Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard - Wikipedia

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

  – Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 24 Game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Uucp (talk · contribs)
• 24guard (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The page is about a card game, and included links to a blog post asserting the number of possible playable hands and other facts. Editor Uucp added links to a second blog asserting corrections to the first one and offering computer code showing all solvable hands, among other things. Editor 24guard reverted this, saying that the new blog post was too recent and must therefore be viewed as "spam". This began a revert war with editor Uucp, who disagreed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Comments in the edit changes and on the talk page. Both sides seem set in their views, though the discussion has remained civil on both parts.

How do you think we can help?

24guard has changed his grounds for reversion over time, variously claiming that recent blog posts are not allowed, that the content could not be linked to as he could not prove it accurate, or that the blog post constituted original research and should therefore not be allowed. In his most recent change, he removed both blog posts; I'm not sure why. I think a cool head can help resolve this.

24 Game discussion

OK. The site 24theory.com is not a reliable source. It appears to be self published with no editorial oversite and no fact checking, and that isn't even the blog.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wheels.org is also not RS. Vanity site. No editorial oversite or factchecking. That means the blog is just not acceptable but will be clear about blogs as references. WP:USERGENERATED: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." also ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." You may see more on blogs at WP:NEWSBLOG.

On the talkpage User:24guard has stated that he believes the dispute is resolved as the current version appears to be holding and I tend to agree and feel that this case is resolved.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uucp has engaged discussion again at the talkpage were he has stated that this is not resolved and has expressed a desire to resuurect this DR/N. I have informed the user at the talkpage that the DR/N is still active and awaits his comments.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, like Amadscientist, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Wikipedia policy clearly says that blogs are not acceptable reliable sources except for (a) certain newspaper and magazine blogs which are acceptable because they come under, and are subject to, those publications general editorial and fact-checking policies and (b) "[s]elf-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" per the self-published sources policy. Indeed, blogs are so generally unacceptable as sources that one of the nicknames for the self-published sources policy is WP:BLOGS. If an editor wishes to use material from a blog, therefore, it is incumbent upon that editor to establish which of the two exceptions to the self-published sources policy applies to that material. @Uucp: Which of those exceptions applies in this case, and how does it apply? If neither applies, how do you contend that these blogs are acceptable sources under Wikipedia policy? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  – Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Gangnam Style#ABC (good morning america) quote (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Curb Chain (talk · contribs)
• Castncoot (talk · contribs)
• A1candidate (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In this section of the talk page of Gangnam Style, I believe the quote should be removed.

Other editors (User:Castncoot and User:A1candidate) believe the quote should be restored

My arguments are policy based. Theirs are not.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have used edit summaries when I removed the quote (which has been done in several versions).

How do you think we can help?

I need more editors to provide a consensus. Otherwise, I will file a RfC.

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Please see the talk page of the article in question. User User:Curb Chain at this time appears to be the lone holdout carrying his or her viewpoint, while four others (including myself) have arrived at the conclusion that the quote should be restored. It is informative, constructive, and well-cited exactly as a quote which was indeed stated, if one views the citation properly; no more and no less. I believe that Curb Chain is misinterpreting a policy; otherwise, four others would not hold an opinion in opposition of him or her. Castncoot (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC) My apologies, correction - two other editors, not four. I should mention, however, that this quote has held up for a matter of either many days or weeks now before this dispute - obviously many other editors were in agreement with it. Castncoot (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by A1candidate

Giving undue weight to an opinion only applies if that opinion is held by a small minority. In this case, ABC News isn't by far the only one who reports about "Gangnam Style" taking over/conquering/spreading over the entire world (I can quote from Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Herald Sun, any respectable newspaper you can think of)

Talk:Gangnam Style#ABC (good morning america) quote discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Let me begin by noting that one of the more interesting things about this dispute is that no one has noted that the quote is misstated. The quote comes from a point at 3:13 in the video and the reporter clearly says "intrawebs" (sic, both as to the term and its plural use), not "Internet". I disagree entirely with Curb Chain's analysis of the matter, which he asserts to be policy-based, which is set out in this edit. WP:SYN has no part in deciding whether or not sources are reliable; while undue weight could have some application here, I do not believe that it does; and, similarly, the fact that the quote is taken from a larger context could also have some application if the way in which it was extracted causes it to be misleading as to the entire content, it does not do that. Since the quote is set off in a box by itself, it serves the same function in the article as does an image, to illustrate the article. Since the section of the article to which this is attached is about the widespread popularity of the song and video and, in particular, the Internet meme and the flash mobs which have been inspired by it, I'm of the personal opinion that the quote would have been an acceptable illustration for the article as it is presently, incorrectly, stated with the word "Internet" included, instead of the correct word, "intrawebs". However, if it is corrected to say "intrawebs", rather than "Internet", as it must be, then I think that its use is potentially confusing and that, at best, the use of "intrawebs" is distracting and my personal opinion is that it ought to be removed from the article for those reasons. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it seems unfair to remove a quote just because it was quoted as "Internet" instead of "Intraweb", the point of the quote is that the song is extremely popular in many places around the world, (an opinion that is supported by countless respectable newspapers/broadcasting networks), and the fine differences between "Internet" and "Intrawebs" (in this particular context) appear somewhat trivial to me. Of course, it should still be correctly quoted as "Intrawebs". All in all, it isn't a perfect quote, but adding it to the article would do more good than harm, in my opinion -A1candidate (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with A1. The quote seems to be doing just fine and is a valuable addition in its corrected form - I don't believe there's anything to be gained from removing it. This discussion really should be closed, I feel. Castncoot (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the matter that serious? It's just a nice quotation, it looks good there in the box. Could Curb Chain explain what exactly he or she doesn't like in the quotation? That "Gangnam Style" took over the world? (just guessing) By the way, I think that the article needs some criticism. It's strange that everyone likes the song. Why hasn't any publication received the song without enthusiasm? It's completely unrelated to the dispute, though. --Moscowconnection (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think that the quote had more than marginal utility, which was further diminished by the correction, I also think that this is one of those things where it's a close judgment call as to what's best for the encyclopedia. My objection to the quote is only slightly on the negative side of the issue and I certainly do not mean to pursue the point further. If Curb Chain wishes to do so, that's his call, but he probably needs to do so through an RFC since the weight of opinion here and at the article seems to be mostly the other way. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  – Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• English Vinglish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Vivekdalmias (talk · contribs)
• Vivvt (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

the dispute is for the promotion part, the self published legal owner websites, blogs, facebook and twitter which are normally only source to identify the issue is questioned against the newspaper or electronic media post who does not post, print news without the help of legal owner post in self published pages.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i have tried to convince the user to understand that the post published in media is just after the post published by the legal owner on there self published pages, facebook profile and twitter accounts. so the self published source in this particular post is most reliable to refer for the actual date

How do you think we can help?

to let the user convince that the wikipedia verifiability policies does not blame in clear that self published post and youtube facebook or twitter account can be questioned for the reliability and authenticity specially when the post is about something whose details can be most reliably obtained by there self published post

Dispute?? That's interesting. I've been asking editor to use free references like newspapers than social media, then it becomes dispute!! Editor is consistently providing all the non-RS sources like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. Is date of promotion disputable? Not for me. As long as you provide free references, any date should be OK. 14th or 15th June does not matter to me. What matters to me is the sources editor is providing. Use the newspaper sources and go ahead with the desired date. FB, Twitter, Youtube and social media is not considered as reliable source.

Again, I do not own any page for that matter, so any discussion need not "convince" me for anything. - Vivvt • (Talk) 12:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English Vinglish discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi, I'm Ebe123, a volunteer at DRN. I suggest reading WP:RS. I think the two parties will be able to discuss a resolution here. We will not try to convince anyone at DRN. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi. i have read the wp:rs also wp:sps and there its also said that when the context is related to the person or body or company for whom the article is all about then the self published sources along with the social media content can be used as source instead if they are published by the authentic publisher

also on newspaper source is concerened news agencies are always dependable on the same self published sources. here the date is not an issue rather its an issue of fact that why in the basis of context of article we can not use the social media if that source is most reliable for that particular context. its in same way ask the person directly for whom the article is all about. aditionaly i provided the additional non facebook twitter and youtube sources to other user for the same date issue.its not to convince him over page on date, it is the matter to use some wp:sps based on context and the dispute is about using wp:sps and wp:rsvkdlms (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

  – Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Michael Welner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Stewaj7 (talk · contribs)
• Jcally66 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

My apologies as I was not logged in when I filed my earlier dispute - though I thought I was. Regarding Michael Welner page, this page has been the source of many bad faith edits. A contentious statement about peer review being controversial, without appropriate referencing was included. Jcally66 statments are unsupported by the source that she lists. When this was brought to Jcally66 attention, the editor noted their personal knowledge of events as a source and the court opinion which only vested parties have access to - non verifiable. In the middle of discussions about edits that violate WP:NPOV and WP:ORIGINAL see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner#New_Edits - Jcally66 made edits to the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Welner&curid=10986838&diff=515663566&oldid=515661934 - disregarding discussions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion talk pages for Michael Welner, discussion on Jcally66 talk page, providing info about wiki etiquette.

How do you think we can help?

1. protect the page until discussions have been concluded. (See closing statement above. Comment about user removed ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)) 2. another editors objective input would be helpful. My fear is the this will turn into another editing war if the page is left open to edits.[reply]

I made a 3 sentence addition to the BLP for Dr. Welner in the section "The Forensic Panel" where it states: "Welner is founder and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, a multi-specialty forensic practice which employs peer-review of its forensic consultation." The wiki BLP and subject's use of the term "peer review" flatly contradicts all accepted definitions of the term by scientific and medical professionals. I cited a recent, publicly-available, federal court ruling that threw out a "Panel" report that hinged on their conflation of terms 'peer review" with "co-authorship" or "consulting". I have only used Wiki references to define "peer review" and only used publicly-available sources to make statements of fact. I considered this necessary to add since the ruling was for a capital criminal sentencing and because this issue has been on-going focus of controversy since 2006 (the Andrea Yates trial, which I also referenced.) All accusations of vested interest or bad faith are unfounded.

Michael Welner discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi, I'm Ebe123, a volunteer at DRN. I will help with this dispute. I will remove all comments about conduct and users. We can start when the other party responds. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stewaj7 here. I have asked Jcally66 to chime in on their talk page, but have not heard back. We have been engaged in more discussion on the talk page. They were kind enough to remove their edits while discussions were ongoing.Stewaj7 (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jcally66 here. I'm not sure how this works - first edited 3 days ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcally66 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jcally66, please use the section title "Opening Comments by Jcally66" to state your reasoning on why you feel justified for your contributions, why you may feel the other editor is incorrect or any other comments in regards to this case you feel need to be addressed. Discuss the edits not the editor and remain civil. Thank you and happy editing! Once the case begins and talk is intitiated, use this section for the main dicsussion. --Amadscientist (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this at DRN? Other than the filing editor, a WP:SPA, summarily reverting well-sourced text, coupled with invective and personal attacks against anyone who dares insert material to this BLP that provides anything other than a PR flackweasel's spin on a highly controversial subject, there has been no discussion whatsoever of the edits in dispute. Fladrif (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Fladrif's comment's on the article's talk pages. There was no serious discussion between the two editors before filing here. Removing well-sourced content while accusing other editors of bad faith and malicious activity is a bit inappropriate. If you have a specific BLP issue, I recommend taking it to WP: BLP/N. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, DRN only deals with content disputes, not conduct disputes. Conduct disputes should be taken to WP: AN/I. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean conduct for your last sentence. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been and continues to be extensive discussion on this issues both prior to and during the initiation of this dispute (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner#New_Edits) (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner#Revisiting_New_Edits). However, the dispute resolution was initiated when Jcally subverted discussion to post content on the BPL. While initiating this resolution indirectly helped curb that behavior, the issues about the content still remains. I ask that you please take a close look at the most recent edits both by Fladrif reinstating Jcally66 misrepresentation of her sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Welner&diff=next&oldid=515706246.Stewaj7 (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif raises a separate issue above that I agree should be addressed in a more appropriate forum. Those involved in resolution, please see additional edits by Fladrif [1] under discussion [2]. Fladrif, should this content matter be address separately as well? I am still figuring out proper forums.Stewaj7 (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, we at DRN will help you fix the NPOV and OR issues, but any allegation of another user's misconduct should go to WP: AN/I. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be free of original research and has an ample amount of citations. I tagged the page, as it uses bare URLs for citations, which are prone to link rot. This can be fixed by filling them in using {{Cite Web}} templates (using Reflinks), but this content disputes stems from OR and NPOV issues. The article is well-sourced, and I don't see original research in it. Perhaps you can link me to it? --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electriccatfish2, I am referring to 2 sections in particular. The first is "The Forensic Panel" under the Professional Career section can be found here[3]. Jcally66 wrote, “Welner's theories and practice regarding The Forensic Panel's “peer-review” are controversial, and have been criticized as for Welner using employees rather than independent experts to conduct the review. The practice has also been criticized for the level of fees it generates, for making Welner's testimony and conclusions less credible, and for generating excessive fees.” This paragraph is completely unsourced. Jcally66 goes on to write, "Prosecutors in two cases have said that they were misled by Welner as to the manner in which he marked up fees above those of the persons he hired as peer reviewers." [4]. From the source itself the DA were asked about how they felt about the fees and they replied “If we were right, and Mrs. Yates was sane, how much should Welner's testimony cost, in nontax dollars per dead child? Especially when the media poisoned the well from which prospective jurors drank?” This is in contrary to prosecutors stating they were misled. The second source Jcally66 lists does not support the statement either. [5] The issue is that any one can link a statement to an non-supporting article, because no one polices the reliability of the source. In this case, the references might as well be an add to an eye cream, because they do not contain anything about prosecutors claiming they were misled by Welner. These are just a few examples.

The second section is here[6]. Fladrif wrote "Proceedings of the U.S. military against Omar Khadr by a Guantanamo military tribunal, in which Welner's testimony has highly controversial and largely discredited."[7][8] When I brought to Fladrif's attention that he added a link to an article or site that is no longer available, he disregarded the input and subvertted the issue [9] claiming that it was "my opinion" that the sources were wrong and making false allegations. But all one has to do is read the articles cite to see that they say nothing of the sort. When asked to remove the contentious unsupported content Fladrif, blew me of plain and simple. I am asking that you take a closer look at what is being done here. I know those governing this forum are savvy enough to see through these subtle violations of Wikipedia policy.Stewaj7 (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  – Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Men's Rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CSDarrow (talk · contribs)
• Memotype (talk · contribs)
• Memills (talk · contribs)
• Perpetualization (talk · contribs)
• Cailil (talk · contribs)
• Slp1 (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• Kaldari (talk · contribs)
• Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An impasse has been reached at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Men's_rights_movement#Allegations_of_Rape_2

as to whether the statement,(which atm is),

"Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime".

The argument is over whether this statement is reliably sourced and/or of undue weight.

The section being

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement#Rape.

Discussion has been lengthy and has clearly reached an impasse. There is a need for some impartial eyes. If anyone could help it would be appreciated. This page is under probation and deals with a controversial topic.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Apart from very lengthy debate, nothing else. This is the first appeal for help.

How do you think we can help?

Atm I feel an experienced neural editor could aid the discussion in reaching a consensus.

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

In my mind the issue is simple. The statement is: "Some men's rights activists assert that marital rape should not be considered a crime." WP:UNDUE gives us three scenarios:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

This viewpoint is not held in the majority. CSDarrow provided us with a long list of the most prominent Mens Rights organizations, none of which have a reference to it.

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

"Some men's rights activists" is sentence that does not name adherents.

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The last option is does not belong in wikipedia.

WP:UNDUE therefore calls for us to remove the statement. If another editor wished to add the statement again, with specific "prominent adherents" named, as required by WP:UNDUE, I would not object to that. Without named adherents, the statement is certainly given undue weight.

Editing/Extending:

I will add that it appears that the statement may be true outside of the United States. Still, the use of the word "some" is necessarily prejudicial and the article is generally US focused (and reads as such). Perhaps naming countries where the viewpoint is mainstream, noting that it is not mainstream within the United States, and providing prominent adherents from the minority within the United States.

I also vigorously object to dated sources in the discussion. The Mens Rights movement in the United States is leaps and bounds from where it was 20-30 years ago. A history section noting view that were formerly mainstream would be a welcome addition to the article, but the article would be prejudicial to conflate current advocacy with advocacy of the late 80s and early 90s (as Cailil has done).

Lastly, I note that there are several variations on this viewpoint, not all of which are identical and which are easily misstated from sources:

• men's rights groups oppose marital rape laws
• men's rights groups feel that marital rape laws are often used for false claims as a weapon in divorce cases
• men's group opposes marital rape laws because they feel that accusations of marital rape are fundamentally irrefutable (as |Slp1 found a source for).

If the sources indicate that different men's rights groups hold varied opinions on marital rape, then we can state that, and provide a brief summary of the prominent adherents and their viewpoints. It seems slanderous to cover such a wide range of viewpoints for such different rationales with "some men's rights groups oppose marital rape laws"

Perpetualization (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Very simply, sources state that there have been (and are) attempts by Men's Rights groups to campaign against Marital Rape legislation. I listed the academic peer-reviewed sources and the relevant text from them (with page numbers) on the talk page[10]. Kaldari listed the material about current action by groups in India[11] related to this.
The interpretation by CSDarrow & Perpetualization of NPOV makes no sense. The point about "adherents to a POV" in that policy refers to sources. The construction being placed upon it is that we should find individual Men's rights activists who hold these views to prove the sources correct - that's original research.
As it stands the point about marital rape is sourced, and accorded the weight of one sentence in an appropriate section in the article. It is not being given undue prominent in the article itself or relative to the sources. I'll also note that this area is under probation and edits removing sourced content as well as tendentious argument are sanctionable.
I've stated on the page, as has, to the best of my knowledge, Kevin that we agree with the removal of the "marriage contract" piece but the sentence about campaigns about marital rape law is appropriate WRT to this site's policies. I've already suggested alternative wording ("scholars contend") to resolve the "some" issue.--Cailil ^talk 17:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSDarrow and Perpetualization appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of various V, NPOV and RS policies. The same arguments keep getting repeated, and then the goalposts moved.

• First, WP's NPOV policy and Jimbo's cited comments do not support the deletion of this well-cited information. In fact WP:UNDUE says that "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." As has been pointed out over and over again, multiple highly reliable academic sources include this information, so it actually would be undue NOT to include it. Jimbo's (cherrypicked) requirements have actually been more than achieved as for this possibly minority opinion (at least in the West), it is actually very "easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts".
• Nevertheless, when these editors asked for prominent adherents, other editors provided several examples of notable men's rights organizations and their officials who have made opposed marital rape (see Kaldari's comments).
• Attempts have been made to dispute what the reliable sources say by doing original research to prove them "wrong". The research was actually faulty since there are at least two of the websites listed that do oppose spousal rape laws (Kaldari mentions one, and here is another[12]). And in any case, original research by editors to "disprove" reliable sources, is simply not how we write an encyclopedia article.
• But now the goalpost has changed...We now have arguments that the sources about the US are out of date (20-30 years is mentioned), when the reality is that the US-based sources were published in 2005, 2003 and 1994. Not one is even 20 years old, and most are quite recent.
• We also now have arguments that the statement may refer only outside of the US. However, the key point is that's not what the sources say; and once again examples of the website of current US-based men's rights activists have been provided to show that this is false.(See Kaldari's comments)
• And now we have claims that this material might be libellous and slanderous. Well, if that is the case you might want to warn the scholarly presses that published the material in the first place. Slp1 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

First, I would like to respond to a misleading argument above by Perpetualization:

• "CSDarrow provided us with a long list of the most prominent Mens Rights organizations, none of which have a reference to it."
  • This is simply false. At least one of the pages linked to from CSDarrow's list does actually list decriminalizing marital rape as an agenda item: "Repeal all laws making men's sexuality, exposure, penetration, etc., into a criminal act unless there is demonstrable physical harm to a victim. Release and pardon all men who have been arrested for "statutory rape," "date rape," "spousal rape," "pornography," "soliciting a prostitute," and other weasel worded versions thereof. A woman's hurt feelings do not turn a man into a criminal."[13]
  • Secondly, CSDarrow's list doesn't include any Indian men's rights organizations, such as SIFF which successfully campaigned against criminalizing marital rape only 2 years ago.

The statement under contention has met every criteria that has been offered. First of all, there are numerous reliable 3rd party academic sources that back up the claim (can't include quotations due to 2000 char limit):

• Current Controversies on Family Violence[14]
• American Masculinities: A Historical Encyclopedia[15]
• Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure[16]

Despite this, some editors have insisted that WP:UNDUE requires that prominent adherents be named. Here are some prominent adherents (in their own words):

• Tom Williamson, founder of the National Coalition of Free Men: [CNN Interview] "First off, I don't think that there should be anything called marital rape laws."
• Virag Dhulia, Public Relations Officer of SIFF: [Speaking to the press about a proposal to remove the marriage exemption from the Indian rape law] "This means that the government wants police to enter bedrooms now, which is a sure shot way to break a marriage as no relationship will work if these rules are enforced."[17]

I'm open to revising the wording to address concerns, but I don't think there's adequate reason to remove the statement entirely.

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

I've been, unfortunately, too busy irl lately to involve myself in this article as much as I would like. I view this as a relatively minor issue compared to those the article as a whole suffers from. I have not studied this dispute in depth; I've reviewed the posted on-wiki sources and most of people's on-wiki posts, though. From what I've seen no one has made, so far, a convincing argument as to why this information shouldn't be included. Slp and Kaldari have found a pretty significant number of RS'es that contain this information. Some of them I would describe as high quality, some of them have recently been published, and most of them have been published recently enough that their age shouldn't cast doubt on their accuracy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Rights discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

• Note: Please note Men's rights movement is under probation; please let me or another uninvolved admin know if there are any sanctionable actions which occur. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

Right now I am waiting for more of the comment sections above to be filled in. In the meantime, I would encourage everyone involved to read the "Guide for participants" at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am another DRN volunteer and will be assisting Guy Macon in resolving this dispute. The participants should also be aware of WP: BRD. After all of the users involved make opening statements, a DRN volunteer will open up this discussion. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While we are waiting for the opening statements, I would like to point out that This article has been placed on article probation. See Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed it, I actually pointed that out in this section[18] above before you accepted this case so that anyone considering accepting it would be prepared, and so they would know to notify me or another uninvolved admin if sanctions were indicated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Read right past it without it registering. Sorry about that. (Note to self: Next time, edit Wikipedia after smoking crack...) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timing. It's all about the timing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Amadscientist and will also be assisting where needed in this DR/N but to a lesser extent as the first two volunteers.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]