much encouraged as long as it is sourced. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The flow of the article is not only irrelevant, but subjective as well. The only thing that matters are the facts and how they are presented. As it stands, most people in this discussion seem to think that the article reads perfectly fine; however, if flow is what you're concerned with, the article could be rewritten without adding anything else, as there is no need to add any new facts to the story. Consider this: 1. Vt catamount raised a valid point in that adding that line assumes that the townspeople signed the petition (which was not a letter). There are no facts to back this up, and since it seems that there is concern about what facts to include, we cannot start assuming anything, and 2. There is no "one voice" to the petitions, due to the fact that there were multiple petitions circulated, all with differing language. Ergo, that statement must not be included. Furthermore, it does not take Kreskin to see what the protesters were fighting against. You should write articles assuming some level of intelligence of the reader...everything does not need to be spelled out. So no, what you say does not make sense and I respectfully but firmly reject your opinion.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Setting aside the flow, as that can be fixed, the sentence is needed to clarify the view of the petitioners. Otherwise, one is left to wonder what the petitioners actually wanted to do with the animals. The wording, like I said, can be changed (how about "signed a petition"), and the assumption that the townspeople signed the petition can be fixed. I specifically stated that we know what they're fighting against. The reader, however, does not know what the petitioners wanted instead of slaughter for meat. For all I know as a reader, they could've been fighting for them to be peacefully euthanized and buried, given away, kept, or any other outcome. I think the article needs something that will clarify the objectives of the protestor. You say there were multiple ones circulated, probably true. However, the most circulated one (I assume) that is being talked about in this point of the article should be clarified so the reader understands that this one petition was for (whatever it is they wanted). Make sense? gwickwire | Leave a message 22:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Why the sudden change of heart, gwickwire? Earlier you stated, "Based on everything I see, and the text above, the bolded text does not absolutely need to be in the article. However, it does help a little with the flow." Now, all of a sudden it does need the sentence? Make up your mind. Frankly, I am going to keep this one short, lest I say anything I will regret. The majority of people in this discussion are fine with the article as it is, and that is the way it will stay (for now, at least) unless something a heck of a lot better is offered in a way of a sentence addition. It should be shorter, more concise and less biased (yes, biased: "being made to work 10 years" makes the college look like heartless taskmasters) to be worthy of consideration. Anything less is unacceptable. To be honest, the longer this drags out the more I think that nothing should be on the GMC page and a complete, separate entry for this should be created.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello all. I have been traveling and unable to check in on this until now. I'm joining in to strongly urge that the language "who signed a letter urging that the two oxen, after being made to work for 10 years, deserve to be spared and sent to a sanctuary" be added to the entry. As stated, it is very important to know why so many people would sign a petition and what they were asking for. Thank you. George McD (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(←) I should have worded that differently. What I meant was that the text did not need to be in the article persay, but I personally would have strongly considered putting it in. However, that's beside the point. How about this: will all editors agree to work on an article in someone's userspace over this controversy, making sure it meets WP:GNG and is sourced well? That way, all users can include everything in as much expansion as needs to be, and that way all are happy. Does any editor have a problem with this: make a new article solely over the controversy about the slaughter, to be titled something along the lines of "Green Mountain College slaughter controversy", in someone's userspace or at AfC and then have it moved when it is full and ready to be in the articlespace. That's my proposal for you. If someone has a problem then we can try to work something else out. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I am misunderstanding. If so, I apologize but I strongly believe that a short paragraph (such as what is there now) about this controversy belongs on the Green Mountain College page. This controversy is a significant part of GMC's history at this point and belongs on the page. I am not interested in working on a separate entry, although others may be. I think it is fair to add a few words explaining the petition, that 's it. Thank you. George McD (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

My only issue is that there isn't a consensus forming here about what to add to the page. I think it'd be best to leave the page without anything added, and then formulate a WikiLink in the GMC article to the new page. I'm still awaiting the other editors responses though. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I see what you mean. An additional page could be useful for more background information. George McD (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose an individual article about the controversy might be useful (though I'm not sure it's really that important), but that's not what we're here to discuss. This has to do with the graf in the GMC article. And a graph about the incident is probably going to have to remain in the GMC article even if someone creates an article about the incident itself. Creating a separate entry about the incident doesn't address the problem at hand. Flyte35 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

What I am suggesting as a compromise to the issue we are here to discuss is that the content about the controversy will be shortened to one sentence with a WikiLink somewhere in it to a new article, and the controversy covered in full detail there. That way, those who want it covered fully can get their full coverage in it's own article, and there's still reference to it in the GMC article. Then, there's no issue of whether to include a "rationale" for slaughter because that will be covered in the new article. Does that make sense? gwickwire | Leave a message 00:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be a decent compromise, as a new page about the situation would be better at explaining all sides of the issue in greater detail.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure this one incident at a tiny college really merits its own entry, but I'd be happy with just leaving the graf more or less as it is in the GMC piece and allowing others to create a separate entry for this incident incident.Flyte35 (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, after not seeing any opposition above, I'd like to formally request your input here about my compromise, which is as follows: create a new page about the controversy and link to it in GMC's article, and leave GMC's article otherwise how it is now. If you agree, just say so below here by posting this: ( #Agree ~~~~ ) and once everyone (if everyone) agrees, we can implement this. Thank you all for being patient with each other and me by the way :) gwickwire | Leave a message 01:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

1. AgreeFlyte35 (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

To borrow a phrase from one of the other editors, I respectfully and firmly disagree. One of the other editors also said that it would show "bias" to add a few words to clarify the objectives of the tens of thousands of petitioners. I would argue that it shows "bias" to leave that information out. We are talking about a very short addition here - a phrase or sentence at most. Very short. There is no need to write a whole separate entry to address this one important fact that is left out of this otherwise acceptable summary. Wikipedia readers deserve to know why tens of thousands of people from all over the world cared about these two particular oxen in Vermont. Thank you. George McD (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Gwickwire. Along with George McD, I must voice my opposition to leaving the current GMC graf as it is—a separate full article is a separate matter. The only relevant question in this content dispute is whether my above proposal, in bold, should be included. I believe that inclusion is warranted under the “significance” test in WP:UNDUE, which requires that “all significant viewpoints” be fairly represented in an article. In fact, as you stated earlier, “any controversy that can be sourced reliably has at least some place somewhere, if only as a sentence”—which precisely describes my modest proposal. Not only is the proposed articulated rationale part of the controversy, it is reliably sourced and short. Furthermore, as noted above, my proposal adds informative value to the graf: it (i) describes one of the main reasons against slaughter (because B&L deserve to be spared after 10 years of work), and (ii) describes what “tens of thousands” were urging (spare and sent to sanctuary). Both (i) and (ii) are part of the facts of this controversy, which are otherwise left out of the current graf. Regarding compromise, I am willing to consider one so long as there is a good-faith basis against my proposal—one that is not founded on, essentially, “I don’t like it.” Is there any good reason to reject my proposal when it clearly falls within wikipedia guidelines (WP:UNDUE)? If not, then a “consensus” to reject it would be wholly irrational—let’s strive to make wikipedia better, not second-rate. So to those who object to my proposal, I’d simply like to know: why? Below, I respond to some objections.

Crazytome. My proposal is a significant part of this controversy, which is the relevant standard for inclusion. The petition, as I noted above, is referenced in several major sources—so there cannot be any objection to source. Remember, as reported in the NYT and elsewhere, it received “tens of thousands” of signatures.

Vt. Catamount. (1) If you don’t like the word “letter,” we can replace it with “petition.” Compromise, see? :) (2) Grammatically, I believe the bolded proposal only refers to the “tens of thousands online petitioners worldwide,” and not to “townspeople” and “animal rights supporters.” But replacing “letter” with “petition” would add more clarity.

Kingsrow1975. (1) Your objections continue to ignore my argument from WP:UNDUE. Does my proposal fall within the “significance” test of WP:UNDUE or not? If not, why not? If so, then on what grounds do you resist my proposal? (2) While there are other petitions, my proposal only describes the rationale articulated in the one referenced in the NYT and elsewhere (e.g., Chronicle of Higher Education)—that petition is a major part of this controversy. So under WP:UNDUE, my bolded proposal should be included. (3) Regarding your bias objection, it is wholly without merit; again, my proposal merely describes the rationale articulated in the care2 petition, which accords perfectly with wikipedia guidelines (Wikipedia describes disputes). The fact that you dislike my neutral description is hardly anything to do with “bias.” PE2011 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, since there is somebody opposed to my current proposal, I feel that the best way to go now is to state my opinion. In my opinion, there should be something added, and if it were up to me I would go with what the user proposed in bold up the page a bit. I'm going to go on assuming that everyone can abide by that proposal (of adding something short in the article). My rationale for this is as I said above. The article really doesn't need something there, but not including it could be seen as WP:UNDUE or WP:BIAS as the viewpoint of all but the petitioners is pretty explicitly expressed. Therefore, to not violate these concepts, there should be something added about the viewpoint of the protestors. Now let's decide what should be added and where. We have the one proposal above, does anyone else have their proposals? If so, list them below. Thanks, gwickwire | Leave a message 04:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks gwickwire. To help focus discussion, any counter-proposals to mine should be based solely on the care2 petition, the one already implicitly referenced in the graf ("tens of thousands" of online signatures) and sourced in several places. No other source should be considered. I will quote the care2 petition in full (bold in original):

At the end of October 2012, Bill and Lou, the hard-working team of oxen for Green Mountain College’s Cerridwen Farm, are scheduled to be slaughtered.

Bill and Lou have worked as draft animals on the school’s farm for over ten years. They have provided many services for the college and are mascots & friends to many students, past and present. Since Lou sustained a recurring injury to his left rear hock, he no longer has “value” to GMC, so they decided to purchase a new team and send both of these oxen to the slaughterhouse to be "processed" (euphemism for killed) for their meat.

Please encourage Green Mountain College to allow Bill & Lou to be adopted by the VINE Sanctuary in Vermont where they can live out the remainder of their lives. They've worked so hard for the college for 10 years and deserve a better fate than ending up on someone's plate!

And just so we're on the same page, here is my proposal again: "The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide who signed a letter urging that the two oxen, after being made to work for 10 years, deserve to be spared and sent to a sanctuary." We can also replace "letter" with "petition," per one objection above, but that's a minor detail. PE2011 (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

IF, and there is a big IF I were to agree with this, the language would have to be changed to something more neutral...as such: "The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights activists and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide who signed a petition urging that the two oxen, who had worked for the college for 10 years, should be spared and sent to a sanctuary."Kingsrow1975 (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the proposal from Kingsrow hits the spot. It is neutral, doesn't cause confusion, and flows the best that I have seen so far. Can everyone agree to that? Reply tomorrow, bedtime now gwickwire | Leave a message 04:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If there must be additional language (and the line seems redundant to me, given that both the age of the animals and the offer of sanctuary is already stated in the graf) in order for this to end, ok, I think this might be the best we can do.Flyte35 (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to be a pain, but I do have some reservations with Kingsrow1975’s counter-proposal—please let me know if you believe they’re unfounded. First, as a matter of writing, it has redundancies that should be eliminated for stylistic reasons. “College” and “who” appear twice, thereby making the sentence flow unsmooth. Second, as a matter of substance, it does cause confusion. (1) “[W]ho had worked for the college for 10 years” suggests that the oxen are like regular employees, persons free to work if they so choose, when in reality, Bill and Lou are considered property (“draft animals” - a phrase that GMC uses). So “who” is misleading and contrary to the description in the petition. (2) “Should,” instead of “deserve,” fails to adequately capture the articulated rationale. “Should” is not synonymous with “deserve,” whereas the latter is clearer and lifted from the language of the petition. What is the articulated rationale for why B&L should be spared? Because they deserve to be spared after being made to work for 10 years—that is the core essence of the petition. Kingsrow1975’s counter-proposal fails to capture that essence. Lastly, a quick response to Flyte35. Your redundancy concerns are misplaced. (1) Although the age of the oxen is mentioned in the graf, the number of years they worked is NOT mentioned. (2) The "offer of sanctuary" by VINE to GMC is distinct from the urging of petitioners that B&L be sent to VINE. PE2011 (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Your reservations are unfounded. Redundancies of language can be easily fixed. As for the rest, come up with a different proposal (not your original one) if you feel you can do better. I grow weary of the obstructionist actions, so I wish to see real suggestions from you instead of only criticisms.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975. First, my above proposal IS a real suggestion—why do you reject it? Please provide your objections, in detail, so we can discuss them. “I don’t like it” isn’t a valid reason. Second, I believe my criticisms of your counter-proposal have merit, but if you (or anyone else) believe otherwise, please explain why they don’t. Ironically, your (1) casual dismissal of my proposal without argument and (2) naked assertion that my “reservations are unfounded” can be more accurately described as “obstructionist actions.” PE2011 (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a modified proposal, which slims down the rationale even more: "The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide who signed a petition urging that the two oxen, after being made to work for 10 years, deserve to permanently retire in a sanctuary."

I'll take that and raise you this: who signed a petition urging that the two oxen, which GMC had worked for 10 years, deserve to permanently retire in a sanctuary."Kingsrow1975 (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

First, your version is stylistically cumbersome—“which GMC had worked” flows awkwardly. The main problem is with “had worked.” Second, in terms of substance, it is slightly better than your previous proposal which completely whitewashes the fact that B&L had no choice in “working”; they were made to work, which is undeniable (“draft animals,” remember?). Your latest version, while slightly better, still glosses over that fact and does not adequately capture the core rationale in the petition, and thus it is less clear than my version. Third, again on substance, your version does not adequately capture the core rationale that B&L deserve sanctuary because they were made to work for 10 years. Your version hides that “because,” whereas my version implies it clearly in a neutral way. Fourth, before proposing another counter-proposal, please explain why you find my latest version objectionable. The burden can't be entirely on me to keep coming up with proposal after proposal when you keep rejecting them without explanation. Thank you.PE2011 (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

SMH. Even though you seem to enjoy it, I refuse to keep going round and round with you. I am done trying to explain myself to a person who obviously does not want to compromise. That said, I will comment no further until both a mod and other users have said their peace.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I must admit, it's a bit amusing to see how far this discussion has gone since I last checked in, and yet no progress has been made! Unfortunately, I'm here to stick a wrench in the endlessly spinning wheel, if I can.

The care2 petition is off-limits as a source. Someone who believes it necessary will need to find an "articulated rationale" elsewhere. This is going to be difficult, I admit, since virtually all of the reliable sources used thus far (to my recollection, at least) seem to share my perspective: such language is superfluous. As for why petitioners petitioned and protestors protested, that rationale is located conveniently in the very first line of the subsection. For Gwickwire's sake, I'll repost that here:

"The college made national headlines in the fall of 2012 over its plan to slaughter its two 11-year-old draft oxen, Bill and Lou, and serve their meat in the college dining hall."

As a note to other editors, thepetitionsite.com was blacklisted back in 2010 (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist#Petition_sites) and the "articulated rational" for that blacklisting is stated here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=2237861#thepetitionsite.com.2F1.2Fban-wikipedia and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#Petitions .

I am reminded of Wikipedia:SPS: “if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.” See also: WP:Primary. Further, before anyone gets upset, I did suggest that the care2 petition was "not a preferred source" on the Green Mountain College Talk page on November 12th and again at 04:23, 04:34, and 04:40 on 12 November 2012 (UTC). I only discovered it was blacklisted this evening.Vt catamount (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thepetitionsite.com is not the site in question. The care2 site is not blacklisted. I will defer to administrators on the rules about citing petitions for context (not for encouraging people to sign, which is clearly not the case here.) If it is determined that the care2 site can not be referenced, I suggest this rewrite of the graf which uses language from the NYT article of 10/28/12, to make two points - 1) the oxen worked for GMC for 10 years and the college wanted to turn them into hamburger meat for the dining hall 2) The petitioners called for a "reprieve."

The college made national headlines in the fall of 2012 over its plan to slaughter its pair of 11-year-old draft oxen, Bill and Lou, who had worked for the college for 10 years, and turn them into into hamburger meat for the dining hall.[20] The community decision was made after Lou was injured and it was determined that Bill would not accept a new partner.[20] GMC declined an offer by VINE (Veganism Is the Next Evolution) animal sanctuary to allow the oxen to retire at no cost to the school,[21] saying that the offer did not align with the values of a sustainable, production-based farm.[22] The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide who called for a reprieve. The college planned to slaughter the oxen by the end of October but postponed the event, saying area slaughterhouses were deluged with protests, some of them threatening.[23] In November, the college had Lou euthanized and buried his body off campus. Bill is slated to remain with the college.[24]" George McD (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt catamount is completely wrong: the care2 petition is a valid source because it is referenced in several sources, which I already posted above. I will do so again:

2. NYT:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/us/oxens-possible-slaughter-prompts-fight-in-vermont.html?emc=eta1&_r=0 (references the care2 petition, “tens of thousands of online petitioners”)

3. Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/blogs/buildings/a-decision-to-slaughter-oxen-at-a-college-farm-angers-animal-rights-activists/32260 (links to the care2 petition)

4. NPR: http://m.npr.org/news/Science/163257176 (references the care2 petition—“more than 30,000 signatures from all over the world.”)

5. VTDigger: http://vtdigger.org/2012/11/04/national-animal-rights-group-blocks-slaughter-of-green-mountain-college-oxen-by-pressuring-local-slaughterhouses/ (references care2 petition—“47,300 signatures from across the nation and world”.)

6. AP: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ie6N7qspIVA96Eebzwg3SOcoB6nA?docId=568d603eca1142e8a3743327e422d14b (references care2 petition)

7. Boston Globe: http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/10/25/fire-mountain/f8mIXuOFwg201TopTbeXiK/story.html (references care2 petition, “surpassed 25,000 signatures”)PE2011 (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I need to clarify this for you. You cannot use language from the care2 petition, which is hosted at thepetitionsite.com, because a) thepetitionsite.com is a blacklisted reference, and b) petitions themselves are inappropriate references (WP:Primary). It doesn't matter how many sources cite it, you can't use it as a source. I see the care2.com 'articles' following down the same slippery slope of WP:Primary. And I ask, when you have so many reliable sources to work from, with plenty of language to consider, why do you need to? Remember, folks, this is about the integrity of the encyclopedia first and foremost.

In brighter news, George McD may have something there.Vt catamount (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt. catamount. First, I believe an exception for citing the petition directly is permitted here, since there is no question as to its reliability (multiple secondary sources reference it). Second, even if I couldn’t cite to the petition directly because it’s blacklisted, I wouldn’t have to: I could cite to, for instance, the Chronicle of Higher Education article which links to the petition. Third, your grasp of the “primary sources” rule is wrong—it doesn’t categorically prohibit primary sources. “Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense.” Moreover, “a primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.” That is precisely what I’m doing: making a purely descriptive statement about what’s in the petition. Think about it this way: What reliability concerns are raised with citing the petition? If the answer is "none," then you have no basis for objection. Moreover, the rule is more pertinent to “accounts written by people who are directly involved”—that is, factual claims. I'm citing the petition for its articulated rationale, not for any facts. PE2011 (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think if you're going to push the matter, instead of fall back on language from one of the many reliable sources we have available, I'd recommend you seek the opinion of an editor who is well-versed in the topic, such as User JZG from http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=2237861#thepetitionsite.com.2F1.2Fban-wikipedia who states plainly that "All petition sites should be blocked on principle, their primary use on Wikipedia is as a method of canvassing, their secondary use is for original research."Vt catamount (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

VT. catamount. First, I’m not sure what that even means, but one shouldn’t quote the opinions of experienced editors as if they were gospel. The types of situations User JZG had in mind probably don’t resemble the current one in this content dispute. Second, like I said, even if I couldn’t cite to the petition directly because it’s blacklisted, I wouldn’t have to: I could cite to, for instance, the Chronicle of Higher Education article which links to the petition. This completely addresses your concern. Third, I’ll ask again: What reliability concerns are raised with citing the petition? If the answer is "none," then you have no basis for objection. PE2011 (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on principle, PE, not rules. I think the principle of using secondary and tertiary sources is well-covered throughout the policy pages, I don't have the time nor the inclination to explain it any further than I have. I don't think your "3rd degree of sourcing" is acceptable, but let's hear what Gwickwire says. If he or she would like me to expand on why I think we shouldn't be taking language from a source because that source is cited in reliable sources, then we can go down that winding road. Back to your first "point", if you actually think that the "types of situations JZG had in mind don't resemble the current one," I invite you to submit the care2 petition to be whitelisted.Vt catamount (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

VT. catamount. First, since wikipedia guidelines are based on “principles” and not “rules,” that only strengthens my point: there is no categorical prohibition against citing primary sources, something I demonstrated in my quotes above from WP: Primary—I quoted from the very policy page you reference. Second, “tertiary sources” are not applicable here, so I don't know why you brought it up. Third, if you’re confident that the types of situations JZG had in mind resemble the current one, I welcome such a demonstration. The burden can’t be on me to rebut unsupported claims. Thank you.PE2011 (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I will be happy to address any expansion of reasoning requested by Gwickwire. I am no longer interested in following you around Wikipedia policy pages to demonstrate intent of principle.Vt catamount (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this never ends. Dispute about the petition strikes me as bizarre. Can't we simply summarize the petition and cite a news article referencing the petition? Also, as long as this is still continuing, "made to work" and "work" are, in this case, the same thing. Since we're talking about OXEN, there's no danger of anyone getting the impression that the farm animals were working voluntarily, in the manner of people.Flyte35 (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Flyte35. (1) My above proposal is precisely your suggestion: cite the Chronicle of Higher Education article, which links to the petition. (2) I must disagree with your suggestion that we collapse “made to work” to “work,” since the former captures – in a neutral way – the thinking behind the petition: that after being forced to work for 10 years, B&L deserve retirement in a sanctuary. (3) What specific proposal are you referring to? If it’s Kingsrow1975’s latest proposal, then it is also subject to the other objections I made above (which he never addressed). PE2011 (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that easy, Flyte35, from WP:PrimarySources "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" and "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Since we have a plethora of excellent secondary sources to work with, I don't see how this would be a problem - UNLESS the "rationale" of the petition was unworthy of news coverage, since it's implicit. Vt catamount (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt catamount. Read the very sentence you quoted again—the key word there is “interpretation.” My mere description of what the petition says is NOT an “interpretation.” Furthermore, you left out the following sentence: “A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.” “Descriptive statements of facts.” What is my proposal? It is describing, as fact, what’s in the petition, which falls perfectly within the wikipedia guidelines. Another quote (which you continue to ignore): “Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense.” Finally, I'll repeat my question: What reliability concerns are raised with citing the petition? If the answer is "none," then you have no basis for objection.PE2011 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

From my understanding of the blacklist, you literally can't cite the petition. As in, you press "save" and a bot bounces it back and flags the offending reference. What you've offered in your proposal is not a "description of facts," it is a description of feelings, and common sense indicates it has no business in an encyclopedic article. That said, are you really incapable of finding the rationale you seek in a secondary source? Does that difficulty not speak volumes about the language you're proposing? I await comment from our volunteer. Edit to add: My statement above was directed towards Flyte35 and his recommendation that we summarize the petition. I believe this is a good example of why Gwickwire initially requested one post apiece before his or her return. Vt catamount (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt catamount. (1)Again, if the care2 petition can’t be cited directly because of technical issues, then citing to the Chronicle of Education article is more than sufficient—because it links to the petition. (2) My proposal IS a mere factual description: namely, it describes what’s written in the petition! The fact that you don’t like what’s written there is hardly a valid objection. (3) As I said before, the onus can’t be entirely on me to come up with proposal after proposal when they keep getting rejected without explanation. So, before I make any new proposals, I want to know why my latest one is so problematic to you (and anyone else who objects). If you offer good-faith criticisms, I am more than willing to supply an alternative, but I see no need accommodate the “majority” anymore. PE2011 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"If you offer good-faith criticisms, I am more than willing to supply an alternative, but I see no need accommodate the “majority” anymore." PE2011 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC) There we have it...an admission that PE2011 is not willing to work with anyone, lest they suit his needs and his needs alone. Vt catamount *is* offering "good faith" criticisms; you not liking them does not make it not so. Thank you for at least admitting that you are dead-set in your ways and refuse to work with anyone.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's hear what Gwickwire says. If he or she would like me to expand on why I think we shouldn't be taking language from a source on the back that that source is cited in reliable sources, what I'm terming the 3rd degree of sourcing, then we can go down that winding road. I simply don't think it's acceptable or reasonable to include language from the petition if that language is not summarized in a reliable source outside of that petition.Vt catamount (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I’m eager to hear from gwickwire as well. In particular, I’m eager to hear if there’s any support in the wikipedia guidelines for your mere assertion that it’s not “acceptable or reasonable to include language from the petition if that language is not summarized in a reliable source outside of that petition.” And even if there were, remember, wikipedia doesn't have any exceptionless principles or rules. Given how many times the care2 petition is referenced in major sources, there are no reliability concerns. PE2011 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingsrow1975. I responded to every criticism you and Vt catamount made about my proposal, explaining why I believe they wholly lack merit. My criticisms went unanswered: it doesn’t demonstrate good faith on your part to simply dismiss them without explanation. PE2011 (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You keep thinking that if it makes you feel better. As Vt catamount said, I am going to wait until gwickwire has a chance to comment before I say anything else. Good day.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight: I HAVE been bending over backwards to accommodate the “majority.” Remember, this dispute started because I wanted to include a rationale from VINE, but because you made such a fuss about VINE, I cited to the care petition instead. My original care2 proposal did not satisfy you (though not because of any valid objection), which prompted me slim it down further. That's 3 major modifications from me, and yet, you’re still not satisfied! Who’s being unreasonable here? PE2011 (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Just so gwickwire isn’t lost, my latest (slimed down) proposal reads: “The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide who signed a petition urging that the two oxen, after being made to work for 10 years, deserve to permanently retire in a sanctuary.”PE2011 (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I never had the opportunity to address this, so I will now: "made to work" and "deserve" are both examples of incendiary language. This is part and parcel of why we shouldn't be using Primary sources.Vt catamount (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Vt catamount. Thanks for at least (finally!) addressing the substance of my proposal. However, your objections are unfounded. I disagree with your claim that “made to work” and “deserve” are examples of “incendiary language”; rather, they are neutral and accurate – NOT over-dramatized – descriptions of what’s written in the petition. Those words are part of the core rationale in the petition: B&L should be spared because they deserve to live, after being made to work for 10 years—that’s the essence. My proposal does not state an opinion as to whether B&L really do deserve to live, but only describes (accurately) the opinion written in the petition. PE2011 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but we immediately return to my objection to summarizing a primary source - "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so" - and your suggestion that, merely because the source is referenced by secondary sources, we can evade the above-quoted principle.Vt catamount (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

But then we return to my objection that "mere summary" - just a description - isn't precluded by the wikipedia guidelines. PE2011 (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Last word.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely not "permanently retire in a sanctuary." Retirement can't be permanent; the oxen would die eventually on their own.Flyte35 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wha? Okay. How about this as a proposal: “The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide who signed a petition with the belief that the two oxen, after working for 10 years, deserved to be retired in a sanctuary.” This way, it is clear that the protestors believed they deserved to retire, and not Wikipedia believes they deserve it. Does this proposal work for all? gwickwire | Leave a message 20:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Gwickwire. This works for me. George McD (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Gwickwire, this doesn't address any of the above mentioned issues of sourcing. What reference are we going to use to cite this claim? Or are you suggesting it be left uncited? (I should mention that I do not agree that a rationale is necessary, as stated above. If you have addressed any of the comments above, please advise, and I will look to your previous response).Vt catamount (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Gwickwire.Your above proposal, while not my preference, is a tolerably acceptable one for me. PE2011 (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think for this purpose we can use the petition itself to cite it, as we are in fact just describing the petition's stance. I do apologize for not expressing my replies in more detail by the way. But like I said, in this instance only I think it would be fine to cite the petition, such as citing a company's website for the number of employees it has (where else would you find that information). I think the rationale is needed to make the thought about the petition complete, by clarifying the stance of the petitioners. Like I have said, without some rationale, the reader is left wondering what the petitioners were petitioning for. If we can't come to a consensus on this, I don't know much else we can do here, I may need to refer this to either editor assitance for someone else to have yet another opinion, or if that doesn't work then maybe to mediation. Not yet though. Right now let's try this one last thing. Proposal: what is above, with the citation added of the petition itself. gwickwire | Leave a message 20:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

And as I explained above, we could also cite the Chronicle of Higher Education article, which links directly to the petition. PE2011 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not concerned that your replies lack detail, but I am getting a bit concerned that you may have missed large parts of the discussion. Thepetitionsite.com, the site on which the petition is hosted and the "rationale articulated," is a blacklisted url. Unless I'm mistaken about the WikiMedia platform, this seems to be a serious obstacle to your proposal. Vt catamount (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You know...on one hand, gwickwire's proposal sounds good, but the things Vt catamount has been bringing up has got me to thinking. I am not quite sure that I can support that just yet...at least while Vt catamount's questions remain unanswered.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

huh? What questions specifically? I answered every objection above--please explain. PE2011 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I not speak to you since you've proven time and time again that you do not debate in good faith. Any questions you have can be directed to vt catamount. Thank you.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If there's another comment above, I will be very tempted to stop trying to work with you. That is not appropriate for this forum. If there's editors here who won't talk to each other then this needs to be taken to Mediation or another forum. In reply, if the website is blacklisted, then we can source the Chronicle of HE article that links to it in the article. Or, I could talk to someone and get this link specifically whitelisted for this purpose. There's ways to work around it. Right now, we are talking about the proposal. Also, reminding the editors, when you reach an Edit Conflict, DO NOT just copy your revision into the top box, as it will delete any comments made in the EC, which is not a good way to work with others (only saying this because one of my comments got deleted in an ec). gwickwire | Leave a message 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I am more than willing to talk to anyone here about how to resolve this content dispute. Thanks for your guidance. PE2011 (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, gwickwire, it is highly inappropriate to whitelist a link just to suit one specific purpose such as this, as it could be construed as favoritism.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean whitelist the whole website, only the specific URL of the petition itself. All other petitions on the site would still be blacklisted, it would just override for this one since it has a specific purpose. More than likely the site is blacklisted because people spammed articles with the link as proof of something that didn't exist, and this petition is just caught in the line of fire. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Petitions are blacklisted for very good reason. It is my belief that the language of a petition does not belong in a Wikipedia entry - I think that scatters its integrity. A rationale can likely be found in a reliable source, and it won't be as emotionally charged. Remember, we are not all in agreement that an expanded rationale is necessary, it would just "help with the flow." I will not sacrifice Wikipedia's integrity over "flow." If it's your opinion that a petition can be whitelisted for this purpose, I would respectfully ask that we receive the input of another editor WP:EA. Also, apologies about the edit conflict and deletion if I caused it, I had *no* idea.Vt catamount (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Even whitelisting one URL to suit the needs of inserting the language can be seen as favoritism, as it normally would not be included any other time. That said, I am with Vt catamount in their final thoughts.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

From the discussion above, which it looks like you have not reviewed: "As a note to other editors, thepetitionsite.com was blacklisted back in 2010 (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist#Petition_sites) and the "articulated rational" for that blacklisting is stated here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=2237861#thepetitionsite.com.2F1.2Fban-wikipedia and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#Petitions ."Vt catamount (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, no problem about the EC, I've accidentally done that too sometimes. If nobody else objects to taking this to EA, or mediation, then I think that would be good at this point. This has gone on for quite some time now without any real consensus, and I don't feel that the DR board here is going to be able to help anymore. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty, I have no objections. Let us know if there is a specific action we must take to accomplish this.Vt catamount (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with taking this all the way to mediation if necessary. One last proposal (slight modification of gwickwire's): “The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide who signed a petition stating that the two oxen, after working for 10 years, deserve to retire in a sanctuary.” PE2011 (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If anyone objects to this proposal, I feel we can't do much more here, so if anyone objects then I'll close this as failed, and apologize sincerely I wasn't able to do more. There isn't anything special you have to take, I'd suggest (just out of randomness) that Kingsrow takes it to EA, once again that was a random choice for me. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I object. So on that note cheers, Gwickwire. Check up on us in a year to make sure we're not still going at it.Vt catamount (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we get a head count as to who objects and who doesn't? Thanks. PE2011 (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Then, on that note, I do sincerely apologize for not being able to do more, and wish you the best of luck in getting this resolved. Sorry again! gwickwire | Leave a message 21:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that this can't be worked out here. The petition has been reported on numerous times in several news outlets, including those cited in the existing graf. The fact that the oxen worked for the college for 10 years has been reported multiple times as well. Readers of Wikipedia deserve to know why tens of thousands of people were concerned about the fate of Bill and Lou. To not include that information is a disservice to Wikipedia and weakens its credibility. Thank you for your efforts to help Gwickwire. George McD (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You were great, gwickwire. Do you recommend meditation next or EC? And would it be possible for you to provide your input as the volunteer working with us? PE2011 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 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.