Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 56 - Wikipedia

The following discussion 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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Traditional Unionist Voice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• David Simpson (British politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Valenciano (talk · contribs)
• Brocach (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On the TUV article I believe that the material being added to the "controversy" section is a violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COATRACK, negative material being added to smear the party through "guilt by association." One paragraph involves a minor news story, with no lasting significance, when a member was not acting in a party capacity. The second, regarding Tweed, is a sex scandal again outside the party's remit, as it happened after the individual was elected for the party and post-scandal they were subsequently suspended, pending expulsion. In both cases, it seems to me that the controversy attaches to the individuals not the party. In other comparable articles about political parties we do not include laundry lists of individuals who did wrong when they were acting outside a party capacity. In the Simpson case, again, it seems that a minor and negative news story is being added for "guilt by association." In this case, someone who worked for the politician did something bad (and was sacked as a result), it seems very undue to include it. Brocach has disagreed with these assessments, claiming that the stories in question are "newsworthy" and arguing that the Tweed case "reflects on the TUV." Various ips have also edited, without joining the discussion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

discussed on the relevant article talkpage

How do you think we can help?

As more than two editors are involved (counting the ips) provide a third opinion on whether these additions meet our WP:NPOV policies. Also advise on the best way/next step to resolve these disputes?

In these two articles on Unionist politics in Northern Ireland, User:Valenciano chose to delete fair, relevant, accurate and sourced material related to sex scandals. In the Traditional Unionist Voice article, the material related to one of the very, very few TUV elected representatives, the second most prominent man in the party, being convicted of child sex abuse. In the David Simpson article, the issue was that an employee of that Member of Parliament was under police investigation and had been dismissed after a camera was found hidden in the toilet of the MP's constituency office. Both these incidents attracted a great deal of media attention and are clearly proper matters to include in the respective articles. Nothing in either piece could possibly be construed as suggesting "guilt by association", and Valenciano is wasting your time by seeking support for his peculiar campaign to sanitise both pages. Brocach (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Traditional Unionist Voice, David Simpson (British politician) 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.

---

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.

The following discussion 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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Alexander Mirtchev (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• KazakhBT (talk · contribs)
• RachelleLin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Two editors are having a dispute over content.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been an extensive discussion on the talk page. WP:3O has also been called, but it did not settle the dispute.

How do you think we can help?

1) Establish what is and what is not a reliable source 2) Establish what qualifies as an acceptable summary of the content of said reliable sources 3) Educate both users (as they are both relatively new) to the proper channels for content disputes

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.

Talk:Alexander Mirtchev 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.

---

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.

The following discussion 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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Bitcoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pratyeka (talk · contribs)
• SudoGhost (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Large numbers of people want to improve the Bitcoin#As an investment section's current content, which is basically one-sided, poorly-sourced opine.

There is great content available (such as a quote from the Bitcoin lead developer on how Bitcoin is a particularly high risk investment), but due to protected status people cannot contribute this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I came to the discussion after I was asked to revert what I considered an uncontroversial edit to the page, and was amazed at the volume of discussion already present.

Noting that the discussion was dying out, I tried to take a middle ground, and participate in the existing talk page discussion, even going so far as to praise the cautionary nature of SudoGhost's approach thus far, invite other participants back and propose an example rough draft of some fairer text.

How do you think we can help?

Remove the section (currently poorly sourced links to one-sided opine) and require a rewrite to be proposed incorporating suggestions from the community before its re-instatement.

Review the edit protection status of Bitcoin, which is a fast-evolving area and one in which additional community involvement is sorely needed.

There are "large numbers of people", yes. They are Bitcoin enthusiasts that arrived as the result of off-wiki canvassing on multiple Bitcoin forums.[1][2] The information in the article is well-sourced, whitewashing the article will not improve the article. It is also not "poorly sourced" by any means, unless it is being suggested that Reuters, the most reliable news-style source I can think of, somehow is suddenly considered unreliable by some consensus I have been unable to find. I do not believe that Bitcoin enthusiasts not being being able to find any reliable sources supporting what they want the article to say warrants removing the section altogether; that violates WP:DUE. I am not opposed to finding reliable sources that expand or "give the other opinion", but removing well-sourced content from Bitcoin just because Bitcoin enthusiasts canvassed from Bitcoin forums don't want the article to mention anything they perceive as negative is not the answer. The content should be improved, not deleted, because all its saying is that Bitcoin has been accused of something; it places no judgement on whether it is true or not.

Given the massive canvassing going on (not to mention the sockpuppetry/vandalism that caused not only the article, but even the article's talk page to be protected), I don't believe that removing the protection is beneficial to the article; if these canvassed editors cannot even discuss the subject without attacking others, I don't think opening up the article to that kind of behavior is going to improve the situation. - SudoKamma (SudoGhost's Away Account) 00:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Response by Pratyeka

• There are "large numbers of people", yes.

I am glad that we agree on this.

• They are Bitcoin enthusiasts that arrived as the result of off-wiki canvassing on multiple Bitcoin forums.

Whilst this is probably a legitimate concern, if you could provide some assessment of account lifetimes and/or edit histories to back this up it would be a more meaningful statement. However, before investing time in such an endeavour, I think we should agree that even if this is true, it does not detract from the problem of the content being lopsided and basically opine, with far better sources available.

• "The information in the article is well-sourced, whitewashing the article will not improve the article. It is also not "poorly sourced" by any means, unless it is being suggested that Reuters, the most reliable news-style source I can think of, somehow is suddenly considered unreliable by some consensus I have been unable to find."

The significant discussions have been centered on a specific section, not the whole page. Furthermore, in levelling the 'Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme' accusation, which is essentially all that the current content consists of, one should normally be aware of what properties such a scheme has, and how these are present within the Bitcoin system (which is discussed deeply throughout the rest of the article). Simply quoting some news does not make a statement correct. Quoting a formal analysis from an expert body makes a statement far more weighty. As I said, I am not at all against including this information, however it needs to be properly balanced with either more formal considerations of Bitcoin's potential categorization as such a scheme (I believe the European Central Bank made such an analysis, concluding the opposite, a link to which was provided by other contributors - such sources should not be overlooked in favour of defamatory news snippets). Finally, recall that what brought me to the discussion in the first place was the fact that the dubious accusation was sourced only to a dead link - as someone with professional knowledge of the topic, I made what I considered an uncontroversial edit in removing the suggestion entirely. The re-citation of various claims to this effect is new, and is the only change that has been instantiated to the section since discussions began, as far as I am aware. This is clearly also one-sided.

• I do not believe that Bitcoin enthusiasts not being being able to find any reliable sources supporting what they want the article to say warrants removing the section altogether; that violates WP:DUE.

This is not the case, far more reliable and well reasoned sources than news snippets have been provided.

• I am not opposed to finding reliable sources that expand or "give the other opinion",

Thank you, this is good. Somehow my own and perhaps others' impression from your actions thus far has been something closer to the opposite. Perhaps we can move forward by removing the disputed statement and constructing an alternative together? The current situation of denying edits you dislike whilst adding bad sources to the current lopsided opine is not exactly fair and even handed.

• ...but removing well-sourced content from Bitcoin just because Bitcoin enthusiasts canvassed from Bitcoin forums don't want the article to mention anything they perceive as negative is not the answer.

This statement is incorrect on a number of levels, integrating multiple invalid assumptions. And again, we are only discussing a specific section, not the article as a whole.

• The content should be improved, not deleted, because all its saying is that Bitcoin has been accused of something; it places no judgement on whether it is true or not.

Correct. However, denying alternate edits, which is the current situation, is in effect placing judgement. You will see that the section was only removed after the failure to come to a consensus on how to reinvigorate it. Although you have claimed that I am biased, I do not feel any bias, but I do think the section is worthless as it stands and needs to be rewritten with fair community involvement. It seems clear that, whether intentional or not, you seem to have sidelined that process by being petty and unconstructive. I would be happy to write a new version myself, but you have claimed that I am 'involved' and biased and therefore I should not. Meanwhile everyone else has given up in frustration. Because I can see a problem and don't want it to stay there, we now have a dispute.

• Given the massive canvassing going on (not to mention the sockpuppetry/vandalism that caused not only the article, but even the article's talk page to be protected), I don't believe that removing the protection is beneficial to the article; if these canvassed editors cannot even discuss the subject without attacking others, I don't think opening up the article to that kind of behavior is going to improve the situation.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

prat (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to continue that discussion, but if you're going to respond, I will do so as well. "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is the entire point, that's what I've been saying. Yes, it was a WP:DEADLINK but per that very same thing, it doesn't matter if the link was "dead", it's still a valid source, and anyone reading the discussion would see that the link was already archived and provided in the discussion, and that other sources were also given. "We're discussing a specific section" is a horrible red herring; I never once suggested that I was ever, at any point, not talking about this one specific section. I think claiming that I am "denying edits I dislike" is an inappropriate and inaccurate comment. True, there are a few things I disliked about the discussion: I dislike people asserting that my mother is a whore, yes. I dislike people being canvassed in order to try to force a "consensus" to remove content that might reflect poorly on Bitcoin. These things I dislike. Discussing what the article needs to say, I do not dislike.

You also say that "everyone else has given up in frustration", but I don't think that's quite accurate. You may not have noticed, but the discussion has two parts. In the first part, most of the editors that discussed the content were concerned the with specific wording, since they were concerned that the wording in the article suggested that Bitcoin was a ponzi, as an absolute truth. That wording was changed as a result of the first part of that discussion, and no longer makes it seem this way. The discussions on the off-wiki forums suggested that this was what most people had the issue with. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the editors stopped editing after the edit was made. I also did not claim you were biased, I claimed you were WP:INVOLVED, those are not the same. Claims of "denying edits you dislike whilst adding bad sources" is all kinds of incorrect. One, I didn't propose or provide those sources, another editor did. Two, if I "denied" an edit, it was because of a policy or guideline based reason (such as trying to use a person's blog being used as a reliable source), not because I "dislike" the edit. Three, Reuters is not a "bad source".

I've asked multiple times for reliable sources that can expand the article in a way that makes the sentence "neutral". Someone's blog (that they wrote just before it was posted on the talk page), and an open wiki are not reliable sources, so yes, I "dislike" these edits. I've been waiting for someone, anyone to propose a reliable source and wording that can be included in the article, but instead we've been hung up on trying to remove the statement altogether. Bitcoin has been accused of being a ponzi scheme. This is reflected by reliable sources. It's a fact, and it belongs in the article. If we're going to sit here and go back and forth arguing that it somehow isn't true, that somehow Reuters and others are lying, then we're not discussing moving forward. I haven't found any sources to support your position, I've looked. Considering how much you're asserting that these sources must exist, maybe you should look for them? If they don't exist, then it isn't an "unbalanced" statement; WP:NPOV is not a 50/50 situation, especially if there are no reliable sources to back a statement. See Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Giving "equal validity" and Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. Since I cannot find them, and you're seem to be suggesting they're out there somewhere, I've been doing nothing more than responding to what others have said; if you want to discuss how to expand the section and move on, I'm more than willing to discuss that, but if you want to instead continue to repeat these same discussions over and over, don't blame me when that's all that is discussed. - SudoKamma (SudoGhost's Away Account) 05:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin as an investment 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.

As an admin who has protected Bitcoin in the past, I was invited to comment here. I'll wait until the discussion is formally opened. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. I have restored the discussion above. I invite EdJohnston to make his statement, and Pratyeka to show what he/she wants the section to be like, so we could discuss that instead of making a resolution in the dark. Also, DRN is not to review any administrative action such as protections. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice that User:SudoGhost is very familiar with the socking problems on this article. If he was to suggest unprotection, I'd certainly take that seriously. It seems he is still supporting continued protection while holding out for some better sourcing. While we are waiting for unprotection to become reasonable, can't an RfC or other discussion be started on the talk page, to try to settle the outstanding issues? Also, can someone familiar with the article say whether the 'editprotect' system has been able to produce some genuine improvements? If we are to judge by the above statement of User:Pratyeka there is a big furor about whether to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme. If this Ponzi claim is truly driving the off-Wikipedia pressure on this article then perhaps an RfC that is solely addressed to getting compromise wording on the Ponzi issue could be worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You may certainly start an RfC, and this noticeboard can be used for discussion that has failed before. We're trying to settle the problems here for now. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear why User:Pratyeka opened this request, since the discussion at Talk:Bitcoin does not appear to be stalemated. There is an active thread at Talk:Bitcoin#Please add a correction to the Ponzi Scheme accusation. There are many participants in that thread. The main problem is that the thread is very long and somewhat rambling and judging consensus might be difficult. If it would help to get better focus on a single proposed draft I'm sure someone could open a WP:RFC on the article talk page. I left a suggestion to this effect at User talk:Pratyeka#What's the DRN about? and I hope he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am happy take the time to try to summarize (again). Look for a new subsection on the talk page shortly. prat (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll close this thread as this discussion will continue on talk page. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 12:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No please don't. The discussion is stalemated and has been for a long time. SudoGhost is simply not possible to work with and it does not appear possible to edit the page without him. If you read the discussion (please do even though it's long), it will become apparent that SudoGhost refuses to accept the definition of ponzi scheme used by Wikipedia itself, refuses to accept sources that provide logical arguments for why it's not a ponzi scheme on the grounds that they were written because of these sorts of disputes and refuses any proposed modifications - citing ever more obscure rules to do so. What's more nobody else on the Talk page agrees with him on this (because the wrongness of the statement on the page is a matter of logic, it shouldn't even need sources). Let me repeat this - nobody supports SudoGhosts position. The Talk page is long not because there's genuine debate here but because SudoGhost replies to absolutely every single point made by lots of different people. Without some kind of appeals or dispute resolution process that replaces the section the page will remain locked Mike Hearn (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Pratyeka for making a new summary at Talk:Bitcoin#Summary of my own view of the discussion status (by request). Meanwhile, I have checked through the thread at Talk:Bitcoin#Please add a correction to the Ponzi Scheme accusation. It seems that many participants in that thread could have been recruited to the discussion from offsite. SudoGhost has provided some links to mailing lists where changing the Wikipedia article has been discussed. My test for who is a 'regular editor' is someone who has made more than 20 edits in 2012. In the thread, besides SudoGhost I only noticed User:Nagle, User:Jtibble and User:Pratyeka to be long-term Wikipedia editors who were obviously not recruited. In spite of the apparent selective nature of the participation in that thread, it does not appear to be an insuperable task to create a neutral version of the Ponzi section. I would recommend that Pratyeka (who is an admin) not close any edit requests himself, given that he holds a position on the issue for which he is advocating here. I notice he has already self-reverted some changes he made to Bitcoin while the article was under full protection. As regards the continued protection, until the Ponzi section is settled down I think lifting it is unwise. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have underscored the fact that I really do not care what the public perception of Bitcoin is and for this reason do not consider myself biased or 'involved' in this case. I have fully supported SudoGhost's attempt to maintain references to the accusations within the article from the word go, as can be seen in my comments on the talk page. I was only brought to the discussion after SudoGhost asked me to revert what I considered and still consider an uncontroversial edit to remove an illogical claim sourced with a single dead-link. This has turned in to a huge waste of time discussing the matter, which was already complained about in depth, and with no forward motion, as Mike has pointed out. The protected status combined with SudoGhost apparently being upset about some of the previous personal attacks he has received while contributing to the protected page discussions has resulted in a situation in which facilitating positive change does not appear to be the outcome of his participation, rather, we have a stalemate. I am still very much for unprotecting the page. Protection should be a last resort, right now I see little purpose in protection as rollbacks are easy and individual changes are best discussed on the talk page when and where controversial as per WP:Be bold. prat (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Added NPOV section template while discussions continue. prat (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(This will be my first DRN, so bear with me if I mess up, I'm only human) - Well, since this is stale I'll reopen it. I see that this is very hostile and I've seen this dispute show up in many places recently. I looked over the one sentence section that this dispute is all about, and it seems well sourced. If defensive statements from Bitcoin users were added it would seem a bit more suitable and less POV, though. Have any sources for defensive statements been suggested in the past? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. In addition, right now there are three concrete proposals for replacement text on the talk page. prat (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I am (of course) unsure how you are counting 'concrete proposals', however, I want to point out that I believe SudoGhost has some level of acceptance for the (my) proposal in the section What does the section need to cover as it was based off of his 'draft proposal'. Additionally, none of the 'SudoGhost opposition' has complained about this proposal in any way, let alone claiming it is unbalanced. --Smickles86 (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

@prat: Great, could I have a link? Thanks in advance, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 03:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You mean a link to the proposals? They are highlighted in bold under the section titled Proposed resolutions. prat (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I've been watching this discussion for a while and would like to ask a few questions.

1. The dispute is focused around the 1 sentence assertion about the Ponzi scheme?
2. What would the least level of compromise you could accept be to close out this dispute?
3. What changes are needed to improve the article as opposed to wanted?

I'll keep my personal thoughts shrouded but would love to hear what the disputants think. Hasteur (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the one sentence assertion (also relatively weightily highlighted with a section heading) is the issue. Compromise would be agreeing upon replacement text that is more even-handed and informative, such as the concrete proposals mentioned at Proposed resolutions. What changes are needed: actual information on Bitcoin as an investment, in the section titled 'criticisms (or concerns?): bitcoin as an investment', instead of a spurious, illogical accusation that's largely sourced to some table-thumping politician who managed to get press coverage. The great content we have there include the results of an analysis by the ECB, a statement from the head developer. We have not been able to make much headway thus far on taking down the ponzi schema accusation in a point by point basis precisely because the definition is so vague and no specific person of any repute has bothered to take it on. Instead, there's a Bitcoin community statement on the matter on a Wiki, but SudoGhost feels this is not cite-worthy, which others including myself would challenge (depends upon what the statement is, eg. '...whilst members of the bitcoin community have rejected ....' could be cited with that wiki, IMHO). Basically we've got loads of content, but we don't have the time, space, expertise or specific quotable quotes to disassemble the accusations logically, and nor should we, since that would be original research. I think we just need to roll together what we have in a readable way as true statements and leave the reader to make up their own mind. If anyone new would like to attempt to write some proposal text here, that would be great, as despite - or because of - a lengthy discussion, we are now short of people who are still willing to contribute. Sigh. prat (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You know what might have helped instead of making the same arguments over and over that go against both the letter and spirit of many policies and guidelines, and contributing more talk page content towards complaining rather than discussing? Exactly what I've been trying to do the entire time, which is to improve the section, but having to explain for the 80th time why an open wiki isn't the best source or why you cannot use personal logic to "refute away" what multiple reliable sources have said tends to slow down any sort of useful discussion. I can imagine it is very frustrating when dozens of canvassed people from Bitcoin forums realize that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not argumentum ad populum, and that sourced content cannot be removed or downplayed just because a few overenthusiastic Bitcoin users don't want anything negative to be in the article, but if pointing that out means the article's creator thinks I'm the "bad guy" just "denying edits I dislike" then so be it, even if it means I'll be treated to off-wiki attacks and personal emails threatening my life. - SudoGhost 09:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, this is complicated. I can't find any "concrete proposals" that have been suggested, just a bunch of sentence's being bounced around a drawing board. May I have any information possible as to what current proposals are out there? Thanks in advance, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:33, 8 December 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.

The following discussion 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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Coinmanj (talk · contribs)
• Lihaas (talk · contribs)
• Fishal (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The page International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 has a very large number of [sic]'s after the word "American." There is a disagreement between other editors and a specific one as to whether this is a correct use of it. I am really trying to avoid an edit war on this and another topic (Shaman predictions, notability/should it be listed on a "reactions" page) within the same page but I'm at a loss given the continued undo edits etc. Any help will be appreciated.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed both on talk page, WP:3O (for Shamans) and tried using Editor assistance (was told this was the proper forum here)

How do you think we can help?

By laying out the correct usage of the term "sic" within the article from an expert or admin etc, and giving further assistance with the notability of the Shaman prediction (or saying if it does/doesn't belong in a page on "reactions").

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.

There is absolutely no dispute here whatsoever as i have zero qualms about changing the content as mentioned pon the talk page. The only thing i asked was discussion first for consensus. As you see there has been no discussion but 1 view and immediately change it. Thats no discussion. Both sides have to give views and then rationally discuss it. If im against the majority then by all means go ahead and remove. Im just in my right per BRD, etc to call for discussion first instead of warring and removing it individually, no? Because 1 view wasnt accepted (see the proposers comment and when he removed i, note the time gap which doesnt constitute a discussion) = dispute resolution? This is frivolous cause i have no qualms if consensus through discussion is against me. DR means attempts have to be made. I try time and again to use the talk page to discuss first, and tme and again the preference is to chane the talk page to WP:WRONGVERSION instead of discussion. Note the template: "What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled."

Further all instances of sic on the page were not to the aforementioned "american" and the discussion only pertains to those "Sics"

UPDATE see the talk page. And note when discussion takes plae rationally the attempt to solve is done. Not per OP's accusation that the world doesnt see things his way!Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I weighed in on the Talk page to respond to the generous use of the editorial tag [sic] in quotations by various world leaders. They appeared after every single use of the word "American," and in a few other places where the writer disagreed with the way a quote used a term. The [sic] should be used to help the reader understand a potentially confusing quotation; in this article, the purpose seems to be to criticize the speaker, since there was no risk of confusion or ambiguity. Fishal (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 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.

---

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.

The following discussion 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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Steven D. Binder (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Swiftcasting (talk · contribs)
• AussieLegend (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Steven D. Binder is a writer on the TV show NCIS. In creating his page, I deemed it relevant to mention the popularity of the show Binder works on (I linked and cited a Harris poll voting it the most popular show of all time). That certainly seemed a "resume" point for Binder worth mentioning on his page. As he has also written more episodes of the show than any other single (aka individual) writer, I also deemed that relevant - just as I think it would be relevant on a hockey player's page to mention, for example, that he scored the highest number of goals than anyone in his league.

AussieLegend does not believe the popularity of the show Binder works on OR his contribution of the most scripts for an individual writer to be relevant. He also believes that simply mentioning such things is the same thing as claiming that Binder is specifically responsible for the show's success -- though nothing of the kind was asserted or written. He has also cited inaccurately as a reason for his reversions that Binder did NOT "write more episodes than any other single writer" by referencing the fact that NCIS writers George Schenck and Frank Cardea have written one more episode that Binder. However, it was pointed out to him Schenck and Cardea are a writing "team" --which is different than being an individual writer (and the claim about Binder was about INDIVIDUAL writers). Finally, AussieLegend refuses to accept virtually ANY source about Binder's writing credits unless they specifically say the ACTUAL NUMBER of episodes he's written -- and refuses to accept a source that has a listing of Binder's credits if it's not numbered. In other words, if I said "Binder wrote 25 scripts" and linked to an official source that listed them all but didn't say "Binder wrote 25 scripts" he says that doesn't count. It has to say it exactly, in his view. No counting allowed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The talk page for Steven D. Binder is filled with a discussion. He would make a complaint about a source, I would find a better one, and he would just revert my post. He would make a complaint about the wording...I would tweak...and he would revert. His position now is "I've reverted to the pre-disputed edits version of the article, and the section should not be edited until this discussion is complete" -- except he didn't revert to pre-disputed edits. He reverted to his edits, post-dispute.

How do you think we can help?

Right now, he is accusing me of edit warring when he, himself, is doing it. He is far more experienced that I am in Wikipedia, but I think he is coming at this from a biased position against newbies . The things he has cited as Wikipedia do not support his position; and several of his "facts" are simply not true. Plus, he's complaining about things I wrote...that I didn't actually write. I would like a 3rd party to come in, read the talk page, an lend their opinion. Mine means little to him

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.

The discussion at Talk:Steven D. Binder#Relevancies only started a little over 26 hours ago.[3] Swiftcasting made a post there at 02:08 UTC, which he subsequently amended until 02:41.[4] Eighteen minutes later I responded, explaining that I was busy and would attempt to respond more fully in the next few hours.[5] Without giving me the courtesy of waiting for that response (he waited only 39 minutes), he posted a response,[6] and then apparently came directly here.[7] There's quite a bit at Talk:Steven D. Binder#Relevancies that I still haven't time to respond to, and I'm hoping (perhaps too optimistically) to resolve the issues there first. Swiftcasting acknowledges he is a newbie, and obviously does not yet understand Wikipedia policies. Hopefully this will change and DRN will not be needed, so I don't intend participating at this time; I have an 1,800 word post to respond to. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Steven D._Binder 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.

---

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.

The following discussion 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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Breast cancer awareness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Charles35 (talk · contribs)
• WLU (talk · contribs)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
• GabrielF (talk · contribs)
• Biosthmors (talk · contribs)
• Quiddity (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In short, the dispute is over 2 paragraphs that mention an "inner circle" of breast cancer awareness supporters. The article portrays awareness is an extremely negative light, making supporters seem like they are working secretly with pharmaceutical companies and have cunning agendas to actually cause more breast cancer so it will not "deplete their future supply of volunteers" (however, I am not disputing these since they are sourced and thus technically valid). All that I am disputing is "inner circle", which asserts that through "extended suffering of chemotherapy and radiation", women are "initiate[d] into the inner circle of the breast cancer awareness culture." This is presented as fact, violating WP:NPOV in my opinion. However, it is followed with a quote of the material that actually shows that it is in fact a metaphor. But if the quote were to be removed, the material would nonetheless violate NPOV. Of course, I believe the material should be removed due to it violating WP:UNDUE. It is a long (full paragraph) quote elaborating on a bizarre metaphor comparing women with breast cancer to initiates in a tribe going through circumcision rituals.

There are many issues currently being debated about the article, but I'd like to focus on 2. For convenience, I like to call them "alcohol" and "inner circle". These issues involve two pieces of material in the article "Breast cancer awareness". Both pieces of material are cited. The objections state that the material violates wikipedia policies including but not limited to: WP:INTEGRITY, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:TONE, WP:OR, and WP:V.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

These issues have been discussed extensively on the "Breast cancer awareness" talk page. There are entire sections about each. See sections "Inner circle", ""might contribute to" "cause" etc.", and "Shopping for the Cure".

How do you think we can help?

We can help resolve this dispute by coming to a consensus about the material. On the talk pages, we have so far failed, and it only seems to be growing further and further away from a consensus. I'm hoping that new opinions might be able to lead us on a better track.

Objections to material

Alcohol

Inner circle

The second issue, "inner circle", involves WP:DUE, WP:TONE, and WP:NPOV. The objection is that the metaphor does not deserve 2 full paragraphs, 1 of which is a quote, especially because of its strong bias. The material speaks of an "inner circle" of the BCA culture. It at one point mentioned Elizabeth Edwards, but that contentious material about a living person was removed. The objection says that "inner circle" is all but conspiratorial and demonizes innocent victims of a tragic disease. I have argued that the claim undermines the integrity and reliability of wikipedia and taints the article with extremely radical and immature views.

The paragraphs:

Breast cancer culture values and honors suffering, selecting its she-roes by a "misery quotient". Women whose treatment requires less suffering feel excluded and devalued. The suffering, particularly the extended suffering of months of chemotherapy and radiation treatment, forms a type of ordeal or rite of passage that initiates women into the inner circle of the breast cancer culture. Barbara Ehrenreich says:

Understood as a rite of passage, breast cancer resembles the initiation rites so exhaustively studied by Mircea Eliade: First there is the selection of the initiates -- by age in the tribal situation, by mammogram or palpation here. Then come the requisite ordeals -- scarification or circumcision within traditional cultures, surgery and chemotherapy for the cancer patient. Finally, the initiate emerges into a new and higher status -- an adult and a warrior -- or in the case of breast cancer, a "survivor." (Ehrenreich 2001) Charles35 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Further explanation of issue:

The article takes a critical (both in terms of criticism and critical theory) sociological approach to breast cancer awareness, which I consider undue weight because it takes up the majority of the article. The form of this is for the most part a metanarrative, or "grand storyline" if you are familiar with sociology terms. A "grand storyline" is a feature of sociological theories first seen in Marxism. It is criticized for being a rash generalization, unsupported by empirical evidence, and essentially fictional. This is condemned by contemporary sociologists such as Goffman and Michel Foucault for being archaic and overly simplistic.

The inner circle is the best example of a fictional grand storyline in the entire article. This is because it is simply a metaphor. As you can see from the quote, breast cancer awareness (BCA) culture is being likened to primitive (for lack of a better word) human tribes. Chemotherapy and surgery are compared to scarification and circumcision rituals. It considers innocent victims of a, let's not forget, fatal and tragic disease to "initiates" this tribe to be "initiated" into the "inner circle" of BCA. Bizarre, right? And is 2 full paragraphs (one of which is exclusively a quotation) due weight? In my opinion, no.

I also object to the term aside from the context of the quote (since, I assume the quote will likely be removed, leaving just the material). The term is conspiratorial and undermines the integrity and reliability (in a non-wikipedia sense of the term) of this article. It is extremely ridiculous, bogus, bizarre, etc. There is no "inner circle" of cunning conniving evil victims of breast cancer. The rest of the article implies that the awareness organizations work with pharmaceutical companies to cause breast cancer to be more prevalent in order to make money. "Inner circle" is the icing on the cake, so to speak. Examples of text that support this implied yet never explicitly stated include:

Charles35 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolution?

Okay so since no one has anything to say, I guess we should go ahead with deleting inner circle as undue weight and changing alcohol to linked to???? Charles35 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

After starting a DRN case, we need to wait 2 to 5 days for the other parties to provide opening statements. Then one or more volunteers will mediate and provide comments at the bottom in the "discussion" section. Discussion usually lasts 3 to 10 days. Then the DRN case will be over and action can be taken in accordance with the resolution. --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Minor point of fact: Elizabeth Edwards is dead. She died two years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BDP. Two years isn't that long in my opinion. The text was still malicious and no source mentioned her. Charles35 (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

BDP is normally applied to people who died within the last few days or weeks, not a couple of years ago.

As for it being "malicious", you can ask the person who added it, but I suspect that it was meant as a tribute. Edwards is widely considered a positive role model for women with breast cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Though there are certainly issues on the BCA page, the two cited here seem like they would far better be dealt with through a request for comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The WP:DRN process is an alternative to the WP:RFC process. They both have situations where they work better. Sometimes, after a DRN case, a follow-on RFC is initiated. But once an editor has opened a DRN case, asking DRN volunteers to give their opinions (and mediate) it is appropriate to follow the DRN process through to its conclusion. WP:Forum shopping and all that. An RFC can be performed after the DRN if the DRN does not result in a decent resolution. --Noleander (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note to mention that sometimes a case may be filed here that is not at the right venue. If this is the decision of volunteers the case can be closed early and a suggestion given to the proper venue to use. RFC could well be the proper venue for some cases and perhaps even this case, but for the moment all evidence seems to point to DR/N as the correct venue so far.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

From my perspective, Charles doesn't seem to like the fact that the page spends large amounts of space criticizing the BCA movement for being emotionally harmful, ineffective at actually preventing breast cancer and involving considerable co-option and conflicts of interest by various companies who use it as a form of marketing. These points are made in highly reliable sources by experts in the field, and I do not believe there is a valid reason to remove them, though wording, attribution and other means that do not involve outright removal can certainly be used to adjust emphasis so long as the intent of the sources is not distorted.

I'll re-iterate my previous opposition to the idea that we can discount a reliable source because of general criticisms of sociological theory that never mentions BCA specifically, that I have no opposition to reliable sources criticizing the sources in question being integrated, and that I have no opposition to the page being expanded with positive information on BCA. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about other issues with the article, or about our recent conversation about sociological theory, which was just that - a conversation. Had I wanted to delete material, I would have done it and then given justifications in edit summaries. But that wasn't my intention. I wanted to discuss it. These other issues you are bringing up are 100% irrelevant. My purpose for quoting the other passages from the article was not because I'd like the remove them. All that I want to remove is inner circle. I only quoted them to support my argument that the inner circle is the "icing on the cake" for the conspiracy that is implied in this article. Without it, the rest is moderately acceptable, and will do for now (ie we'll worry about that when we get there). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Without it, the rest is moderately acceptable, and will do for now (ie we'll worry about that when we get there)." - I think we'd be better off coming to an understanding of where the article should be headed overall, rather than discussing the wording of a specific paragraph or two (which will just result in us coming back here again, when the next paragraph/change is disputed). - What you say above is quite different from what you said two days ago[8], "The content over there is reaching psychotic level. It is honestly pathological. The article is an overwhelming rant against awareness." - Hopefully the DR/N volunteers can provide some guidance, as to what would be more useful. –Quiddity (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

^This quote came from my talk page, where I can say what I want. It wasn't uncivil. Neither Quiddity, WhatamIdoing, or WLU were involved there and it was a semi-private conversation. Quiddity, please do not Attempt to label me or otherwise discredit my opinion based on that my associations rather than the core of my argument.

Actually, you can't say whatever you want on your talk page. See WP:UP#OWN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm stil of the opinion that the page is best dealt with via a RFC or series of them, but I have no issue if the DRN volunteers are willing to provide a comparable service. I don't think any wikipedia page has ever been served by deciding in a final POV and working towards it, in my experience the neutrality of a page is best addressed by finding and integrating reliable sources rather than editors deciding on what a "neutral" version is and discarding sources on that basis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

^This is beside the point. I knew that. I didn't feel like taking another 50-100 words to explain that I have free reign over my talk page except for x y and z. It's pointless and you all already understand anyways. There's no reason for me to explain it to you. Please keep this focused on the topic. Thank you.

We understand that you have a preference for RfC. However, we are at DRN. Please do not bring this up again. Maybe after DRN we will check out RfC. Or, if you'd like, you are always free to start a section at RfC. But for right now, bringing this up again and again is doing nothing but causing a distraction. We have all heard you. Charles35 (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Part of the issues we have been having is that you do not appear to understand some of the policies and guidelines - for instance, claiming a reliable source should be discounted because the "grand narratives" of sociology are now deprecated is pretty much wrong. Editors are taking great pains to explain these things, politely and with reference to policies, because you are making statements and errors that give every impression of you not understanding certain key issues. I don't know what policies you understand versus those you do not, and some of the lengthy discussions on the BCA talk page have involved common misunderstandings of core content policies.

If you agree to be bound by the outcome of any RFCs undertaken, then I will start suggesting issues we could resolve via this means. An RFC is generally a much narrower focus on factual (and sometimes stylistic) matters than a DRN discussion, and tends to be quicker. One way of ensuring I don't bring up the RFC issue again is by saying either "yes, let's use the RFC process" or "I would prefer that specific issue be addressed here" then consolidating discussion of said issues in a single location. Spreading it across two pages is confusing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WLU, you demonstrate over and over again that you do not understand the way other people's minds work. I didn't want to get rid of Sulik simply because of her overly simplistic, elementary, and archaic approach. I wanted to get rid of her via consensus. I directed my arguments towards you, not towards policies. I was trying to converse with you (and anyone else) and come to an agreement that poor sociology should not consulted in this article. Trust me, I understand your stance that "whatever's in the reliable sources is what we use." And I don't disagree that that is the rule. But sometimes the rules aren't perfect (hence, WP:IAR; not invoking this, so don't jump to conclusions, I'm just speaking hypothetically), and we are allowed to come to a consensus to do something like get rid of an inadequate source.

Wikilawyering with strict adherence to rules can actually be damaging to wikipedia sometimes. For example, with the facebook issue, we all knew the material was wrong. Yet, you kept referring to policies and saying that "since the source is verifiable, it doesn't matter what you and I think. If it's in the source, we will use it. And we use the balance that the authors of the sources use". Sure, but when we all understand that the author happens to be wrong, we can use common sense to remove the material from the article. And it's also valuable to point out that at times I believe that you have gone against the policies you stand for. With the alcohol issue, you incessantly pushed original research, and with Ehrenreich's article, you don't give due weight, favoring and cherrypicking certain opinions.

For anyone reading this, the author claimed that a facebook phenomenon was a commercial advertisement run by a company, when it in fact was just a meme. We all knew this, even WLU, yet he continued to push the material he knew was false because it was "in the source".

I don't agree to being bound by anything. Did I ask you to agree to be bound to the opinions of the volunteers here (who agree that the article lends undue weight and uses a biased POV)? No, I didn't. And you've been arguing against them, which I respect and I won't try to "hold you" to any sort of binding agreement. I wish you would be more respectful of other editors like myself. You think you are entitled and act like you own this article, which is not true. I don't think you have any insight into your own behavior or enough empathy required to understand the perspectives of other editors. I'm not trying to be mean, but you have shown repeatedly that you simply don't understand.

You are the only editor taking "great pains" to explain anything to me. Sure, use RfC. I don't care. But I'm not "singing any contracts". These are informal processes. That said, I see no reason to leave here, but I don't have a problem with both. The conversations at the talk page do not typically involve misunderstandings of key content policies. That is your perception, which you lack the insight to realize is not perfect. Yes, I have acknowledged that at times that I did not understand a policy. But I do now, and I very rarely make any claims to override material without reference to policies. Maybe I implicitly assume them and don't outwardly say them, which I see might be my fault. Usually, the policies I assume are consensus, weight, and NPOV, and whenever I challenge material directly, verifiability and original research. You don't seem to see that I am trying to work with you, not against you. Wikipedia is not a battleground. It's not "you vs me". I try to work cooperatively and come to a consensus, while you seem to be interested solely in wikilawyering back and forth. I'm not here for wikidrama or to argue with you over stupid things like these. I have other things to do. But editing this article is something that is important to me, so I'd like to be able to do so in peace and without going through arbitrary processes with you. I hope this is the last time I need to explain this to you.

Plus, DRN and RfC (in this case) are not meant for editor behavior. They are meant for discussion of the content. So PLEASE stop focusing the conversation on me as editor. If you have a problem with me, I encourage you to go to a different noticeboard. Charles35 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he is speaking in terms of your conduct or behavior. Simply of the issues you have brought up in the dispute. You have done the same. Lets stop making posts on the other openings. The discussion is disjointed enough.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Charles, you keep going on about "grand narratives" and modern methods of sociology. But you've not actually read Sulik, so you don't know that she's actually employing any "grand narratives" or outdated methods. Furthermore, and more relevantly for Wikipedia, you haven't produced a single source that criticizes her methods. I've pointed you at a very long list of reviews for her book, which range from newspapers to organization websites to peer-reviewed journal articles. All of the reviews that I've looked at (which is not all of them) seem to be positive about her results and her methods. If we stack all of that up against "one Wikipedia editor, who hasn't even read the book, has decided that Sulik did bad work", I'm personally inclined to stick with the results of the published, reliable sources rather than the Wikipedian. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I've read more than you think of this book. So I'd appreciate it, for the nth time, if you would stop talking about how much of the book I've read. You have no idea. You have never observed me. You don't know anything about the things I've done. So drop it. Plus, most of the other editors here have stated that haven't read the book and some have even said that they haven't even opened the book! Additionally, you don't need to read an entire book in order to edit wikipedia. No editor has an inherently greater ability to edit based on whether or not they have read the entire book as opposed to only the relevant parts. That would grant the editor in question the ability to make decisions over other editors, which is not allowed. If we both can access the book (the relevant pages - I have never challenged material as not being reflected by pages that I cannot access).

That said, you are correct, my statements about the archaic methods employed by Sulik are not based on the book - they are based on this article. Regardless of whatever Sulik does, this article is indeed a grand storyline. That is a fact. If you want me to give examples of which parts of the article are grand storylines, I will happily do so. I'm only talking about "social role" here by the way. If Sulik uses legit methods, fantastic. In that case, the article doesn't reflect her methods! So, either Sulik's methods are archaic, or the grand storyline in this article is original research. You've read the entire book, so why don't you tell me, which is correct? Charles35 (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've read this, per Amadscientist I'm not going to reply. I encourage other editors to do the same. Were this my talk page I would archive or hat the whole thing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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 think we can summarize this locus of this dispute in very few characters: "There are multiple experienced editors working on that article, and none of them agree with Charles35's POV."

There, that's just 108 characters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

:-) Funny, but we need to assume that the "minority" editor may have a point. Perhaps the best resolution is between the two viewpoints? In any case, DRN volunteers would appreciate your opinons on the merits of the issues. --Noleander (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

All things are possible; some are less likely than others. Last I checked, Charles wanted to say that treatment "initiates women through the breast cancer culture" (emphasis added), which we might call a creative phrasing. It is unlikely that the best resolution is halfway between a literate use of the prepositional verb in question and his suggestion.

Additionally, his concern about the phrase, as stated on the talk page today, is, "I don't trust readers to understand that you don't mean there is a conspiracy of a group of evil connivig cunning BCA-ers." I believe it is the general practice at the English Wikipedia to write articles under the assumption that our readers are not gullible idiots. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. To clarify: there are two alternative texts:

1. "forms a type of ordeal or rite of passage that initiates women into the inner circle of the breast cancer culture... "
2. "forms a type of ordeal or rite of passage that initiates women through the breast cancer culture ..."

and the issue is which text is more grammatical, and more consistent with the source(s). Is that correct? --Noleander (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. (I have added five words to the end of the first quotation to be more complete.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

NO. Not at all! The issue is not about grammar. It is about WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Charles35 (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The differences between the two sentences are not merely grammatical. Do you agree that the dispute is between these two sentences? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The dispute is about both the quote and the paragraph that starts with "misery quotient" and ends with "inner circle". Charles35 (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to be clear so that no fresh opinions of uninvolved editors are skewed by what WhatamIdoing just said. Just because I am the only one that has expressed concern does not mean that my concern is invalid or that there is a true "consensus" on the talk page. Charles35 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have made a joke like that if I didn't trust the editors here to be able to make up their minds independently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Just be aware that if all policy, guidelines and procedures are in line and only one editor is objecting to content, it may well be a rough consensus if the reasoning of the one is not justyfied.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, please stop bringing outside arguments into this. Thanks. When you said you trust readers, you meant that you trust them to realize that there is no actual circle (ie a curved line). I said that is ridiculous, but that based on the text, it isn't farfetched to assume that some readers might think there is a conspiracy going on. This only applies to the case in which the quote is removed, because the quote makes it clear that it is a metaphor.

Which leads me to the next point. Amadscientist - I do not believe this is in accordance with the policies. I believe that the full paragraph quote is WP:UNDUE. It is simply bizarre. Awareness is like a tribe? With circumcision rituals? Seriously? That is one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. Even without the quote, it is undue in my opinion as it is no longer making a bizarre metaphor. Without the quote, it is no longer presented as a metaphor. It is still bizarre, but now it is a claim (which is in reality a metaphor) and is presented as a fact.

I also think it doesn't meet WP:NPOV. Without the quote, the text states the metaphor as a fact (which is worse than stating an opinion as fact). It is also judgmental, and doesn't indicate the prominence of opposing views. WhatamIdoing and WLU are "requiring" that all material added to the article must address the material that is already there. If I don't find a source that says that there is in fact no inner circle of the breast cancer culture, then there's nothing I can do. This is, obviously, impossible, as no other source talks about such a conspiracy or addresses such a bizarre metaphor. So I am left to come here to DRN. Charles35 (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It is stated that readers are smart enough to know that FRINGE ideas are nonsense without including any negative or critical material or sources - a key sign of NPOV problems. Charles35 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It is the nature of a metaphor that it is presented "as a fact", that is, equating two things. That's how metaphors work. If you say "Cancer treatment is a journey", then you have a metaphor. If you say "Cancer treatment is like a journey", then you have a simile, rather than a metaphor.

What matters here is that we have sources talking about suffering initiating women into something. They are not initiated into the broad cancer culture. They are initiated into a small, select, exclusive part of that culture. IMO the phrase inner circle describes that part of the culture just as well as any other phrase. I'm open to alternatives, but you haven't ever proposed any. You just assert that our readers are too gullible to know that there isn't a vast, evil conspiracy by cancer patients. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do assert that. Inner circle implies that these people are working together and are all connected on an individual level. This isn't true. Supporters in Cali generally do not know those in Florida. This might be different if you tightened your definition of inner circle. If you are talking about any supporter who has gone through months of radiation and chemotherapy, that refers to millions of women. Most of these women do not know each other and would detest your claims. And I will reiterate: "It is stated that readers are smart enough to know that FRINGE ideas are nonsense without including any negative or critical material or sources" Charles35 (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have formed such a low opinion of our readers. It is not our practice to write articles under the assumption that our readers are gullible idiots. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact is, at least some of the readers are indeed gullible idiots. But actually, none of us are at liberty to or even have the ability to judge the intelligence of readers. That shouldn't be up to us. Thus, in my opinion, we should cater to the lowest hypothetical intelligence. Of course, this is within reason; I believe that "within reason" would include people who take this interpretation: you don't need to be too stupid to think this is referring to a group of people who are all on a first name basis (which isn't true), implied by "inner circle", and go through initiation procedures (which isn't true) in order to be in such a group, implied by "initiated into" and possibly "rite of passage" (note: objecting to rite of passage argument ≠ objecting to everything else; that is just to support the larger argument). That is how the article reads. You can't expect people to read between the lines. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that relatively average / slightly above average readers would take this interpretation. Charles35 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I do think that it is unreasonable to assume that average readers would believe the strange statements (like all of the millions of breast cancer survivors are on a first-name basis) that you put forward here, or that they would think this is what that sentence means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

First, I would like to state up front that I will have limited time to participate in this process over the next two weeks. I apologize for that.

I first became aware of this article via a request for help from Charles35 in the #wikipedia-en-help channel on IRC. I disagree very strongly with Whatamidoing that "There are multiple experienced editors working on that article, and none of them agree with Charles35's POV." I consider myself a very experienced editor (10,000+ edits, active since 12/2004) and I do think that there are some very serious structural issues with this article. I'm assuming that WAID is referring to Charles' POV about the article rather than about the topic, but I should point out that I find myself quite sympathetic to what critics such as Barbara Ehrenreich are saying. Yet, I still feel that the article in its current form is not neutral. Several editors have said that the tone and emphasis of the article accurately represents the state of the discourse about this topic in reliable third-party sources. I don't feel that this is accurate - I agree that a number of commentators and social science researchers have taken a strident tone, but my impressions from looking through the sources are that (1) some of these books (Kulik for instance) are not as negative as they are portrayed to be; (2) there are other perspectives from other fields that are not so negative (for instance perspectives from advertising and marketing professionals, from non-profit people and from public policy researchers) and (3) when this topic is portrayed in, say, the New York Times, there tends to be more balance than this article suggests. I've added in some additional information from the other side of this issue - for instance statements from the Komen foundation - but I do think that this article does need to be examined very carefully. I've outlined some significant issues that I see here: Wikipedia:NPOVN#neutrality of Breast cancer awareness (note this was written on 11/30 so some things may have changed). I do believe some progress has been made with this article and I look forward to more productive work. GabrielF (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to make things clear, they know nothing about my POV on the topic. As I once discussed with WhatamIdoing, I originally stumbled upon the article as I was looking for info about how out of hand BCA is getting. When I read the article, at first I agreed. But then when I came across things like "inner circle", I knew I had to edit this article. To make it clear for everyone, I agree with the viewpoints expressed in this article, but I am much, much more moderate. And I also have no real life reasons to be against these critics. I am not close to anyone that has BC, if that's what any of you have suggested or thought. I've never been involved in any awareness effort either. Charles35 (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with what GabrielF said in number (1) - that the viewpoints expressed in this article are cherrypicked from the sources. Much of the sources express attitudes towards awareness that are not seen here. For instance, both Sulik and Ehrenreich, while both being overall negative, have a lot of positive things to say about BCA. I was especially surprised when I read Ehrenreich. She is portrayed as a radical critic in the article, when she is in reality much more down to Earth and neutral. I don't know if I'd say she even has a POV. She might be a critic, but she seems to have no non-neutral inclinations. Charles35 (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero opposition to taking the positive aspects of Sulik, Ehrenreich, or any other source, and expanding the page with the great things about BCA. Certainly, that would seem to alter the perceived imbalance of criticism on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. When GabrielF added pro-BCA from multiple sources already used in the article, WhatamIdoing met the edits with strong opposition. Gabriel might be able to expand further on that. Yesterday, when I added pro-BCA material from Ehrenreich, WhatamIdoing thoughtlessly deleted with edit summary "makeover time":

[9]

And then she had to be sure to add more material against the positive material I added, beginning with "However, regardless of whether the..." - [10]

Doing this sort of thing just buries the positive material in more and more negative material. If I didn't add the positive material, then WhatamIdoing wouldn't have added the negative material. She was, IMO, making a WP:POINT. If this keeps up, it effectively makes no difference for us to add positive material, because it just gets buried. In fact, if you keep up adding one negative sentence for each positive one, then the percentage of positive material will actually decrease. Charles35 (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The "makeover time" edit kept the information you added from Ehrenreich, near verbatim, adding a single sentence which I don't see as negative. The fact that women treat it as a makeover opportunity isn't portraying it as a bad thing, either in the source or in the BCA wiki page - only that part of treatment is retaining a version of femininity and an effort to reinvent their physical appearance. I do not see it as negative (the fact that you do may have something to do with how you perceive all of WAID's edits however), but have reworded in an effort to address your concerns. What do you think? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel's addition of Komen's rebuttal may be a WP:GEVAL problem and has the unfortunate effect of making it seem like Komen is the only organization to which the criticism applies.

Charles' quote, though, was rather absurd in its imbalance. By itself, it emphasized extreme and unusual responses to baldness, like getting tattoos of panthers. The overwhelming majority of women don't do that. Most breast cancer patients are quite anxious to maintain a normal appearance. We've got sources on this, including Sulik, Olson, and the multiple charities that provide cosmetic services. Also, Sulik talks at length about women using breast cancer as an opportunity to transform their lives in other ways (ending an unfulfilling marriage, for example), so Ehrenreich's quote about using cancer treatment as a makeover opportunity echoed a major theme. (It's not unique to breast cancer, either; most life-threatening illnesses are described by survivors as life-changing.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's so absurd then maybe Ehrenreich isn't a reliable source? I'm not saying I believe this, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Charles35 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Almost anything can be made to sound absurd when the quotation is taken out of context and left to stand without balance. Consider "The Bible says 'There is no God'" and "The US Constitution says 'Congress shall make no laws'". Both of these are literally true and both of these are as absurd as presenting head tattoos as a typical response to chemotherapy-induced baldness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

^The quote isn't cherrypicked. If anything, the rest of the article has been cherrypicked and rephrased to support a particular POV. Plenty of positive material from sources has been made to sound negative in this article. Charles35 (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

The overall dispute seems to be, that Charles35 objects to the quantity/balance of criticism in the entire article (He recently said it was "extremely unbalanced"). He believes the article should have less detailed information on specific aspects (which he has repeatedly described as "radical" and "conspiratorial"), and more details on the accomplishments/benefits of the BCA movement (which no-one objects to, but no-one has done the work of researching/writing about). Here's a specific example where he describes the problem as he sees it.

I believe he started off wanting to delete the entire article and start over (in late October), and has since then adjusted his perspective significantly. However he still believes that some of the ideas summarized in the article are utterly inappropriate, and should be removed completely. That is what DRN might be able to help with (by either substantiating his perspective, or by explaining to him what aspects he might need to reconsider). Hope that helps, I can provide more diffs or thoughts if requested. –Quiddity (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, as you can tell, I joined wikipedia in late October. I was not aware of how things worked. Pardon me. My arguments have changed over time. Let's not ad hominemically talk about Charles, please. Let's focus on the material. As you can see, that diff is from November 10th, only about 2 weeks after I joined. It is now December 7, an entire month later and over 6 weeks since I've joined. How about we focus on the material and the current arguments, not try to undermine my qualification by quoting diffs from a month ago. That isn't going to get us anywhere. We are talking about inner circle. Bringing up these irrelevant arguments is only distracting us from the point, something done by just about every post since we've started:

-Elizabeth Edwards (WhatamIdoing)

-request for comment (WLU)

-sociological theory conversations brought up about metanarratives violating WP:TONE that are irrelevant to this (WLU)

-summing up this issue in 108 chars with "Charles doesn't know what he's talking about; we do." (WhamamIdoing)

Let's stop talking about editors, and start talking about edits. All that this is doing is distracting us from the issue. Why do you guys have such a difficult time talking about anything related to this issue, and why do you continually avoid and divert it to discussions about editors? I am afraid that distractions will just lead us off topic and lead to this dispute being closed. You guys don't want that to happen, do you? Charles35 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes the issue at DR/N is the history of objections made by the editor. This is really not a dscussion of you, persay, but the history of your objections and editing on the article. That is fair to discuss if not about conduct or behavior and sticks to the content issue. However it is sometimes best to speak in the third person at DR/N as to not make it look like a PA.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but all that we need to focus on here is inner circle. It's the only reason we're here. So far, nobody except for me has said anything about inner circle. The editors have not defended it, and no volunteers have commented on it, likely due to the fact that nobody is really talking about it. Let's not distract the conversation away from the actual point here. All that we are trying to accomplish is the inner circle. That's it. But as you can see, we have effectively been distracted, intentional or not. I am not commenting on the actions of other editors. All I'm saying is that we have been distracted from the actual point, and that I'd like to get back on topic - Amadscientist, do you have any thoughts regarding the inner circle issue?

Quiddity, you say that if we don't address all these other issues, we'll end up right back in DRN. Well, if we do address all those issues, we won't accomplish anything! We have come here to focus on one issue and actually get something done in a timely manner. If we start bringing up all these other issues, all that will happen is DRN will turn into the BCA talk page, which is the exact reason that we have left the talk page. I don't want that, and neither do you (I assume). Talking about all these irrelevant things is just clouding the issue. Please do not comment unless it is talking about inner circle. That is the reason we're here. Let's not turn DRN into the BCA talk page. Charles35 (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Quiddity is not required to focus on the one detail that you currently want to focus on. Sometimes a big-picture perspective is more helpful than focusing on details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page 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, an volunteer at DRN. Please trim the opening statement to 2000 characters. I am not opening discussion right now. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ebel23. Please see talk page section "Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page. Charles35 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Charles35, reduce your opening statement to less than 2000 characters. If you continue to persist in adding content, there is the possibility that this filing will be closed. The discussion is still not opened. Do not post in this section until one of the volunteers invites discussion. Hasteur (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer here on the DR/N notice board. Charles35 was asked by this volunteer to give more detail on the dispute from the simple statement originally posted. As the filing editor was concerned about the character limit, I have given the editor permission to go past the limit. Do not close this case just for their going over the limit as they were asked to do so if it was needed. Please see the DR/N talkpage. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if the case originator was given permission to exceed the limit, of course we should let it slide. On the other hand, I'm still trying to grasp what the precise issue is. It would be nice if one of the parties, in their opening statement, could give a simple, plain summary of the issue(s) that is understandable to outsiders. --Noleander (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand it from the short version and am still not entirely clear on the issue now. Perhaps another opening will clarify or Charles may read over his opening and see areas to improve on. Right now I can only assume this is an editor that has not had their contributions stand after discussion on the talkpage of the article. If the consensus of editors there is appropriate and within policy, this may just not be the correct venue but may indeed be a case for RFC.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed it. I hope that is more clear. Charles35 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Lets go ahead and begin the discussion. Charles, if you could, I wonder if a brief description of what you feel is needed to the article would be a good beginning. Is there any sort of compromise to the content you feel would be acceptable by the involved parties?

Okay. The inner circle problem can be broken down into 2 pieces - the quote, and the text. The quote is a paragraph long and is making a bizarre metaphor relating cancer victims to barbaric circumcision and blood rituals. It's degrading, inappropriate, and violates WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV. I think that this should be removed, no question.

While I do oppose all talk of a conspiracy-like inner circle of awareness supporters, in the spirit of compromise/consensus, I think this might be appropriate:

1) the quote must be removed.

2) the text must identify the idea as a metaphor, and attribute it by stating the person's name in addition to the inline citation (to put extra emphasis because the article uses inline citations, so it appears no different from any other sentence without attributing it in the text). This is very important - the idea CANNOT be displayed as a fact.

3) the text cannot use the term "inner circle". It sounds conspiratorial. The source does not use it. I think that "rite of passage" is okay. The source uses it. And it fits with the metaphor.

I think that with those 3 conditions, the text will not lend undue weight to a bizarre metaphor, it will not be misleading in stating the idea as a fact, and it will not sound conspiratorial. Charles35 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WLU made a revision that identified the idea as a metaphor in the text. I don't see that as making any difference because the quote identifies it as a metaphor anyway. Then I edited it more, removing the quote, keeping WLU's identification of the metaphor, and removing inner circle. To me, that makes the material acceptable. WLU reverted my edit, but didn't give any reason in the edit summary. WLU - can you let me know the reason now? What exactly did you not like about my edit / those 3 conditions? Charles35 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless and until the other participants decide to weigh in, this may likely go stale. For the most part this was a one against many situation and was opened by another volunteer who weighed in by posting. This happens often and can make participants feel as if the case was ready for DR/N, when it may well be that no one is interested enough to make this a real dispute. I will leave a message on the article talkpage to ping involved parties but if no one posts there is little we can work with. If any other volunteer has more to add, please feel free.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it was appropriate to include the quotation, which said:

"Understood as a rite of passage, breast cancer resembles the initiation rites so exhaustively studied by Mircea Eliade: First there is the selection of the initiates -- by age in the tribal situation, by mammogram or palpation here. Then come the requisite ordeals -- scarification or circumcision within traditional cultures, surgery and chemotherapy for the cancer patient. Finally, the initiate emerges into a new and higher status -- an adult and a warrior -- or in the case of breast cancer, a "survivor.""

As for inner circle, Charles is invited to explain how he would describe the "new and higher status" that women are initiated into. I thought that "women are initiated into the inner circle of the culture" was a reasonable and standard description of the idea (by "standard", I mean that the exact quoted phrase "initiated into the inner circle" gets more than 100K ghits and appears in several hundred books, so it's a pretty common phrase that ought to be recognized by any fluent English speaker).

Charles—and Charles alone, as far as I can tell—thinks that saying they're initiated into an inner circle sounds like some sort of evil conspiracy. But he's not been forthcoming with alternatives. If he's got sensible alternatives to offer, I'd like to hear them.

("Inner circle" appears in other sources cited in the article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not see "inner circle" as conspiratorial, I see it as an evocative description of entry into the most respected and revered area of a culture. Yes, conspiracy theories and secret societies can be described as having an "inner circle", but so can nearly any organization where trust, history and respect impact the social capital held by members. Ehrenreich's quote initially wasn't there, and Charles disputed the text on the basis that the "rite of passage" and other prose was not verified by the sources. I added the quote, which verified the information, and have been replacing it because I think it again is evocative - I don't think I could come up with a summary that is anywhere near the quality of the original material. In addition, the use of the quote firmly places the term "inner circle" in the context of initiation rites - not conspiracies. I think it's good writing, quoted in an appropriate place, that illustrates a valuable point about the culture of BCA. I have read Charles' objections, and find them all less compelling than the quote itself. This is an issue that could be addressed by a request for comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't really see the paragraph as being neutral in tone and actually do not understand the use of the term she-roes. This is highly unusual for a fact based statement. In fact, the entire first sentence seems very POV: "Breast cancer culture values and honors suffering, selecting its she-roes by a "misery quotient". --Amadscientist (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: "not understand the use of the term" - did you see the sub-section just above, Breast cancer awareness#The she-ro? (Note prior discussions in the talkpage archives, here and here). See also ghits and g-scholar-hits for the exact phrase "misery quotient" and also ghits for "she-ro" cancer (eg this article from 1994). Both terms are used extensively outside of the currently cited sources. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the section shown is of undue weght and would also prefer to see inline citations used and not a single overarching opinion for the section but regardless this term should not be used in this manner as a fact based claim. There is a way to write an encyclopedia and this isn't it in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I also think the sections being mentioned suffer from POV. The idea of a Wikipedia article is not to suggest that these terms are standard, which is what I believe is going on here. It seems to me that some information is the opinion of various authors and are not actual statements of fact. A lot of this should be attributed to the author in the form of their own opinion and not as un questionable fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Terms like "she-ro", "misery quotient" and "inner circle" are metaphors or constructs used by one or a small group of authors. They need to be treated as opinion and not as fact. GabrielF (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how two sentences, representing 0.005% of the article, about the fact that society honors cancer patients because of their suffering, is really "undue". It's less than 1/200th of the article. How much smaller do you think it should be? How much smaller do you think it could be?

Also, since DUE weight is determined by the prevalence of ideas and concepts in the reliable sources, not the prevalence of ideas among editors, and you've read few (none?) of the sources that discuss the specific question of what society values or honors in cancer patients, can you explain the epistemiology ("how you know what you [think you] know") behind your assertion of undue weight? It seems to me that until you've read multiple sources on that talk about this specific subject, that you don't actually have enough information to form a rational or relevant opinion on whether these two sentences represent a balanced summary of the published, reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What two sentences are you refering to? I am referring to the She-Ro section itself, which actually seems to have about 4 references, however I still see it as undue weight as the article is about Breast cancer awareness and I feel this section is needlessly over-written. Also, you are wikilawyering now and making far too many assumptions on me alone. I am not the subject or your prejudices about me or what I may or may not have read. But I think you are mistaken about what I am talking about. Also, I am curious about the parenthetical citation style being used. Does this have a consensus?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I refer to the two sentences that say that the culture selects its she-roes on the basis of suffering. They immediately precede the quoted lines about the "misery quotient", which Charles disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: WP:Parenthetical referencing - yes, it's an uncommon but completely accepted style (See WP:CITEVAR). At least 2 FAs use it. Complaints about the usage of this style, was the original/only reason I took an interest in the article! –Quiddity (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the published reliable sources, the she-ro is a part of breast cancer awareness. Therefore it's not undue to have a paragraph or two about the she-ro. Sulik's book goes on at great length about this idealized patient, including the cultural sources, the factual description, and the effects that the archetype has on women. Like I said: for this subject, you need to go read the sources instead of relying on your own prior knowledge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Those are long paragraphs.
2. The shero permeates to almost every section of the article.
3. Shero is also a prime feature of "Consequences" and "Breast cancer culture", which combine for 10 more paragraphs, totaling 12 focused on the shero. Charles35 (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the following paragraph is particularly demonstrative of the neutrality problems with this article:

Mere symbolism itself does not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives. However, it is an effective form of promoting the pink ribbon culture: fear of breast cancer, the hope for a scientific breakthrough, and the goodness of the people who support the cause. These supporters may feel socially compelled to participate, in a type of "obligatory voluntarism" that critics say is "exploitative" (Sulik 2010, page 250, 308)

Here are some issues:

1. "critics say is 'exploitative'" - Sulik says that "the culture's use of women's voluntarism for the cause can be exploitive" (308). She is not saying, as the Wikipedia article does, that it is exploitive, but that it can be. Sulik offers an example of a woman, Melinda, who received many calls to speak about her condition and who felt socially obligated to volunteer even though her health would have benefited from a reduced schedule. Just because a critic points out one case that she feels constitutes exploitation does not mean that this critic sees breast cancer culture as inherently exploitative as opposed to having the potential to be exploitative in certain cases. In fact, as Sulik explains, Melinda may not be a typical case. Sulik points out that the African American community has a history of avoiding conversations about cancer. As an African American woman who was willing to be a spokesperson, Melinda may have been a rare and valuable asset who was called upon more than a typical breast cancer survivor and who might have felt a special obligation that other survivors may not have felt. To conclude from this one case that breast cancer culture IS exploitive, rather than that it CAN BE exploitive in certain cases is to misrepresent the source.
2. "critics say is 'exploitative' - Do critics say this or does the one cited critic say this? Why are we not attributing this directly to Sulik?
3. "Mere symbolism itself does not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives. However, it is an effective form of promoting the pink ribbon culture: fear of breast cancer, the hope for a scientific breakthrough, and the goodness of the people who support the cause." - What this seems to be suggesting is that the purely symbolic events described in the preceding few paragraphs (painting a bridge pink or a facebook campaign that asks women to post the color of their bras) doesn't have any value except as a means of self-promotion for this movement. Where is the source for this? It seems to contradict things that we say elsewhere in the article, for instance: "The high level of awareness and organized political lobbying has resulted in a disproportionate level of funding and resources given to breast cancer research and care." This suggests to me that attention-grabbing events may keep help maintain a high level of awareness of breast cancer that leads to tangible benefits for breast cancer patients in the form of additional dollars for treatment.GabrielF (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree. One of the reasons that I ask about the referencing is the overuse of sources tending to make me believe there is a heavy amount of POV and undue weight to the source and author. I can't help but think that the referencing issue is sort of pushed to possibly not be so obvious how much of this article has been given the view of the authors, including Gayle A. Sulik, who's work is very recent and does not appear to be the mainstream. A lot of what is being used is being referenced as fact and I think that has lead us here. I am going to read through the entire article and all the refernces closely to see what's what, but just a quick look makes me uncomfortable how much Sulik is being referenced and not in the best manner possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If Sulik's work is "not...mainstream", then how did her book get more than two dozen positive reviews, including in peer-reviewed journal articles? What exactly constitutes "mainstream" if positive reviews in the mainstream and academic presses don't count? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I was able to find page 310 on Amazon, it is hidden on Google Books. It seems like Sulik's point about exploitation is that the breast cancer awareness organizations can ask a lot of women and these women then have to take responsibility for negotiating exactly what it is they are willing to do, given their own feelings of obligation to the organization and their desire to take care of their own needs. I'll quote exactly what Sulik says below, but my reaction is that it seems like what Sulik is describing is a very typical human relationship: Sometimes you feel an obligation to help out with something but you have your own needs and you need to strike a balance. This seems very common with non-profits but also with friendships and with family relationships. My relatives call me to help them with their computer problems. I have to balance my sense of obligation towards them with my irritation about having to deal with other people's wireless routers. This may be worth a couple of pages in a 300-page book on the breast cancer awareness movement but does it really belong in an encyclopedia article? I'd like to delete the entire paragraph.GabrielF (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel, what paragraph are you talking about? Charles35 (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph at the end of the Events section that originally began "Mere symbolism..." but has now been modified to begin "Symbolism itself..." GabrielF (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Charles disputed the text on the basis that the "rite of passage" and other prose was not verified by the sources.

WLU, please do not jump to random conclusions. I said that "inner circle" was not in the text, which is true. I said nothing about "rite of passage". Of course, please correct me if I'm wrong. But half the things you say about me are false. So please, everyone, take his words about me with a grain of salt, because I don't have time to dispute all of them. Charles35 (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, when I googled "initiated into the inner circle", most of the hits were talking about Freemason conspiracies. Charles35 (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, the fact that this is, as you say, "1/200th" of the article is irrelevant. This is the exact reason why I, at the beginning of this, quoted a bunch of other passages from the article to give the context for this quote. Every sentence is 1/200th, or however small, of the article. Does that mean that we can't consider any single sentence undue weight? How does this thinking apply to the pro-Komen sentence that GabrielF added? [11]. Each sentence must be taken within the context of the larger article. Charles35 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the pro-Komen statement is currently in the page despite that diff being from December 1st, presumably WAID thinks it is OK.

The Ehrenreich quote makes it very obvious that "inner circle" does not refer to Freemasons or other conspiracies, as does the use of "ordeal" and "rite of passage" in the page. It is quite probable that readers will use the context of the page, rather than googling the term, to decide what sense is being used. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Probability is not a standard I recognise as a Wikipedia policy or guideline. While I agree in some small degree, I also see something of a POV there.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WLU, I was responding to WhatamIdoing's statement that "the exact quoted phrase "initiated into the inner circle" gets more than 100K ghits and appears in several hundred books". Thus, my observation was that most of these hits and books seem to be referring to the Freemason conspiracy. Charles35 (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

On Gabriel's questions above:

1. Sulik says that the culture's use of the women "can be exploitive" and we say that patients "may feel socially compelled to participate" in something that critics say is exploitative. I think that the overall sentiment is accurate. If we weaken the "is exploitive", then we'll have to strengthen the "may feel" to "feel" (because Sulik never says that women "only might" feel this way).
2. Every source I've seen that addresses it says this. This sort of dispute is exactly why Amadscientist thinks that the article suffers from "overuse of sources". If we don't provide multiple citations, then someone complains that we haven't sufficiently proven the statement; if we provide multiple citations, then someone complains that we're providing too many.
3. We have made an effort not to duplicate citations per WP:Citation overkill, but I see that isn't working for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

1) fine, do that. It's more reflective of the source that way.

2 & 3) this is why you should use footnotes.

A string of multiple citations is still a string of multiple citations, no matter how they're formatted. Amadscientist is already complaining about the total number of citations. Changing the formatting doesn't change the number. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

When it's 2 #s and not 50 characters, it is much easier to read. And it makes things much less confusing (ie it is more clear which material is cited and which isn't). Charles35 (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The quote found in the culture section is a source of disagreement. The quote is:

Understood as a rite of passage, breast cancer resembles the initiation rites so exhaustively studied by Mircea Eliade: First there is the selection of the initiates -- by age in the tribal situation, by mammogram or palpation here. Then come the requisite ordeals -- scarification or circumcision within traditional cultures, surgery and chemotherapy for the cancer patient. Finally, the initiate emerges into a new and higher status -- an adult and a warrior -- or in the case of breast cancer, a "survivor." (Ehrenreich 2001)

A DRN volunteer indicated that this was an appropriate place to resolve issues like this, as an alternative form of WP:RFC. Discussions on the BCA talk page have indicated that a formal external opinion would probably resolve this issue. Accordingly, should the breast cancer awareness page include the above quotation?

An RFC is a different venue. Accordingly, we do not use the DR/N to make such requests. This is already a request for comminity discussion, but an actual RFC would take place on the article talkpage. This is just a straw poll.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

---

I believe the quote briefly and evocatively describes a facet of the culture surrounding breast cancer awareness and treatment, the fact that the social capital of a breast cancer survivor is enhanced by the degree to which their cancer and treatment was painful and grueling. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it explains things well, which should remove worries about people thinking that the "inner circle" is a Masonic conspiracy. (Charles, when I take the quoted phrase to Google and exclude all pages containing the word "mason", I still get almost 80K ghits. That means that three-quarters of the pages aren't about masons, whether those masons are the organization, the canning jar, a person, a bricklayer, or otherwise.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Charles, you give every appearance of being annoyed when I repeat myself, but I literally can not think of another way of making this point - the context of the page makes it incredibly clear that it is talking about a rite of passage, not a conspiracy. That context, in my mind, is far more important than any number of google hits. I have a hard time understanding how so much time is spent on trivial wording issues like this. I would stop repeating myself, but I do not want my silence to imply consent. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WLU, I totally agree. But that context is only there when the quote is there. Since I feel that the quote will not be there for much longer due to WP:UNDUE, the text will no longer show that it is not a conspiracy. Charles35 (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I'm not exactly sure what ghits are, but when I put "initiated into the inner circle" (with the quotes), I get 101,000. When I put "initiated into the inner circle" -mason, I get 64,000. That's a 37% drop. If more than 1/3 of the hits are referring to freemasons (and that's only one of many conspiracies), then that's a problem in my opinion. "initiated into the inner circle" -conspiracy is 58,000 hits. That's a 43% drop. That means that almost 1 out of every 2 hits are talking about conspiracies. That is a problem. "initiated into the inner circle" -templar -conspiracy -mason returns 47,000 hits. That's a 53% drop. That means that over half of the hits are talking about a freemason conspiracy. And don't forget that freemason is only one conspiracy out there. "initiated into the inner circle" -templar -conspiracy -mason -illuminati is 42,000 hits, a 58% drop. 1 of the hits on the first page is talking about Star Wars; another Harry Potter. Charles35 (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on Ghits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This Dispute resolution Noticeboard volunteer believes that the discussion has stalled and will be closing the filing in 24 hrs as "Unresolved" if no futher movement is made. A reminder to involved editors....please stop discussing each other and center on the content.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Quiddity, I don't understand something. You said: "yes, it's an uncommon but completely accepted style (See WP:CITEVAR). At least 2 FAs use it." I don't see a concrete reason to change the citation style. I am weary of it because of the way it makes things confusing and blurs lines between cited/non-cited material. But what I don't get is this - probably around a dozen editors have expressed disapproval of the citation style. Since, as WhatamIdoing puts it, "there's no difference between the two", then why not switch to footnotes? I mean it seems like there is at least a potential undesirable effect of parenthetical over footnote, but I don't know of any reasons to keep parenthetical. Whenever someone says this, you say "WP:CITEVAR". Yes, but that isn't a reason to keep it. That's an appeal to a policy, but it says nothing about the effectiveness of the parenthetical style itself. All that that rule is saying is that since there isn't a "consensus" (which I bet if we took a vote, there actually would be), then we shouldn't change it. But why not change it? There's no benefit of keeping it compared to the at least potential benefit of changing. Ya know? Charles35 (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Also, what do you guys think of taking a vote? Charles35 (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Focus on Content & Volunteers

NOTE: Does anyone know if we could / how to collapse some or all of the above text to make the page easier to navigate?

Okay, so to me it seems like, while we might not line up on each and every point, WLU and WhatamIdoing (and Quiddity, I think) tend to believe the article is fine and there is no WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV problem, while Amadscientist, GabrielF, and I tend to believe that the article does have these problems. So, since it looks like WLU's, WhatamIdoing's, Quiddity's, and my opinions never seem to waver (Gabriel seems to be the exception), there's little point for more banter. I think we should do what we came here to do. There's a reason we left the talk page to come here, which is to get, and listen to, the opinions of the uninvolved DRN volunteers. Otherwise, we may as well still be back at the talk page. So, Amadscientist has expressed his thoughts:

I have to say, I don't really see the paragraph as being neutral in tone...This is highly unusual for a fact based statement. In fact, the entire first sentence seems very POV...

I think the section shown is of undue weght and would also prefer to see inline citations used and not a single overarching opinion for the section but regardless this term should not be used in this manner as a fact based claim. There is a way to write an encyclopedia and this isn't it in my opinion.

I also think the sections being mentioned suffer from POV. The idea of a Wikipedia article is not to suggest that these terms are standard, which is what I believe is going on here.

One of the reasons that I ask about the referencing is the overuse of sources tending to make me believe there is a heavy amount of POV and undue weight to the source and author. I can't help but think that the referencing issue is sort of pushed to possibly not be so obvious how much of this article has been given the view of the authors, including Gayle A. Sulik...A lot of what is being used is being referenced as fact and I think that has lead us here.

I also see something of a POV there.

So, as a little refresher, the main issue is "inner circle", which has 2 parts - the quote, and the text. IMO (the original point of this dispute), the quote violates WP:WEIGHT, and the text violates WP:NPOV. I don't see many other options besides some sort of formal "binding" type of debate or a "ruling". What do you guys think? Do you usually do that at DRN?

However, other parts of the article have been noticeably discussed, mainly by GabrielF and Amadscientist. This is generally the shero section (presenting things as facts) and other things like the citation method. Do you guys see any resolution with these issues in mind?

Again, I think we should hear what Amadscientist has to say. He was uninvolved and is therefore less biased than any one of us.

Anyway, here are some recent points:

1. - Inner circle

The fact is, at least some of the readers are indeed gullible idiots. But none of us are at liberty to or even have the ability to judge the intelligence of readers. That shouldn't be up to us. Thus, in my opinion, we should cater to the lowest hypothetical intelligence. Of course, this is within reason; I believe that "within reason" would include people who take this interpretation: you don't need to be too stupid to think this is referring to a group of people who are all on a first name basis (which isn't true), implied by "inner circle", and go through initiation procedures (which isn't true) in order to be in such a group, implied by "initiated into". That is how the article reads. You can't expect people to read between the lines. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that relatively average / slightly above average readers would take this interpretation.

A lot of this should be attributed to the author in the form of their own opinion and not as un questionable fact. I absolutely agree. Terms like "she-ro", "misery quotient" and "inner circle" are metaphors or constructs used by one or a small group of authors. They need to be treated as opinion and not as fact.

So my line of reasoning says we should, if we decide to keep inner circle (which is still up to debate), phrase it as an opinion/construct and not fact? To me, that seems pretty settled. Therefore, IMO, an important issue we should discuss is whether the paragraph-long quote is due weight.

1. - citation style

One of the reasons that I ask about the referencing is the overuse of sources tending to make me believe there is a heavy amount of POV and undue weight to the source and author. I can't help but think that the referencing issue is sort of pushed to possibly not be so obvious how much of this article has been given the view of the authors, including Gayle A. Sulik...a quick look makes me uncomfortable how much Sulik is being referenced and not in the best manner possible.

Quiddity said: yes, [parenthetical citation] is an uncommon but completely accepted style (See WP:CITEVAR). At least 2 FAs use it.

WhatamIdoing said: Every source I've seen that addresses it says this. This sort of dispute is exactly why Amadscientist thinks that the article suffers from "overuse of sources". If we don't provide multiple citations, then someone complains that we haven't sufficiently proven the statement; if we provide multiple citations, then someone complains that we're providing too many.

I said: this is why you should use footnotes. When it's 2 little numbers and not 50 characters, it is much easier to read. And it makes things much less confusing (ie it is more clear which material is cited and which isn't). Charles35 (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone want to take a vote to settle this citation style thing once and for all? It looks like something we can come to a reasonable clear cut yes/no agreement over. Charles35 (talk) 04:22, 15 December 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.

The following discussion 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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Juan Manuel de Rosas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lecen (talk · contribs)
• Cambalachero (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A user called Cambalachero has removed any mention that Juan Manuel de Rosas was a ruthless dictator of Argentina in the 19th century. Not only that, but the article about Rosas as written by Cambalachero does not mention any of the atrocities which occurred under the dictator.

Although not the scope of this request, I also wanted to warn that Cambalachero has been whitewashing several other key aspects of Argentine history for the last couple of years. One good example is Juan Perón, also a dictator of Argentina who was antisemitic and had close ties with the Nazi. There is no mention in Perón's article that he was a dictator. None at all.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I opened threads in Juan Manuel de Rosas' talk page that were ignored. I also opened a thread in the Military Wikiproject's talk page that went nowehere because the other editors (who have little understanding of Argentine history) believe that the problem is merely two editors with different points of views.

How do you think we can help?

First of all, there is no need to speak Spanish. No one who is willing to help resolve this dispute will have to read books in Spanish. Everything can be found in reliable sources in English (and which are also online, such as in Google books).

Thus, I wanted to see neutral editors who are willing at least to actually read a little bit about the subject under discussion before making up their minds and share their thoughts about it.

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.

Some points: Lecen requested article ownership here. He voiced his personal political preferences here. He borders into wikihounding here, discussing with a reviewer that approved GA that I nominated (not relation with any of this, and beyond his area of interests). The article of Rosas does mention that some people see him as a dictator; it simply does not do so in wikipedia's voice (as in "Rosas was a dictator"), because that is not an universally held opinion. I left full details of Lecen's recent behavior at User:Cambalachero/Lecen Cambalachero (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas 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.

User:Cambalachero, previously known as MBelgrano, has previously edited to play down the role of caudillo in Argentina's history. A literal translation of Caudillo is dictator or more politely strong leader. I have experience of the latter at Manuel Belgrano.

I do not consider this is necessarily a deliberate desire to misrepresent history. Sadly there is a revisionist trend in recorded history in Argentina that has a tendency to present a somewhat sanitised view of the past; and to creatively interpret events to reflect modern political realities. Rather than sanitising the article he simply reflects what is taught in Argentina.

My suggestion is that given the role of several leaders in Argentine history is open to a range of opinions you should be guided by how they are viewed in a range of neutral 3rd party academic sources. The article should present a range of opinion, attributed to individual historians to reflect the range of views.

Both of you present equally valid views, what I suggest you haven't realised is the need to present both. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

But here at Wikipedia we do not write "Some historians claim that Hitler killed 6 million Jews, while others affirm that few were killed." Revisionism is not regarded in here as "the other side" or "the second opinion". Even less when we are talking about revisionists that share a positive view of authoritarian regimes that executed innocent people. Cambalachero is free to talk about Argentine Revisionism perhaps in an article called "Revisionism in Argentina" or even in "Legacy of Juan Manuel de Rosas". He can't, however, alter historical facts due to his preference for Revisionist sources. --Lecen (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it a little too soon to play the nazi card? There's no serious point of comparison of Rosas and Hitler, neither as historical leaders nor in their public perception. To keep it short for the sake of users who don't know who is Rosas, I will simply point to File:20pesos.jpg: the face of Rosas appears in the modern Argentine currency, an honour that Hitler may never dream with (there are more examples, but this one is particularly ilustrative). Which proves that, unlike Hitler, positive views of Rosas are not at all a tiny minority, and are even sponsored by the Argentine state. WP:FRINGE does not apply in this case. If wikipedia editors "like" Rosas or not, or consider if he "deserves" his positive image or not, is a pointless detail to raise. Cambalachero (talk) 14:26, 16 December 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.

The following discussion 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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Public Relations Society of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CorporateM (talk · contribs)
• Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

At present the disputes are regarding the balance of the Controversy section and whether a university website operated by a college professor is an adequate source for PRSA's two publications having been started in 1994.

The issues have not been discussed at length, but due to prior disputes with the other user[12] the closing admin suggested I use DRN early next time we have a dispute. We have a rather unpleasant history so maybe this will head things off.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

For this dispute in particular we have just had some mild edit-warring and Talk page discussion. I have previously requested an IBAN about 3 or 4 times and we have been on all the drama boards regarding a good half-dozen articles.

How do you think we can help?

Not sure how the process works, but I'm open to a second opinion. The university website is an iffy source (I explained why I think this is an expert self-published source), but if we decide it doesn't pass, I would rather fix the problem than just marking it up. The controversy edits I think are counter to consensus. The section has been discussed at length and it was substantially paraphrased based on the comments of a lot of editors. Cant is re-incorporating content removed based on discussio

I viewed the references cited for O'Dwyer and inserted what was in reference, but omitted in prose. CorporateM didn't advise that it had been extensively discussed in edit comment. If that was the case, then let consensus be. The CSU reference was simply a class website intended for that section which is subject to change as its the instructor's personal workspace for his class. I didn't look into it as deep as CorporateM did on subject but didn't seem like appropriate WP:RS.

Yah, it's tricky finding out what to include and what not to and with how much weight. The articles I've written on Credit Suisse, Playtex and PRSA could each be immense articles if we included everything there is a source for, but it takes a lot of research and labor to really establish what events are truly significant in their history.

If that one is resolved, I think it would still be great to get a second opinion on whether the professor qualifies as an expert (see my links and info on the Talk page). I would be willing to go either way based on a second opinion. Corporate 01:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

PRSA 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.

---

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.

The following discussion 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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Mobile operating system (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Davidkmartin (talk · contribs)
• Smartmo (talk · contribs)
• 217.30.64.34 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Smartmo (talk • contribs) (removed, either sock or other party. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)) keeps posting failed predictions of International Data Corporation on Mobile operating system. He also deletes other analysts predictions that he does not like. He did edit-warring for a while before he got blocked, but continues again.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

An incident was filled: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#User:Smartmo_keeps_putting_WP:CRYSTALBALL_failed_predictions_on_Mobile_operating_system that blocked Smartmo (talk • contribs) for some days but he is back using an IP address.

I also tried to request page protection: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive but I was suggested to continue to discuss.

How do you think we can help?

By trying again to make him understand that Wikipedia needs to have a neutral point of view. That he cannot use Wikipedia for his own interests. And it that fails block his account again and protect Mobile operating system.

It is not true, I'm kept the most up to date research from IDC (this research is not failed, no one can say if is failed, because it is in future, year 2012 still not ended), and I'm NOT removed other researches, I only removed RUMORS (e.g. untruth that "IDC had to dial back their predictions", but is not true, or personal opinion of Jim McGregor, or unclear and unsourced information of Bernstein research, ... all sources and reasons are discussed on talk page) repeatedly inserted by Davidkmartin (talk · contribs). Also I'm not back using an IP address, I using my login, and I'm never modified this page after this incident. Meanwhile, user Davidkmartin (talk · contribs) repeatedly reverted back my contributions and contributions of another users, and repeatedly inserted non-credible rumors to this page (see above), inserted outdated information (old IDC information), and repeatedly DELETED up-to-date and credible information (most up-to-date IDC research form Dec 2012) from page (e.g. at 08:53, 7 Dec, 17:49, 7 Dec, 08:49, 8 Dec and 14:38, 8 Dec), without any discussion on talk page. I'm periodicaly contributed to wikipedia long ago on many pages (unlike Davidkmartin (talk · contribs)), but I'm stopped donating and contributing to Wikipedia, because there not a neutral point of view, I don't want continue with discussion about it.--Smartmo (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mobile operating system 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. It does appear at this point that one of the primary disputants has chosen to leave Wikipedia. Unless there is some indication that they wish to continue this discussion within 24 hours after the time stamp on this post, then any volunteer may close this thread as stale or dispute abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

So, what is the next steps? May I already revert Smartmo (talk • contribs) changes? - Davidkmartin (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting the 24 hours to see if Smartmo returns to this discussion, though there's nothing stopping you if you wish to go ahead, so long as doing so otherwise comports with Wikipedia policy (and I'm not suggesting that those reversions would or wouldn't comply with policy — I have no opinion about that having not looked). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what Davidkmartin wants to get back (I don't contribute on Wikipedia after incident), but I have evidence that Davidkmartin put on the wikipedia page lies and also erases truthful information without discussion on talk page.--Smartmo (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Smartmo (talk · contribs) please, stop lying! We already had extensive discussion on the talk page. Wikipedia needs to maintain a neutral point of view, not your point of view. Volunteers, please, read what I posted to see what Smartmo (talk · contribs) is doing (adding his own bias by removing content he does not like and putting failed predictions) -Davidkmartin (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not lying, you're lying here just you, again. You are a big liar rude. Did you not discuss the talk page, you're lying. I was not blocked because access to this page used the IP, you are lie. You are lie also on the predictions for this page when putting lies (e.g. IDC never dialed back their predictions, it is only your lie). Please use talk page, if you want anything insert on this page. --Smartmo (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@Both: Please remember that this forum is only for content disputes. Please only discuss content, not conduct. If you wish to make a complaint about an editor's conduct, please use WP:AN or WP:RFC/U but do not raise it or discuss it here. @Smartmo: I'd encourage you to stick around, but if you are not going to continue to contribute to Wikipedia then this listing should be closed. Please clearly indicate your intentions. Saying that you're no longer going to contribute, but then continuing to post here is confusing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I did not contribute to any Wikipedia page (public) after the incident, but I defends himself against on the talk pages from lies of Davidkmartin. I have a right to defend himself. --Smartmo (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I already used WP:AN and Smartmo (talk · contribs) was blocked for a while for his conduct, but the block expired and he continues to force his point of view on Mobile operating system -Davidkmartin (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're lying, I was not blocked "again" due to editing related page under IP, and I'm not continued contribute after first (3RR) incident (IMHO unjust, but accepted), and not blocked again never.--Smartmo (talk) 10:49, 18 December 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.

The following discussion 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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs)
• Tomcat7 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Tomcat7's continued removal of tags on the article after acknowledging their validity.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tomcat7 put Friedrich Eckenfelder up for GAN, I reviewed it, found numerous problems and decided to fail the article for numerous reasons. Tomcat7 made personal attacks, I addressed the matter at WT:GAN. Both the original creator and Tomcat7 acknowledged there were no other sources for the article to be found. I placed the appropriate tags, the editor insist on removing them without fixing the underlying problems. Tomcat7 will not address concerns according to policy or other users.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully make Tomcat7 reexamine his behavior and address content matters, the editor will not listen to me or other users who have commented thus far.

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.

This request is clearly inappropiate. Chris wants to punish me by doing something like that. I don't want to waste my time stating the same thing all the time. Chris is always welcome to propose more sources (he just added one poor source, which has insufficient information), but filling a request to this board and adding a miserable tag on my talk page is ridiculuous. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder 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. I am of the opinion that this dispute should be declined/closed, primarily because it is more of a conduct dispute than a content dispute (though it certainly has content aspects as well) but also partly because it is a matter which should be worked out at a different venue, namely WP:GAN where there is ongoing discussion in this thread. I'm not closing it myself because I'd like at least one other volunteer here at DRN to also consider the matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The dispute centres around the conduct of the user regarding the results of the GAN not the content of the article. Although there was some content related discussion regarding sourcing the main issue is conduct. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm dealing with specific matter regards the content and the proper acknowledgement of the tags, I will take the conduct matter to RFC/U. My purpose is to bring concensus that Tomcat7 must address the problems of the content and the proper tagging of such at the article. Calling the artist an illegitimate child born out of wedlock is a big claim. Its glossed over, but the matter of the younger Friedrich is also noted as 'misstep' according to the article and it is not sourced. I believe the one-source tag should stay as it is valid and has been acknowledged by everyone, including Tomcat7. I am also wanting the citation needed matters to be properly sourced or marked as such. Anything with the Nazi's is a big matter, BLP does not cover the subject, but I would at least strongly recommend that such contentious claims must be sourced. All I am here is for that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat7 might want you to believe I added a source to the page, "Chris is always welcome to propose more sources (he just added one poor source.." It almost sounds like I am responsible for putting sources into an article I was reviewing at GAN. This is Tomcat7's nomination, he should be responsible for addressing fixes or have it fail accordingly. I have little faith in any of Tomcat7's edits as he is writing blind, he does not have the only source and yet continues to be highly disruptive. The original one source tag as added by Paperluigi [13] and was removed without addressing it just two days before my review began. This is pretty much why I am persisting on getting consensus. The content matters are being purposely and deliberately being removed to subvert Wikipedia's policies. For these reasons, I am here with the content side, not the user conduct matter. If this is an open and shut case of the validity of these tags and the acknowledgement of these issues, it will be better for the conduct matter, as RFC/U will not want to deal with the content matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'll point out that when you submit a DRN request the page states (under This process cannot) Force another editor to do something. Forcing another use not to do something is the same as forcing them 'to' do something. Your statement in the How do you think we can help section (Hopefully make Tomcat7 reexamine his behavior and address content matters) falls under this. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine, close this please. I'll take it to RFC/U, the content matter related to this is minimal at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:55, 18 December 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.

The following discussion 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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Juan Manuel de Rosas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lecen (talk · contribs)
• Cambalachero (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The lack of neutrality in the article about Rosas.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The discussion in the talk page won't go anywhere. I opened a thread at the Dispute resolution noticeboard and I also requested a third opinion but no one appeared.

How do you think we can help?

Please read Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas#About the lack of neutrality, the biased view and arbitrary choice of facts added into this article.

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.

Juan Manuel de Rosas 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.

---

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.

The following discussion 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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Hebron School, Ooty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Surajt88 (talk · contribs)
• Alan.Gilfroy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Alan.Gilfroy, who is evidently a newbie started editing Hebron School, Ooty recently. The editor, who is evidently a student of the school seems very defensive and reverts everything that changes the article from their "preferred" version. I accept my failings in trying to engage this editor as I think I was a bit bitey in the beginning. I believe the editor sees me as "anti-hebron school" but I also have a feeling that the user also realizes that there are no other editors watching the page other than the both of us. Every effort to either engage this editor or trying to improve the article has been met with blanket reversions in the article to their preferred version. To be frank, I have not been very active recently and I went out of my way to spend time to gather sources, type them out, and edit them into the article. But one of the reasons they gave for their latest reversion of my edits (as can be seen from the article talk), is that my grammar is poor and that it "degrades" the article. I have no more patience with respect to this editor. I therefore request any other patient and willing editor to engage this good faith editor and help improve this article. I would also be willing to learn about my shortcomings in this regard.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried engaging the user at User talk:Alan.Gilfroy.

How do you think we can help?

I think this user is disappointed with me and anyone patient enough to engage this newbie editor and is willing to go through the article history and our contribs (pardon the lack of links as I am editing from a mobile) might help resolve this dispute.

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.

• User:Surajt88 has simply been deleting all the information that I work hard to put in, on the grounds that it does not have citable sources. I have consistently disproved this by gradually accumulating sources. Since the claims in the article are neither exaggerated nor malicious, I advised that they should remain with the tag "citation needed" until I or other contributors can find necessary sources. All this is perfectly acceptable according to Wikipedia Policy. I have also pointed out that simply because the editor cannot find web sources, does not mean that the claims are not legitimate or uncitable.
• Here are examples of poor grammar from the user's latest revision:

1. "Hebron school was incorporated on the year 1899" - "school" is not capitalized; "on" - incorrect use of prepositions of time
2. "christian workers in India" - "Christian" is not capitalized
3. Also noteworthy is the user's revision of the "Administration" section. The user has turned a neat, orderly set of bullet points into a stream of disorganized sentences, which any user would find hard to read.
4. Similarly, the user compresses other bulleted information into bigger paragraphs, which makes it universally more difficult for viewers to read.

• I do not edit the article according to my "preferred version." I simply want the article to be comprehensive, factual and meet high grammatical standards. In fact, I have even complimented one of the user's contributions. I have only reverted the article when the user mindlessly deletes acceptable, legitimate (unsourced but citable) information or when the user replaces previous information without significant improvements.
• The user seems to be taking it personally that I have high grammatical and informational standards for the article, as is expected for Wikipedia editors. This is also reflected by his constant use of the derogatory term, "newbie", in order to unnecessarily assert his false sense of superiority and belittle other newer, but equally (if not more) competent editors. Alan.Gilfroy (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hebron School, Ooty discussion

Hello, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer here on the Dispute resolution Noticeboard. There appears to be "extensive discussion" when you see both the article talkpage and the editor talkpage discussion combined so I am opening the case. Stay civil. No personal attacks and please stay within policy with your arguments. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am posting this comment which will open this case, by stating that you are both edit warring but Alan.Gilfroy has not met the burden of evidence by adding content without a source. If an editor wishes to remove unsourced material, they may remove it. This brought to your attention that your claims were not sourced and claiming that the information is "verifiable" is not enough. It must be unquestionable fact to claim it need not be sourced. Since you do not wish to source this material...please explain (in the discussion section below) why you feel it should be included without sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Amadscientist. I apologise for not elaborating on the rationale behind my adding content without sources. When adding content, I had two of Wikipedia's principles close to heart: "Assume good faith" and caution with "Disruptive editing."

Firstly, none of my content is exaggerated or harmful to anyone. My edits are made in good faith, consisting of helpful, factual knowledge of the school and its heritage. In fact, if you look through the article's history, you will find that I have added reliable, reference sources to content which had previously been deleted by the same user. The lack of citations for particular content is only a transitory stage. The content is necessary to build a bigger picture of the page, and to explore the scope for further improvements. I promise to delete the information myself if I fail to find a reliable source.

Of course, I'm aware that the user is entitled to pursue any actions, and is not required to have good faith. I just felt that such an attitude benefits no-one.

Thank you.

Alan.Gilfroy (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

While no one can be forced to assume good faith, not doing so is a sign that there is a potential issue....with the one not AGF. I would also mention that, while you state that you are adding sources I do not see this on the page. You also stated that your edits consist in part with a "factual knowledge of the school and its heritage". We call that Original Research. What you know is not the issue, what can be verified is. --Amadscientist (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Alan....why would you report the filing editor to 3RR today? A look at the page indicates you are both edit warring but neither have crossed the brightline for a 3RR violation. This shows a lack of good faith and puts you in a position of retaliating against the filing editor. I am half inclined to close this as resolved with the opinion that you are simply not correct at all and have placed the article in danger, and have created a chill effect.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break-1

I would also like to bring to the attention of the volunteers here this edit by Alan to the user page of a former editor of the article, where they admit the association they have with the subject of the article (and also indirectly call me a vandal, showing the level of good faith they have assumed from me). Suraj T

• Yes, that appears to be innappropriate canvassing by asking another editor to revert your edits and calling them vandalsim. This may need to be brought to the attention of an admin. However, just admitting to being an alumni is not improper and many editor will disclose such information. COI policy states: "COI editing is strongly discouraged. It risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and groups being promoted (see Wikipedia is in the real world), and if it causes disruption to the encyclopedia, accounts may be blocked.".--Amadscientist (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC

• I did not mean to say that his admission is wrong. I wanted to bring to attention that the editor has a strong COI with respect to the article and that may affect their judgement. The comment in the diff stated above includes the words "Hebron School's Alumni page" to describe the article, which might point to a strong COI and WP:OWN issues.

• I unconditionally apologise for this action.
• However, I did not call you a vandal. I implied that you were guilty of vandalism, which was acceptable if you consider the former circumstances. However, do you accept that what I wrote in the rest of that comment was true? Unexplained, non-good-faith blanking is a former of vandalism. Your response to my very first edit on the page was a rapid. mass deletion of information that I and other editors had contributed. You arrogantly cited the reason as "rmv trivial info" and "rmv unsourced info", your judgement being both subjective and intolerant. You did not even an ounce of humility to initiate a discussion or insert "citation needed" tags. And you now have the temerity to demand that I have "good faith" for your revisions?
• Now you accuse me that I have a "strong COI with respect to the article." This an extremely strong, bold claim and I am sure that AmadScientist agrees that you better have strong evidence to back your claim. Show me a single contribution of mine which is definitely unverifiable (not temporary unverifiable) or where I've made a subjective, non-factual or self-promoting claim. I have a feeling that it is more likely that you are discriminating against me for simply declaring myself an alumnus of the page in question. You are making a baseless accusation simply because I have the best interests of Wikipedia first, followed by the those of the Subject of the Article in question. Please do not assume that you will not be held accountable for such slander.
• Also Re: Citations, please consult WP:FACTS and WP:OVERCITE and contrast it with WP:PURPOSE. Alan.Gilfroy (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The editor has indeed demonstrated that you have a strong COI and have canvassed innappropriatly to a "fellow Hebronite". Could you explain what you mean by your last comment: "Please do not assume that you will not be held accountable for such slander".--Amadscientist (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have unconditionally apologised for that particular incident. It was a rash and hasty action on my part, mainly in reaction to the swift, merciless deletion of my contributions. Apart from this one isolated incident, is there any evidence from my contributions to the article that I have a COI?
• My comment was not to be perceived as a legal threat. I was just bringing attention to the possibility that the user has violated WP:CIVIL by accusing me of being guilty of COI. Alan.Gilfroy (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break-2

My objections to the views of Alan: 1. The user assumes that as long as the content is not malicious, it can remain in the article unsourced until such a time an editor decides to cite the content. The user has had ample time to find sources. Also article space is not a repository for information. Whatever part of the article they feel can be cited at a future date, can be copied to their user subpage and can readd it to the article when they find a source. Suraj T

• OK, yes, unsourced content is allowed in the article mainspace and need not necessarily be sourced as long as it is (A) unquestionable fact (not likely to be challenged) or (B) has yet to be challenged by deletion or discussion. However, when content is reverted back (the first time, after you have deleted it) do not revert the return of the information but, instead, discuss on the talk page and ask for sources to be added. If there is no reply (Not listening) or no excuse to policy or guidelines is offered, it is best practice (recommended) that you not revert the revert immediatley, but wait 24 hours and then simply move the content to the article talkpage (so as to not lose it in the article history-which is a good way to foster civility but is not a requirement) and continue the discussion. Burden of evidence is upon those that add or return the content.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree to your suggestion above except for the part about excuse to policy or guidelines is offered. AFAIK, leaving content without a source is done just as a courtesy so others might find a source . The editor cited WP:USI and I am sorry, but I refuse to have a compromise to keep unsourced material based on it. I also agree to have the unsourced content moved to the talk page as suggested. Suraj T 11:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break-3

2. As can be seen from the article talk, the user wants the information (especially in sections Activities and Administration) to be bulleted and have many one lined subsections instead of one paragraph. I accept it is a minor issue, but the way the user reverted all my edits explaining they didnt like information in paragraphs made me lose my cool. Suraj T

• Always keep calm and carry on. "I just don't like it" is never an excuse for any edit or revert. As you have accepted it and list are acceptable with guidelines, lets move on.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Alright. I accept the above suggestion. Suraj T 11:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• I never declared "I just don't like it." Your revision was objectively harder for the majority of viewers to read. Refer to WP:MOS for further details regarding style. Alan.Gilfroy (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break-4

3. In the last version I edited, I found and added primary sources for all of the paragraphs (except the Administration section, for which I requested for sources from the user here and had no reply since). The user blanket reverted all my improvements and gave a nice explanation here citing my "poor English Grammar". The result was that most of the paragraphs went back to being unreferenced. Suraj T

• Spelling, grammar and other common mistakes are not an excuse to revert an edit. These mistakes can be corrected, however some editors will revert if the spelling change or mistake alters another editors meaning. Never cite another editors poor spelling, or grammar as an excuse to revert as it is very disruptive and uncivil.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break-5

4. Instead of blanket reverting all my edits, it would have been much easier for the editor to have corrected the capitalization errors etc. they mentioned in their opening statement. I normally check and correct errors before submitting my edit. This case of errors was because I was editing from my mobile with a small edit window. In response to the user's statement: "The user seems to be taking it personally that I have high grammatical and informational standards for the article, as is expected for Wikipedia editors. This is also reflected by his constant use of the derogatory term, "newbie", in order to unnecessarily assert his false sense of superiority and belittle other newer, but equally (if not more) competent editors", I have clearly communicated to the editor that belittling them is not my intention. Also there is nothing derogatory with the term newbie AFAIK. It is just a short version of new editor. Also please dont assume I have taken personally your self claimed high grammatical and informational standards. I personally don't care if an editor has a doctorate in English literature or has no English knowledge as long as the article is completely sourced and formatted. Such comments do nothing to promote a cool atmosphere here. Also I object to the following: 1. Questioning the competency of editors based on language skills. English is just that: a language and has no links to competency. 2. Calling editors one disagrees with as vandals, especially editors who have a fair bit of contribution. 3. Calling my edits as "mindless deletions" (diff1, diff2). Alan, also please answer Amadscientist's question above on why you feel it should be included without sources. P.S. On a more lighter note, I am very much interested to know the instance where Alan claims to have complimented me. Maybe they refer to this: Thank you for splitting the History section into two; that was a good, positive contribution. Such contributions, I am sure, are welcomed by all. I hope that you will undertake similar, helpful editing in future. (That split was later reverted by Alan). And I doubt it is a compliment. Cheers. Suraj T 07:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is a little from both editors here that is not the best form of civil edting. One should always take care not to "bite the newbie". While saying that a "new" account may not be familiar with a policy or guideline, we also must take care not to refer to an editor in any manner that may offend them and some editor do find "newbie" as a derogatory term. Why? Because many editors have far more experiance than people realize because they sometimes have edited a good amount of time as an IP editor (which I am guesing, may well be the case here) But....far worse than that is to call an editor a vandal. Wikipedia has very specific definitions of vandalsim and an editor should be warned not to make such claims. In this case the other editor has crossed a line by, not just accusing or calling an edtior a vandal, but has actively canvassed others with this accusation. As I said...this may be a blockable offense. Calling your edits "mindless" is not very nice, but crosses no line as it is discussing the contribution, not the contributer.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• See where I went wrong? You inadvertently indirectly referred to the editor as a newbie. I am sure you didn't mean it to offend. Same was with my case. This is the first time I have seen a new editor offended with the term. Many editors have called me that when I was new. While I will not purposefully use the term hereafter, I dont regret having used it. As to the "mindless" remark, I understand it was directed at my edits. But it sure didnt serve to diffuse the situation.Suraj T 11:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL! OK...but, did you notice the quotes? The term "Newbie" is a bastardization of the phrase "new comer". Many editors see this as a term for even editors that have started as far back as 2000 (see...that's supposed to be funny...because Wikipedia began in 2001. OK...anyway). See the humor essay Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies. The actual phrase "new comer" is what is in the guideline: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Was trying to be cute. I failed.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break-6

OK, I will wait for 24 hours for a reply from Alan.Gilfroy as to why he believes the content should remain unsourced. If there is no further reply I will be closing this filing as resolved with the opinion that Alan make no further reverts based on removal of unsourced content unless within guidelines. They must meet WP:BURDEN when adding or returning information to the article as they have been challenged and have not responded with any policy or guideline that is accurate. Should they offer an explanation that satisfies policy, the discussion may continue. If they cannot offer an explanation that satisfies our policies the same will apply. It is also the opinion of this editor that asume that the new edtior is not familiar with our policices and not seek sanctions but simply a warning that canvassing other editors in such a non=nuetral manner will get them blocked the next time.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I again feel there is a lot of gray area when we say Alan is allowed to revert my removals provided they can cite a policy or guideline. Per my comment above, they cited WP:USI for keeping the content and I disagreed. And AFAIK, it the one thing they can cite to keep unsourced content. As such, with the assumption that there is no hard policy or guideline which allows unsourced content to remain in the article for extended periods, I would like them to agree to not revert my removal of clearly unsourced content.

And to add to my disagreements, I also doubt the authenticity of the following books used as references:

1. Student Handbook. Ootacamund, The Nilgiris: Hebron School. 2012–2013.

2. Hebron Highlights 2006-2007. Ootacamund, The Nilgiris: Hebron School. 2007.

I initially didnt touch this topic, but I would like an online ref, given it is claimed to be a school publication. My point is that any one can invent a name School handbook and use it to add whatever they want with the book given as a cite. As for now, unless persuaded otherwise, I disagree with the addition of information citing above books. Suraj T 11:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to revert. Even when you delete content that is unsourced. Sounds confusing huh? But there we are. Yes, you hit the nail on the head. There is a lot of grey area.....on purpose. Wikipedia guides editors. We do not instruct them. Our policies and guidelines are not hard fast rules. There is also set criteria for when someone crosses a threshold to a violation of a policy or guideline. The deletion of unsourced content is one of (if not the) most controversial subjects on Wikipedia. When to delete and when to revert back are issues that depend on the article's state, and the editors contributing. You were not wrong for deleting the content. Where the other editor went wrong was by reverting a second and third time (but then you as well reverted a revert). This is edit warring. Never a good thing. WP:USI is an essay, it is not a policy or a guideline and editors should not cite them as why not to do something. However, there are other policies and guidelines they could have cited and many editors will use them when asking editors to refrain from deletion of unsourced content. But these are almost all suggestions and still not even pure policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Editing policy bothe have suggestions on how to handle unsourced material. I defend the removal of unsourced content...but, you have to keep the other editor in mind with these actions. So, if there is an objection, it is always best to just address the objection immediatly. Ask for sources and then debate such sources with policy and guidelines. If nothing is forthcoming the deletion is acceptable. I believe your deletions were acceptable.

As far as the sources you mention, that is best asked on Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Noticeboard where editors will help determine if sources can be used and if claims are supported by them.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Authenticity of Yearly Publications

The existence of these publications can be verified by following the link: Hebron School Downloads Also, the yearly publications for this year are in the process of being uploaded on the website. As for the citation itself: the publication is a primary source made available to the public. You might prefer an online source, but that has nothing to do with the validity and reliability of the source itself. Ease of access to everyone is not the responsibility of Wikipedia editors. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Just as the user "disagrees with the addition of information citing above books", I'm going to treat them as perfectly legitimate sources and I will revert deletion of these sources. On the other hand, if you think that my claim is not backed by the source, I would love to hear about it and I will edit as necessary. Alan.Gilfroy (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As yet, there has been no demonstration that the deletions were not appropriate and that there are sources to support claims. As for the school publications, they have limited use, name of principal, address, number of AP classes etc., but not for information pertaining to biographical information on alumni. It is the suggestion of this volunteer that Alan.Gilfroy refrain from further reverts of deletions on this article that are based on no sources, as there has been no clear demonstration that claims are verifiable. I also believe Mr. Gilfroy needs to be cautioned against stating that editors may "..be held accountable for such slander", as this could be percieved as a legal threat-a blockable offense. Such claims create a "chill effect". Editors may percieve legal peril by working on the article with you. Closing as resolved.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Amadscientist: Thank you for your response. However, I should point out that the school publications are used minimally and they are not used for biological information on the alumni. They are only used to establish that the Alumni attended the institution and the date that they left the institution. Is this acceptable under Wikipedia policy? Also, the school publications are mainly being used to verify information pertaining to the school (facilities, schemes, staffing, etc). I'm sure you agree with me that the best sources to use for information on the school include official publications from the school? Thank you for your help and patience.
• My comment was not to be perceived as a legal threat. I was just bringing attention to the possibility that the user has violated WP:CIVIL by accusing me of being guilty of COI. I should clarify again to any administrators that I was not making a legal threat. Alan.Gilfroy (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

First, whether you mean it or not, you made a statement that could be percieved as a legal threat. Please review Percieved legal threats.

I always, purposely leave the filing open for a bit after announcing it will be closed to allow replies. I was sure you would want to comment. However...as I said, you may not use the publications mentioned above to claim alumni who attended the school, but only for directory type information on current staffing and other directory type information. The only official source that I am aware of that is covered under policy is the official web page of an individual, or company etc. and not to cite a fact but to show the claim is being made. Official publications of schools such as handbooks, newsletters and newspapers (which I have seen attempted but are almost always rejected for lack of editorial oversite. Students are not considered oversite) are not acceptable to use to reference facts. The BEST sources to reference facts are reliable secondary sources that make the claim and are reliably published. Alumni has a very particular definition, does it not? Its meaning is "former". Therefore it is not appropriate to use for BLP information, but only for current staffing information regarding the school itself or to use to verify that a figure is a current staff member, and not to make a claim on a student.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:04, 20 December 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.

The following discussion 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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Gun safety (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bob Pond (talk · contribs)
• Mark Shaw (talk · contribs)
• Hohum (talk · contribs)
• Dmol (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Please review the section entitled "Scope of Gun Safety" on the Talk page of this article. I inserted a sentence at the beginning of the article to acknowledge the current broader usage of the phrase "gun safety". This sentence was followed by a suggestion to refer to the Gun Politics article for a discussion of issues related to this broader usage of "gun safety". I have placed on the Talk page for the article a discussion of the reasons why it is essential to include these additional sentences to assure that the article is neutral and consistent with current usage. I have also included on the Talk page another 10 references documenting current usage of a broader definition of "gun safety". The editors have yet to respond to my concerns about the neutrality of the article.

I have no intention of politicizing this article. I would point out, however, that some proponents of gun safety have suggested that restricted discussion of "gun safety" has been used to promote gun ownership (see “Joe Camel with Feathers -- How the NRA with Gun and Tobacco Industry Dollars Uses its Eddie Eagle Program to Market Guns to Kids. Section Three: "The Safest Thing is to Not Keep a Gun at Home"” by the Viloence Policy Center, undated. http://www.vpc.org/studies/eddie3.htm). Due to such perceptions, it is essential that any article on this topic be viewed as neutral.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Please refer to the Talk page of the article. In addition, I have exchanged emails and Talk page discussions with Mark Shaw. I am asking for assistance to place a notice on the article itself that the article has been nominated for review of neutrality.

How do you think we can help?

Some additional neutral language needs to be added following the restricted definition of gun safety. I have proposed the following: The phrase "gun safety" is now frequently used to refer to measures that go beyond the prevention of unintentional injury. This includes efforts to reduce gun ownership by persons not prepared to assure safe use of guns and policies aimed to reduce firearms homicides and suicides. Please refer to the wikipedia article on Gun Politics.

It is my opinion that the material added by Bob Pond is orthogonal to the article's subject and not appropriate there. I concur with the others who have expressed similar opinions on the article's talk page. I do wish this new editor well in his future Wikipedia experience, however. Mark Shaw (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am amazed that this has gone from a small number of courteous comments on the article talk page to dispute resolution within a matter of hours. Perhaps the filing party could try building consensus instead of immediately attempting administrative action. (Hohum ^@) 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

Gun Safety 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.

---

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.

The following discussion 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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jordan Belfort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk · contribs)
• Copycat2012 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Going back to 2009, a series of accounts have attempted to downplay or remove references to criminal activity on the Jordan Belfort page. None of these accounts - particularly Reaction93 and Copycat2012, have made edits to any other page. The issue was mediated by editor Daniel J Leivick in 2009 and appeared resolved, but in November user Copycat2012 (a new account) started up again. Copycat2012 seems unwilling to engage in discussion either on the talk tage or their own talk page, and this looks to be headed for a revert war. I have posted on Leivick's talk page several times but so far no input from him.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Opening discussion on article talk page, user's talk page, explaining edits in history notes.

How do you think we can help?

Make an assessment as to whether a person convicted of stock-market manipulation and fraud is worthy of being described as a white-collar criminal. Copycat2012 appears determined that he should be described as either a "former criminal" or to remove the word "criminal" altogether.

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.

Jordan Belfort page 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.

---

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.