Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 52

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

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

Users involved

• Elvenscout742 (talk · contribs)
• Deor (talk · contribs)
• Bagworm (talk · contribs)
• Tristan noir (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article until very recently consisted of a one-sentence definition and a list of "examples". The article defined "prosimetrum" as a text that consisted of alternating passages of prose and poetry.[1] Two editors started expanding the list, based on the overly generic criterion of "it contains both poetry and prose".[2] When I asked the two editors to cite sources[3], they presented sources that simply stated that fact, without ever using the term "prosimetrum".[4] When I pointed out the fact that this is basically original research, and Wikipedia should not unilaterally apply rare terminology to literary works, I met with a personal attack from one[5] and my arguments were basically ignored by the other. Reliable sources cite a much more restrictive definition of the term "prosimetrum", and the article is based almost entirely on those sources (no diffs, but the two are Prosimetrum: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Narrative in Prose and Verse, pp. 55-6, and The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, p.1115). I have tried to discuss the issue calmly, but the two editors have a very liberal definition of "original research", and I have thus far got nowhere in the discussion. I therefore would like to bring this dispute to the attention of the Wikipedia community -- WP:OR is pretty clear on this issue. If no reliable sources use a term in reference to certain works, it is OR for Wikipedia to apply the term, whether or not it is accurate (also, in most cases, it is not). elvenscout742 (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried extensively to discuss the issue on Talk:Prosimetrum, with little success.

How do you think we can help?

Provide an objective opinion as to whether the issue at stake is OR or not.

I've decided to walk away from this article, at least for now. Though the term prosimetrum has apparently been adopted (fairly recently) to describe a variety of works from various cultures, it has traditionally been used principally in the study of ancient and medieval European—and specifically Latin—literature. The dispute that's occurring now is the result of the arrival at the article of several editors whose main interests seem to be in Japanese and other Eastern works; this is a topic of which I have little knowledge, and I fear that the article is likely to lose focus as a result. I basically agree with Elvenscout742's position on OR in the article, and I've said so on the article's talk page, but I'm not inclined to argue further about the matter there. If I think that I have anything useful to contribute to the discussion here, I will, however, do so. Deor (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Editor Deor has been reluctant to admit that any non-European works might be included in the term prosimetrum (cf. his reversion of my edit here) despite the fact that Prosimetrum: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Narrative in Prose and Verse, a book which has been in the Further reading section since the article was created, (largely viewable online here) deals with work from a global variety of backgrounds including Japanese, Indian, and Chinese.

Elvenscout742 accepts here the broadly-held definition that "any work that combines poetry and prose is prosimetrum", which usage is easily confirmed by a search on prosimetric at JSTOR here. Yet Elvenscout insists, against all logic, that including a work combining poetry and prose in the prosimetrum article is OR unless a citation is found applying that actual term. It is my contention that this flies in the face of common sense.

If we accept that prosimetrum is "any work that combines poetry and prose" (as Elvenscout has done), then it is entirely illogical to refuse to accept the converse, that any work that combines poetry and prose is prosimetrum.

My view of the dispute is ably summarized above by Editor Bagworm. I will therefore keep my comments to a minimum. Editor Elvenscout742 accurately reports that The article until very recently consisted of a one-sentence definition and a list of "examples". The expanded opening paragraph and the paragraph on “History” are largely additions by Bagworm and Deor. Neither editor has added anything therein that might be characterized as tendentious or that might fairly be construed as OR. Their additions, in fact, are positive first steps in improving an article that all present participating editors, on the article’s Talk Page, agreed to be short on explanation. The article currently offers two brief definitions of prosimetrum as a text that is: 1) “made up of alternating passages of prose and verse,” (from the Princeton Encyclopedia, p. 1115), and 2) “the mixed form . . . when a part is expressed in verse and a part in prose” (from Peter Dronke, p. 2). I do not see how these common definitions of prosimetrum are in conflict. If a sample text is as simple as one paragraph of prose that is followed by one short verse, it is a text that has alternated from one mode of writing to the other and, simultaneously, it is a text in which “a part is expressed in verse and a part in prose.” But I mention this because Elvenscout742, above, asserts that Reliable sources cite a much more restrictive definition of the term "prosimetrum” and, on the article’s Talk Page here, has attempted to interpret the above definitions as somehow in conflict. If a reliable source provides a “much more restrictive definition,” then Elvenscout742 should cite that source and, of course, balance that citation against the many less restrictive definitions available from other reliable sources. In fact, I inquired on the Talk Page here if any editor could advance a “more restrictive definition,” but Elvenscout742 has yet to offer such a citation.Tristan noir (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. With Deor's withdrawal from the article, is there still a dispute here which needs attention in this forum? The opening statements, above, suggest that there might not be one, though perhaps I've misread or misunderstood them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Both the other users remaining in this dispute continue to assert that we don't need a reliable source to include an item in the list of examples, and at least one such unattested item (Izumi Shikibu Nikki) is still in the article. The dispute over whether or not a more restrictive definition exists seems to have been resolved (in my favour), but whether or not the unilateral application of terminology qualifies as OR is still under dispute. elvenscout742 (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The main dispute, as I see it, is whether (1) classifying a literary work as an example of a prosimetrum requires that a reliable source explicitly call it a prosimetrum—which is basically my and Elvenscout's position—or (2) editors can call works examples of prosimetra on the basis of the works' satisfying a definition of the term (and, as an ancillary matter, what definition of the term is to be used). Given the ongoing back-and-forth on the article's talk page, I'd say that the dispute is definitely not yet resolved. My withdrawal from making substantive edits to the article itself should not be interpreted as my not disputing certain changes that have been made to it—I just have no interest in getting involved in the repeated reverts and possible slanting of sources currently going on there. Deor (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello TransporterMan. I'm sorry to report that nothing has been resolved. A read-though at the article's talk page will confirm that Elvenscout742 is being less than accurate in saying, "the other users remaining in this dispute continue to assert that we don't need a reliable source to include an item in the list of examples". No-one is making such an assertion. The nub of the content dispute is quite straightforward, though:

A prosimetrum is a literary text combining verse and prose.^[1][2][3] It is my contention that it follows that a literary text combining verse and prose is therefore a prosimetrum, and a trawl through these 175 JSTOR results should leave no-one in any doubt of it. However, Elvenscut insists that such logic involves WP:SYN, and that before any such work be mentioned in the article, a RS must be found applying the precise term prosimetrum (a relatively rare term) to it, and that otherwise to mention such a text constitutes WP:OR. That is the core of the dispute here. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let me start by acknowledging that we're all volunteers here at Wikipedia and none of us have to do any more or less than we have to do, so long as we stay within the minimum standards set by policy, but in looking at this article, my first reaction is to ask why it is not being deleted under the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. The citations in the article and a quick Google books check strongly suggest, however, that there may be encyclopedia-like material about prosimetra — perhaps its importance in literature or its history as a distinct literary form or something like that — which could justify the presence of this article in this encyclopedia. But instead you are fighting over how to arrange the deck chairs on this Titanic. Here's my suggestion for solving this dispute: Let's nominate the article for deletion at Articles for Deletion. If it doesn't survive, then voilà: dispute solved. If it survives, spend some time fleshing out the article in an encyclopedic manner and then go back to fighting over this if you must. Look, this article especially in its current state does not need an extensive list of examples. Give a couple of examples which are incontrovertible and move on. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and effort, TMan. I have to admit to being a little nonplussed by your response. You begin by wondering why the article should not be deleted, but then go on to discover the reasons why it shouldn't. Yet you end up by suggesting it should be AfD'd regardless. Because "then voilà: dispute solved". Well, forgive me for feeling a little underwhelmed by the level of assistance offered in resolving the content dispute. I suppose it's unrealistic to expect we might get help from another volunteer who might be prepared to engage with the actual issue? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello TransporterMan, and thank you for your voluntary effort. I’ll merely record here my agreement with grab what you can’s initial address to you above, viz., that “nothing has been resolved” and that the core of the dispute involves Elvenscout’s insistence that the application of a simple definition (and simple logic based upon the same) somehow transgresses WP:SYN and/or WP:OR. I am dismayed by your initial response above, however. You acknowledge that your quick survey revealed sufficient matter for a worthy article, then propose AfD as a solution, and then offer this advice: “spend some time fleshing out the article in an encyclopedic manner.” This, I believe, is exactly what we have been attempting to do – to flesh out the article – but the current content dispute hinders that progress.Tristan noir (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not application of a simple definition. It's overly liberal application of what is in reality a quite restrictive definition, apparently in order to promote a particular point of view. Deor and I have already pointed out to the two of you numerous times that the term refers to alternating passages of poetry and prose (Brogan), must involve (be a branch of) poetic composition in which the verse portion is a substantial part of the text (Braund, Hugh of Bologne), and it doesn't include historical chronicles that happen to quote pre-existing poems (Ziolkowski). elvenscout742 (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither Braund nor Hugh of Bologna address what portion of the mixed form must be verse to qualify as prosimetrum (they do anything but!) while Ziolkowski, in his comment on chronicles, specifies that he is discussing prosimetrum there as defined within the Latin and Romance languages tradition. Ziolkowski, in the self-same passage that you refer to, explicitly acknowledges that prosimetrum was not so defined in other literary traditions, such as Old Norse-Icelandic or early Irish. We've discussed these matters on the talk page and yet you continue to misinterpret or misrepresent these scholars to serve your chosen POV.Tristan noir (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Both Hugh and Braund say that a prosimetrum is a poetic composition. The Kojiki is not a poetic composition. Ziolkowski, who so far appears to be the only reliable secondary source (not an encyclopedia) being cited in this dispute who gives significant coverage to prosimetra, specifically states that historical chronicles that quote old poems are not classified as prosimetra. The fact that no specialists in Japanese literature/history refer to the Kojiki as a "prosimetrum" is evidence of this. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TransporterMan - So what do you suggest we do in the meantime about the chairs? The article as it exists now includes several references that do not use the word "prosimetrum", as a result of this OR dispute. What we really need here is a fourth opinion as to whether it violates WP:SYN to do as TN and Bagworm have done, which is to assert that since A=B+C and D resembles a combination of B and C, we can cite D in a list of examples of A, even though there are no sources that directly state that D=A. Deor and I have argued that OR exists in the article as it is now, and what TN and Bagworm wish to insert more of is also OR. But no one has actually argued that the article itself is nothing but OR, and should be deleted on that basis. On the other hand, your Wikipedia is not a dictionary comment does make sense -- and I am honestly not sure how to address it, since I first came across this term a few weeks ago, and since my specialty is Japanese literature (where the term is never used), I don't really know all that much about its application, apart from the light research involved in this dispute. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

A note of simple clarification to correct Elvenscout’s hyperbole above. He states, The article as it exists now includes several references that do not use the word "prosimetrum". The emphasis upon “several” is mine. The only reference now included in the article that does not have a direct citation which employs the term prosimetrum is that of Izumi Shikibu Nikki in the list of examples. E. might wish to add that of Grettis saga, though the context of its RS as a whole is prosimetrum, as thoroughly explained by the author in her introduction. If there are “several” more examples, E. should be willing and able to cite them.Tristan noir (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Hyperbole" is an irrelevant personal attack. My use of the word "several" was with reference to the Izumi Shikibu Diary (entirely unattested) and the Kojiki (practically unattested, but you and Bagworm continue to try to put into the article). PLEASE STOP RESORTING TO PERSONAL ATTACKS AND SPAM IN THESE DISCUSSIONS. You are cluttering up this discussion with irrelevant arguments, as you have done elsewhere [1] [2] [3], and it makes dispute resolution very difficult. We are here trying to establish whether what you and Bagworm are doing is WP:OR or not. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The basic policy is that all information in Wikipedia must be supported by a reliable source if it is likely to be challenged or has been challenged. See the verifiability policy. The very fact this dispute is taking place demonstrates that some of these examples have been challenged or are likely to be challenged, therefore the examples must be supported by a reliable source which expressly identifies each particular example as prosimetrum. While an sourcing exception can be made for things which are common knowledge, such as simple math facts such as one plus one equals two, the existence of a disagreement almost always indicates that the matter in question is not common knowledge unless one side of the disagreement flies in the face of generally accepted or scientifically proven fact, such as a argument with someone who believes the Earth is flat or that gravity is a delusion. So if there is any possibility of disagreement about whether a particular disagreement is or is not prosimetrum, then that example must be supported by a reliable source. When, as appears to be the case here, there is some disagreement over the precise definition of prosimetrum, then that possibility of disagreement certainly exists. Examples must be supported by a reliable source that expressly says that they are prosimetrum. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Another uninvolved volunteer here. Thanks to all of you for participating in DRN. To expand on what TransporterMan has said, I believe this segment of WP:OR is most germane to this discussion:

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly [emphasis from the original text, not mine] supported by the source, you are engaging in original research.

The references must explicitly state the claims being made, especially if the material is contested, otherwise it is considered original research.--SGCM (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, @ the heated exchange between Tristan and Elvenscout. I sympathise and understand that content disputes can be stressful, but let's all cool it down, and focus on resolving the dispute at hand.--SGCM (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your clarification! We're getting somewhere now. Can I ask a question about what qualifies as a reliable source? The other of an article in the Princeton Encyclopedia, arguably the main source used in this article, lists the Kojiki and some others as "prosimetric works" (he exclusively uses the slightly vaguer adjectival form of the word, I noticed), but it seems he has not read the works himself. The Kojiki doesn't fit his basic definition of "alternating passages", as the very first verse appears 60 pages into the narrative, and the second some 16 pages later (in Chamberlain's translation). He also refers to Di universitate mundi and Cosmographia as two separate works, when they are different names for the same work. WP:PSTS seems to be pretty clear that reliable secondary sources trump tertiary sources like encyclopedia articles, especially when the two disagree on facts that are easily verifiable, but what does everyone else think about this? elvenscout742 (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally, an encyclopedia published by a major university press like Princeton University Press is considered reliable, and does meet WP:RS criteria. However, it is a tertiary source and should be treated in the same manner as all tertiary sources. Tertiary sources are written as introductory overviews of a topic, and are not as comprehensive or as detailed as secondary sources. For that reason, Wikipedia articles should primarily depend on secondary sources, although tertiary sources can be used, depending on the context.--SGCM (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, TransporterMan & SGCM, for your patience in attending to the details of this discussion. The Princeton Encyclopedia is now in its 4th edition and is a widely accepted reference in literary and academic circles. Again, “alternating passages” as employed in the Brogan article in Princeton (the language there actually reads “alternating segments”) will not bear the interpretation Elvenscout wishes to assign to it. Brogan nowhere specifies required duration or frequency of alternation of the two modes of writing nor does he specify required quantity of either mode. There is therefore no contradiction between Brogan’s definition and his citing of the Kojiki as an example of prosimetrum, E’s argument above notwithstanding. E also offers his opinion that Brogan “has not read the works himself.” That is idle speculation and should carry no weight in this discussion. So what do we have? We have a tertiary source of academic standing that attests that the Kojiki is indeed an example of Japanese prosimetrum but we have no secondary source that contradicts Brogan’s attestation. It is also stretching the truth ever so slightly to characterize Princeton as “the main source used in this article” as E has done above. A quick glance at the footnotes and bibliography say otherwise.Tristan noir (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Tristan noir's above assertion implies that the first 18.5 chapters of the Kojiki constitute one "prose segment", followed by a "verse segment" of two lines, with another sentence of prose before the end of chapter 19. The general reliability of the Princeton Encyclopedia is irrelevant, since Brogan himself is not a Japanese scholar. Specialist secondary sources on the Kojiki such as Keene (Seeds in the Heart, Columbia University Press, 1999) do not use the term "prosimetrum" once, and back up my statements regarding the content of the Kojiki. And need I point you again to Ziolkowski, who states that historical chronicles that quote old poems are not prosimetra? Your personal attack regarding my "stretching the truth" is noted -- the fact is that the article until recently quoted Brogan's definition verbatim, and 9 of the articles 21 citations come from Princeton. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Elvenscout742, once again, please note SGCM's exhortation above to cool down. Your apparent knee-jerk reaction in complaining of "personal attack" whenever anyone offers any criticism of your position lends no support to your credibility. Your argument above is very weak. The fact that Keene doesn't use the term prosimetrum in referring to the Kojiki carries no weight at all. I would have thought it self-evident that in order to effectively undermine a tertiary source applying the term, you must find a secondary source that contradicts it, not just one that fails to directly confirm it. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not the personal attack that bothers me. It's the fact that the personal attack is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and Tristan noir's ignoring me repeatedly, forcing me to repeat myself. I have already cited sources that directly contradict the statement that the Kojiki is a work that consists of alternating segments of verse and prose. The fact is that in order to contradict basic facts about the Kojiki on Wikipedia, the burden is on you and TN to provide evidence from reliable sources. The fact that after more than a week of debate no one has found any reference except for a single line of one article in a 2,000-page encyclopaedia that indicates that prosimetric form was used in the Kojiki. You seem to be under the impression that having one seemingly reliable source means that the argument is over. By that logic, we should split Di universitate mundi and Cosmographia into two articles, because one source that appears reliable makes the claim that they are separate. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not the way it works. I reference three sources above, confirming the widely-held usage of the word prosimetrum, as simply a literary text combining verse and prose, so your attempt to hang so much from your specific interpretation of this single word 'alternating' which occurs in just a single source, is starting to look like a rather desperate clutching at straws. The simple fact is that a RS confirms that the Kojiki is a prosimetrum, and unless you find a source directly contradicting that, you have no argument. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Which sources? Every source I recall you showing me stated that "a prosimetrum is a branch of poetic composition". The Kojiki is no poetic composition; it contains poetic quotation. You have cited only one source that somewhat ambivalently says in what could be called little more than a side-note that the Kojiki is poetry, and that source is the very one whose principle definition you are trying to reject. I have cited another source (Ziolkowski) that specifically states that such works are not classified as prosimetra, which is consistent with the fact that no reliable, specialist works on the Kojiki use that terminology. By your logic, the fact that ONE work rather clumsily puts an insignificant reference to the Kojiki in an article on prosimetra is enough to cite the Kojiki as a representative example of prosimetra, and the only way I can argue with you is by presenting a source that specifically uses the words The Kojiki is not a prosimetrum. This is unreasonable and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy: A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim. Under these circumstances, the burden is on you to provide evidence that a significant portion of the academic community accepts the view that (1) the Kojiki is a prosimetrum and (2) it is a prosimetrum because a "prosimetrum" is "any work that happens to contain both prose and verse". I have cited multiple sources that contradict the claim that a "prosimetrum" is any work that happens to contain both prose and verse (Bologne, Braund, Brogan, Dronke, Ziolkowski) and several sources that, given the former's definitions of what constitutes a prosimetrum, point out the characteristics of the Kojiki which, with the application of simple logic, reject the application of the term to the work in question. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

E, immediately above, appeals yet again to Ziolkowski pp55-56 to buttress his own belief that the Kojiki cannot be an example of prosimetrum because, as E has claimed on the Prosimetrum talk page previously, Z. argues that (a) an annal or chronicle cannot be so described, (b) the prose and verse must be by the self-same author (i.e., verse “quotations” do not count), and (c) the mere presence of prose and verse does not in itself constitute prosimetrum. Unfortunately, as I’ve pointed out to to E. on at least three occasions [1] [2] [3], Z., in so speaking of (a) and (b) above, clearly stipulates that these criteria are applicable only to the Latin and Romance languages traditions; he clearly indicates, on the very same pages, that the Old Norse-Icelandic and early Irish traditions do count as prosimetra both histories with verse as well as compositions where prose author & poet are different parties. Old Norse scholars such as O’Donoghue point out the same. And Dronke, like Z., is again speaking precisely of the Latin and Romance languages context; he is not offering a universal rule or defintion for all languages or all cultural traditions. On point (c) above, perhaps E can point out where Z, outside of those restrictions that he places upon Latin, argues that something more than the combination of prose and verse in one text is a requirement. I cannot find it. Nor do Braund, Brogan or Hugh of Bologna say more than what Hugh first said, that prosimetrum is “when a part is expressed in verse and a part in prose.”Tristan noir (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This is why I get frustrated with TN's personal attacks. I'm not personally offended by most of the comments, but I am getting very tired of having to repeat myself because TN keeps ignoring my arguments and setting up straw man arguments instead. Braund, Bologna and Dronke, as I have pointed out several times already, all point to prosimetrum as being a branch of poetic composition, i.e., if there is no poetic composition in a work, the work is not a prosimetrum. Ziolkowski states quite clearly that [i]t is generally agreed that annals and chronicles which happen to include now and then a verse epitaph, other sorts of memorial verses, or short occasional verses cited as sources are not to be accorded full status as prosimetra. This statement clearly applies to all literary traditions, and the minor caveat on which TN's interpretation hinges clearly applies only to Norse works of literary composition (sagas, not historical chronicles like the Kojiki) that include quotes from preexisting works in addition to original poetry. Every single source cited in this discussion, with the possible exception of Brogan, emphasizes that a work must include poetic composition to be classified as a prosimetrum. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Braund: "Prosimetrum. A term which is used to denote a range of classical, medieval, Renaissance and even modern texts which exploit a combination of prose and verse."
• Britannica.com: "a prosimetrum, that is, a work composed of verse and prose."
• Dronke quote from the supposed inventor of the term prosimetrum: "We call it a prosimetrum when a part is expressed in verse and a part in prose."

It is quite clear that this reflects the general usage of the term. Brogan's exact quote in full viewable on p1115 here: "In Japanese, it [prosimetric form] is used or the collection of mythical hist. known as the Kojiki." So, as I have now shown (yet again) the sources are clear in defining the term, and in labeling the Kojiki as prosimetric. Please drop your weak and hopelessly convoluted attempts to muddy the waters, which fly in the face of the sources as clearly outlined above. Volunteers, perhaps some input from your side could put an end to this endless circling at this point? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Bagworm, you are again omitting the point about poetic "poetic composition". Both Dronke and Braund emphasize that point, that the poetic component takes precedence and defines the form, over the mere "combination of poetry and prose". (Britannica is not discussing prosimetrum but two particular works that are classically described as such, and gives a brief explanation of the etymology of the word in the process. This should not be used as a source for a definition of the term.) The Brogan quote you provide is irrelevant, as Brogan has not read the Kojiki and is not a Japanese literary scholar. No reliable sources on Japanese literature use the term "prosimetrum" to describe the Kojiki, since it is not a prosimetrum by the latter's most basic definition (a branch of poetic composition). elvenscout742 (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Dronke’s first sentence, in the chapter E. quotes from, reads: “Any allusion to the mixed form—verse with prose—tends to conjure up, first and foremost, Menippean satire” (p. 1). The emphasis is mine. Dronke introduces the subject of prosimetrum by referring to it, without further qualification, as quite simply “the mixed form” (Hugh of Bologna’s “mixtum”) which consists of “verse with prose” (p. 2). He does not require further qualification for his reader for a simple reason, viz., that the commonly accepted definition of prosimetrum (or the mixed form) is a text that combines verse and prose.

Dronke, on p. 2, does state that for Hugh “the poetic aspect is integral to the form” but nowhere does he define, beyond an expectation that verse be present somewhere in the work, what this “poetic aspect” consists of. The same may be observed of Braund. What Dronke does say, on the same page, is that he has taken this “hint from Hugh” to set aside “a large number of works in which ‘the poetry does not matter’” so as to delimit his own study of the large field of prosimetric texts.

E’s attempted emphasis upon “poetic composition,” like his earlier emphasis upon the words “alternation” or “alternating,” is simply misplaced and not supported by the citations without engaging in a tortured reading of the same. The “most basic definiton” (E’s emphasis this time) is simply “when a part is expressed in verse and a part in prose” (Hugh of Bologna) or Dronke’s “the mixed form—verse with prose.” Beyond this, as Braund stated, “definitions continue to be contested.”Tristan noir (talk) 17:34, 20 October 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

• 1) Talk:Prem_Rawat#Exceptional_claims
• 2) Talk:Prem_Rawat#More_discussion_if_needed
• 3) Talk:Prem_Rawat#Further_Discussion_about_removed_text.2C_as_per_Dispute_Resolution_Request

Users involved

• PatW (talk · contribs)
• Surdas (talk · contribs)
• Rainer P. (talk · contribs)
• Momento (talk · contribs)
• Rumiton (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Momento made this edit, removing long-standing, sourced material from the Prem Rawat article before we had finished discussing the matter at length here and here and now here.. A number of editors have complained that this was unwarranted. Momento claims that he removed the "unsubstantiated and probably defamatory exceptional claim about Jonestown because it did not have "multiple high-quality sources" as required". I have argued and provided evidence that this is not the case and yet he has twice now removed the material. (I once reverted it). I did not originally add this info to the article but nevertheless object to the removal of this and indeed other critical information about the subject. Since the argument is quite complex and at times heated, please could people read all the above discussions and sources before commenting? Thanks. PatW (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Invited comments from other editors which have met with no response.

How do you think we can help?

It's simply a matter of making an opinion as to whether Momento's reasons for removing the original wording trump the reasons I have argued. My reasoning is simply that the removed section is derived directly from a scholarly source and is supported by other scholarly sources and a number of press articles and books. I have listed these from 1-7 [here]. There is an eighth source that the original editor(s) cited. PatW (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the edit of Wnt below. Deletionism has to be ended and the readers might decide themselves. Taking out sources and criticism leaves the reader in a state of a naive child, like practised in totalitarian systems . Surdas (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Let us have a look at Rawat's own words:

Guru Maharaj Ji Tokyo, Japan, October 3, 1972 (And it is Divine, July 1973)

Now just imagine, I have a following of six million people; and whatever I tell them, they are going to do that. And among those six million people there are millions of people who are criminals. They have murdered people, they have committed many crimes. They have been to jail and they know what it's like. And if I tell them now they would do it. They would murder anyone off the street. We could be hijacking planes and stealing cars off the roads, and killing people and doing other things. But we have realized that Knowledge, and so the whole movement is completely different.

Why would anybody with a clear mind says something like this? A clear sign of power dreams in an extraordinary position. Somebody with an unbalanced psyche like reported not only by Mishler/Hands but also Dettmers and others is a danger and there should be at least a mentioning of that possibility alone by the responsibility we have towards the readers. Surdas (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed debatable, to colport such a news item - and a news item it definitely was - in this article, for BLP reasons. I certainly have an opinion, but I would much prefer to hear an uninvolved editor or two.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The "exceptional claim" being discussed here is not that Mishler and Hand gave an interview that was reported on by others but their "exceptional claim" that Prem Rawat is capable of orchestrating the murder/suicide of hundreds of people. WP:VER & WP:REDFLAG mandate that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". This claim that Prem Rawat is capable of orchestrating the murder/suicide of hundreds of people has only one source, the unsubstantiated opinion of Mishler and Hand. Since no other source has made or supported such a claim it cannot be included in the article according to WP:VER. WP:REDFLAG goes on to warn about "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community ... especially in ... biographies of living people". The only scholar to comment on Mishler and Hand's interview, George Melton, ignored the Jonestown claim altogether and said "Mishner's (other) charges ... found little support and have not affected the course of the organization" clearly shows the allegation was "contradicted by prevailing view within the relevant community".[6] Mishler and Hand's allegation also fails WP:NPOV. WP:WEIGHT states "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". Mishler and Hand's view that "the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat" is unique to them.Momento (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly a content issue. In 1979 Prem Rawat was the leader of the Divine Light Mission, an international organisation centered on meditation. The CEO and deputy of that organisation were Bob Mishler and Robert Hand. These were both prestigious positions. After Rawat saw fit to relieve them of their duties, they jointly approached US media stating that they considered Rawat capable of creating a “Jonestown-like situation.” In the atmosphere of fear that still prevailed after that horrific occurrence several months before, their remarks were widely reported.

These guys were not psychologists, police officers or any kind of professionals. They were not stating any “facts” that could be checked, nor making any charges that could be investigated. They were ex-functionaries of the organisation, expressing their own opinions. According to sources, within the Divine Light Mission these charges were deemed insignificant. J. Gordon Melton writes that ‘’The charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission’’. It seems to me unworthy of Wikipedia editors to want to perpetuate them over 30 years later, especially given the caveats of living biographies. …it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

I also think there has been a misunderstanding as to the meaning of “source”. The origin of this opinion was Mishler and Hand, arguably the same source. The sources that tell us that they did indeed express that opinion were quite numerous, so there is no doubt that they did say it, but they were still a tiny minority of observers of Prem Rawat at the time.

It is a peculiar thing that an editor is claiming “no response “ to his objection against the removal of this material: I count over 10,000 words.

I am mostly uninvolved. I went to the Prem Rawat talk page after seeing a thread on Jimbo's talk page which indicated to me that the incivility level on Prem Rwat was out of control. I made a few comments and a move of summarized content from a mother article to the PR article. I left the article to the experts. My perception:

This is a content dispute. Editors are at an impasse. I have suggested several times to take disputes to DR or a NB, and I think bringing discussion here is a very positive move in terms of dealing with a highly contentious article rather than leaving it on the PR talk page which has in the past apparently deteriorated into personal jabs. I think there are still personal attacks but they are less.

This is a very real dispute. The article is a BLP. The sources may be questionable and at least need discussion and outside input. Discussion gets bogged down and so one editor made a bold edit when he felt discussion was done, which was contested. Both are legitimate moves in my opinion. An admin (Blade of the Norther Lights) has been keeping an eye on the article which I thinks helps editors to remember to be civil even when frustrated.

I think its important in this article to deal with the sources and content, and to remind editors civility does count, that Notice Boards are there to help out when content is disputed, that disputing content is pretty normal on contentious articles on controversial topics. But in the end this is a content dispute about whether the sources are mainstream enough, reliable, and have enough "weight" to support the inclusion of the highly pejorative content in a BLP article.(olive (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC))

I haven't looked at this dispute before, but from a reading of the disputed text and the quotations cited from the sources, my initial impression is that both sides here should make another try at a compromise. There is some connotation in the word "warned", the way the sentence is written, which fails to make it clear enough that this was an allegation from "the dead past", during the immediate aftermath of the Jim Jones suicide. I suppose if it happened today people would be lambasting it under "notnews". I don't believe we should omit news coverage, but we really have to work hard to clarify the context. Normally "claimed" is a WTA, but here I see multiple sources using that word, to distance themselves from the allegation, and I'm thinking it is in this case more appropriate than "warned". I have the impression that these are more or less disgruntled ex employees, the Larry Sangers of Rewat's group, and if so any bias that might affect their POV should be discernable.

In any case, please, do not delete the source citation itself. There has to be some sentence you can write out of that Washington Post source, or even another sentence to stick it onto, which will maintain it for readers to look up and make their own judgments. Loss of sources is a sure sign that deletionism has gone too far.

I made an edit to illustrate what I had in mind [7] - I don't plan to hang out on this article or fight to keep this version; I'm just putting it up as my idea. Wnt (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Wnt (and it's not often I say that); my feeling too was that it was the wording that was at fault, rather than the inclusion of the item. I would have preferred a wording that referred to the intense loyalty both leaders inspired in their followers, and how that led to the comparison. But I actually think Wnt's edit is a decent stab at solving this. Most of all, I do not think the issue is such a huge deal one way or the other. AndreasKolbe JN466 22:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• I apologise for the delay in a volunteer picking up this dispute. As I have mediated the Prem Rawat disputes on and off over the years, I felt it appropriate that it be looked at by a fresh pair of eyes. Am I correct in stating that this issue is still open and requiring assistance? If so, please let me know and I will look into it further. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes.See here. Thanks.PatW (talk) 22:37, 21 October 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

• High-fructose corn syrup and health (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Davey1107 (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

This request is for advice on whether sections I wrote adhere to Wikipedia guidelines, and whether it is thought they belong in this article. I am trying to include pertinent, sourced, objective information on a health topic that is political and controversial, and find that my contributions are being entirely eliminated using illegitimate excuses (not important, studies shouldn't be included, etc.)

I'd love some feedback regarding how I can make these sections iron-clad in terms of policy.

The article is high-fructose corn syrup and health. It has been attacked by both pro- and anti-advocates and wrecked so that it reads like a pamphlet. I want to include:

1. The findings from the 2009 American Medical Association report to Congress specifically examining health effects of HFCS 2. Information about a 2010 Princeton Study. It is newsworthy, and it is highly likely that a reader might go to Wikipedia to get information about this. I have sourced the material and presented two opposing points of view, making sure to summarize that the study did not change the opinion of the medical community. 3. USDA dietary guidelines regarding HFCS and added sugars. These directly relate to health and HFSC and represent current U.S. government guidelines and recommendations. This is the most important thing to include in this article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

My sections have been repeatedly deleted using thin excuses. The other parties won't message me about concerns...they find one word they don't like and delete everything I've done.

How do you think we can help?

Give some general advice. Do you think the three sections (AMA recommendation, Princeton study, USDA Guideline) belong? All, some, none? Is there biased or unnecessary info? What would you cut/add/leave? As a writer, I want this article to be useful, informative and accurate while remaining objective.

Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. I'm a third party volunteer. DRN requires extensive discussion before bringing a dispute to the noticeboard. The talk page discussion began yesterday on 19 October. Although I understand your concerns, keep in mind that the noticeboard is not a substitute for talk pages--SGCM (talk) 20:29, 20 October 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

• Thảo luận:Chiến tranh Việt Nam

Users involved

• Saboche (talk · contribs)
• DNH (talk · contribs)
• Soranto (talk · contribs)
• Maraka (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

At September 1, 2012 IP 118.71.4.68 suggests replacing Vietnam Mural picture by another picture. At September 18, 2012, I used Soranto account to replace Vietnam Mural picture by Vietnam Sides picture created by me on Vietnam War Summary because I thought Vietnam Mural picture only presents America side but there are 4 sides in Vietnam war. Some other members didn’t agree with me so we made a discussion on this topic at Vietnam War Talk Page (Vietnamese version). The discussion started at September 13, 2012 then closed at October 2, 2012. Other members didn’t present the suitable reason to replace Vietnam Sides picture by the old Vietnam Mural picture so we still used Vietnam Sides picture.

At October 10, 2012, I created Saboche account to replace Soranto account because Soranto account was hacked. At that time the discussion on picture at Vietnam War Summary had finished at October 2, 2012.

At October 13, 2012 I started a discussion on picture of Vietnam War Summary at Vietnam War talk page because some other members continue want to replace Vietnam Sides picture by Vietnam Mural picture. At this time I used Saboche account because I lost control Soranto account. In the discussion I just said “There are 2 sides, each side has 2 sub side . The Soranto’s picture is very suitable. It presents 2 sides, each side has 2 sub side. Why we have to turn back to the old picture ?” I said that because I think Vietnam Sides picture is suitable and the owner of the picture is Soranto account so I have to use “Soranto’s picture” to call the picture.

At October 14, 2012 the member named Vô tư lự requested DHN administrator checked Saboche account because he doubted Saboche is a sock puppetry of Soranto. DHN discovered that Soranto and Saboche is logged in from one computer. DHN concluded that Saboche is the sock puppetry of Soranto. He immediately blocked Soranto and Saboche infinitively. The reason for his action is Saboche was created to make an illusion of support.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

At October 15, 2012, I requested DHN to remove blocking Soranto and Saboche and started a discussion about this problem at Saboche's talk page. I presented all evidences to prove that I was not guilty as I’m presenting to you but DHN denied removing blocking Soranto and Saboche. He talked that he didn’t care the fact that I had lost control Soranto before I created Saboche account. He talked that’s my bussiness so he didn’t want to consider.

How do you think we can help?

Now I have only one choice that is to make an Amendment request to Arbitration Committee. I hope arbitrator will remove blocking Saboche and Soranto account.

• (Non-administrator comment)This is entirely a Vietnamese Wikipedia matter, the editor filing this issue here has been contacted by an admin on their en.WP talk page and told so at 6:16 21 October but continued to post about their vi.WP issue (maybe being blocked for socking?...not sure) in various en.WP venues since, with the last post (at this time) being 7:17. Shearonink (talk) 07:43, 21 October 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

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

Users involved

• Yoga Mat (talk · contribs)
• CorrectKnowledge (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am having rather a frustrating time introducing your policies to a topic that unsurprisingly attracts a lot of fans who can be quite quick to revert other peoples edits - sometimes correctly - sometimes a bit nit-picky - but generally without any spirit of cooperation or any will or desire to work on forming a consensus. The actions of this user seem quite aggressive in their editing of this topic - eg. making lots of changes in quick succession over extended periods which makes collaboration unduly difficult and appears to be quite unfriendly and uncooperative - also posting unnecessary warning notices on my User talk page about edit warring, possibly to intentionally intimidate me. I am not interested in battling people about "what is yoga?" or redacting anyone's efforts since the article is fairly mature and good. I just want to make the introduction balanced and comprehensive enough to accommodate all the main points in the article - not the points that might be in the head of one particularly enthusiastic editor. I am clear that this dispute is not about yoga, it's about Wikipedia policies on writing a good lede for the subject in question.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Added issue to topic talk page. Added notice to lede section inviting discussion and call to improve lede quality. Investigated possible sock puppetry - inconclusive - requires further specialist, expert investigation.

How do you think we can help?

I would appreciate some advice as to how to deal with this sort of irritating annoyance since I just want to make the leader of the article more balanced and in accordance with Wikipedia policy, there seems to be no appetite for discussion and my interest in making the top part of the article better is being eroded by what I think is persistent, uncharitable behavior, and an agenda that only seems to crowd out Wikipedias own standards.

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

• Calamba, Laguna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• P199 (talk · contribs)
• WikiCalambenyo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:WikiCalambenyo keeps on reverting my edits in one shot without any explanation. I try to improve the article in line with existing WP policies and guidelines, but it seems WikiCalambenyo is acting like the article's owner. I have tried to reach out to this user through his talk page and the article's talk page, but no replies. Now I'm bringing the issue here because undoing his reversals will make it seem I'm breaking the WP:3RR rule.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to reach out to this user through WikiCalambenyo talk page and the article's talk page, but no replies.

How do you think we can help?

Either try to get User:WikiCalambenyo to engage in discussion, or provide 3rd party opinion on the issue.

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

• Windows 8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs)
• Codename Lisa (talk · contribs)
• SudoGhost (talk · contribs)
• Jasper Deng (talk · contribs)
• A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs)
• 59.182.32.7 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Windows 8 has been plagued with notable criticism with coverage from reliable sources (primarily revolving its new interface, secure boot, the Windows Store, etc.). Despite Wikipedia policy dictating that an article most reflect all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, Codename Lisa has asserted that because a section devoted to criticism of a subject is "usually miscellaneous", it means that it falls under the scope of WP:TRIVIA because, even when divided in sections (like how the criticism of Windows Vista is, which was also notable for some key issues), they being considered to be a "list of miscellaneous information" and thus, not allowed. By lacking any reference to these important and very relevant issues, the article, aside from the secure boot section (which some think put undue weight on free sofrware supporters), is engineered to be pro-Microsoft propaganda which glosses over its issues.

Long discussions have been held on the talk page regarding the relevance of its criticism, but it desperately needs more opinions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None

How do you think we can help?

We need firm considerations on what is considered to legitimately be "trivia", and we need a way to deal with the criticism in a manner that is consistent with our guidelines.

Hi.

I have no problem with criticism in general; in fact I have said "you can find well-organized reception sections; well, since they are not purely criticism (potentially POV) and are not miscellaneous, they are okay." What I disagree with is "unorganized fragments of criticism gathered from around". A heap of undue sentences does not gain due weight because of its shear volume. (There is no such thing as legitimate trivia.) Fragmented criticism with due weight must be merged into the rest of the article.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no issue with reliably sourced, unbiased, appropriate criticism. The issue is with criticism for the sake of having it, placed in a "Criticism" section. Negative content should be integrated into the appropriate sections instead of awkwardly thrown together into its own WP:UNDUE section. - SudoGhost 20:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

At first thought, criticism is not trivia. However, I feel that 1 - it's undue weight to elaborate on secure boot concerns any more than what we have now (there was a large discussion on this, and consensus was in favor of the current mention of it), and 2 - reception is not really proper until Windows 8 is released (1 week from now, we can wait). I previously reverted the OP of this thread because of concerns about the amount of weight given to secure boot concerns.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• First, we're not supposed to include criticism sections in any article. Any criticism (which is well-sourced and appropriate) should be integrated into the article text.
• Second, it's entirely appropriate to have a reception section, and such a section should be added to the article. It could contain criticism as well as praise, depending on how Windows 8 is received by critics and the general public. The thing is that Windows 8 has not been released yet. I think it's premature to have a reception section for an unreleased product.
• Third, and perhaps most importantly, things are about to drastically change. On Tuesday (Oct 23), Microsoft lifts the restrictions on reviews of the Surface (Microsoft's tablet), and on Friday (Oct 26), Windows 8 will be released to the general public. IOW, beginning within the next week or two, we will be inundated with many high quality sources on which to write a reception section. I suggest everyone chill out and wait for Windows 8 to be released. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Windows 8 is just coming out. Obviously there will be more information coming out soon. I've done a brief search for criticisms of the coming OS, and have found few. Most of the ones I found were not entirely clear. I did found this interesting article discussing complaints from game developers. [8] I think this might be worth including. If people can find some serious, clear criticisms, and I'm sure some will surface after the release of the OS, then definitely include it in the article. Trivial criticism, criticisms that are not widely reported, should not be included. My suggestion is to find serious criticisms, or if there isn't much, wait a week or so for them to surface. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Purely as an informational note I will direct the reader to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive1 where similar concerns of pro-Microsoft coverage have been expressed against at least two of the editors involved here. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC).

Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. I'm a third party volunteer who frequents the noticeboard. Waiting on the opening comments.--SGCM (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticism by reliable sources should belong in the article, but dedicated criticism sections are discouraged because of NPOV concerns. Reception sections are fine, as long as they are presented impartially and with due weight. Although it's true that WP:TRIVIA technically doesn't apply, the principle of neutrality and due weight does. However, as Jasper Deng and A Quest For Knowledge have pointed out, Windows 8 is a few days away from release, so a detailed Reception section is premature, as per WP:CRYSTAL. Wait a few days, and they'll be plenty of articles available for writing a neutral Reception section, including both criticism and praise. --SGCM (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the opening statements, it's apparent that there is a strong consensus to include a reception section instead of a criticism section, and only after the product has been released, a consensus that I concur with. Unless there are any further objections, this case should be closed as Resolved.--SGCM (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

@Crispmuncher. Welcome to DRN. Concerns over user conduct pertaining multiple articles should be brought to WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI. Not going to comment on the allegations being made, but it's not something that DRN is equipped to handle. --SGCM (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If there are no further comments, this case will be closed within 24 hours.--SGCM (talk) 19:03, 23 October 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.

< span style="font-size:110%">Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Attribution of recent climate change (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mhannigan (talk · contribs)
• William_M._Connolley (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Added long-term climate change data which is necessary to provide context for short term data, which this page is missing entirely. The article contains only data that supports anthropogenic attributions. The editor who has reverted my change (twice because I was still editing when reverted the first time), seems to have a history of removing valid data from this page if it doesn't support anthropogenic causes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive justification for adding the data on the talk page. Response from other party is simply that the information is "obviously" not relevant, but offers no reason.

How do you think we can help?

Please look at the change I made. It simply references a single set of data that shows the levels of temperature, CO2,and aerosol (dust) over the long term. It is offered as context. Please provide an objective opinion of whether the contextual data is inappropriate or relevant.

Note that the state of the discussion just-before-this-DR-opened was [9].

Subsequent to the DR opening two other editors have pointed out to Mh that his addition doesn't look good. Escalating this to DR so early looks wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I am a bit concerned about the limited efforts that have been made to reach consensus on the article talk page. Would everyone concerned by willing to go back and spend a few days trying to reach an agreement? We can always reopen this case if the discussion fails. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I agree this is premature. Three other editors seem to have given opinions in the last few hours and I suspect that is enough to form a consensus. Suggest close for now --BozMo talk 09:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Any objections? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No, fire ahead and close it. Discussion at the page has started. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 23 October 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

• Pi Kappa Alpha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs)
• Fat&Happy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Pi Kappa Alpha received world wide attention over butt chugging incident which can easily be located on Google. There was coverage by mainstream in great details by outlets including CBS and CNN. The article has a table for "notable alumni" and such, but no section on notable incidents.

I have started a RfC and there's no clear consensus. So how does it work here when there's a disagreement on adding something? There's no consensus on leaving it out vs adding it. I added it initially but was removed immediately by Fat & Happy. There's been more coverage in the press since then. This is where it was removed [10]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

RfC, talk page.

How do you think we can help?

To advise if its alright if I go ahead and add it or if I need to wait until consensus is reached.

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

• The Disney Afternoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Digifan23 (talk · contribs)
• Doniago (talk · contribs)
• 207.235.163.2 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

there are rumors of The Disney Afternoon "coming back" in 12/2012 these rumors where (most likly) started on YouTube (witch we all know is unreliable)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

explained it to them

How do you think we can help?

not sure

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

• MMR vaccine controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SkepticalRaptor (talk · contribs)
• MistyMorn (talk · contribs)
• Tenofalltrades (talk · contribs)
• McSly (talk · contribs)
• IR Wolfie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am worried that some of the content in the opening is potentially libelous regarding Andrew Wakefield, a living individual. The individual is not popular and has attempted previous libel actions which have not gone to trial. I have tried to discuss this on the talk page but other editors have focused on reverting rather than engaging.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted to encourage collaberation and discussion, used BDR approach with suitable breaks

How do you think we can help?

Adjudicate a 'safe state' for the article to remain in, while debate continues

This is malformed, and by an edit warring IP where the discussion that has taken place has demonstrated that there is a consensus for the material to stay in the article. I suggest it be closed. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie's statement seems spot on to me -- anon IP/SPA edit warrior and an odd malformed DR request. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:36, 24 October 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

• Australian Christian Lobby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Grotekennis (talk · contribs)
• Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs)
• Freikorp (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

What is going on ? Continuing 'creative paraphrasing', deletions and rewordings which are not in conformity with WP:PG. Refer to the audit trail at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Christian_Lobby&action=history

What is the issue for dispute resolution ? On the article Talk Page I have detailed my concerns and have made polite offers to try resolve the issues - without success.

The relevant article Talk Page discussion starts at: Talk:Australian_Christian_Lobby#Concern_about_alleged_complete_bias.2C_factual_correctness.2C_violation_of_NPOV.2C_bold_edits_and_consensus-building. The responses are characterised by repeated, inadequately explained, article revisions.

Two examples of the problems are observable at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Christian_Lobby&diff=518282498&oldid=518271777

For the first example: The (repeated) insertion of the para > "It should be noted . . " is contested. The 5 references cited, contain no mention of the Australian Christian Lobby. The para is obviously intended to 'advance a position'.

This badly undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Editor Freikorp has tried to mediate. I thank him for that. He had requested a consensus opinion on a the original source for the introductory para. Refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#trowelandsword.org.au The consensus was, to use a self-published source WP:SELFSOURCE for the introductory 'about themselves' para. In the second (latest revison) example: A simple sentence (14 words) is yet again deleted.

How do you think we can help?

To assist in resolving these problems, I will focus on two issues. Considering the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Christian_Lobby&diff=518282498&oldid=518271777

1 Is the source cited, and the sentence itself, commencing, "The ACL claims . . . ." acceptable ?

2 Is the insertion of an opinion-paragraph, "It should be noted . . . ." acceptable ?

Firstly my COI declaration. I do not like the ACL, I am morally opposed to their views on many things, such as homosexuality. I have added many criticism of the ACL to the article (always attempting to adhere to guidelines while doing so of course.) Sam56mas and I have had many disagreements over this article.

I tend to agree with all his concerns here however. I am bothered by what I would also describe as 'creative paraphrasing'. I am also bothered by the inclusion of many references that do not mention the ACL, added by Grotekennis. Whilst I personally agree with Grotekennis's apparent opinion that the ACL have twisted facts etc, Grotekennis doesn't seem to understand that wikipedia is not an opinion article, and that you cannot build a paragraph criticising the ACL using references that do not mention them.

I am not opposed to an introduction paragraph that uses the ACL's own website of a reference, as per TheRedPenOfDooms comments at this RSN discussion. Freikorp (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Saluts. Examinating the dispute, i see two main issues to be solved: (1) the writing style being used in the article; and (2) the use of several sources to back up statements that are not directly in relation/or make any mention of the subject, the ACL. Lets go one by one. (1) is about how the article should be written. Well, it should adhere to Wikipedia policies and I believe that "It should be noted..." and similar ones are not of encyclopedic quality and therefore unacceptable. Also, to answer one of the first questions: using first-party sources to introduce a subject is often useful and a good practice if you keep in mind that, when doing so, you have to write such information with a neutral point of view. As an example, you can use a first party source to state: "Microsoft is an american software manufacturer based in Boston and founded in 1975 by Bill Gates."; you can't use a first party source to back up this claim: "Microsoft became the world's largest company in 1987." You need a reliable, third party source for that, even if the Microsoft site says so. So, let's evaluate and assess first the sriting style, and then get into the reliability and selection of sources. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 12:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If we cannot get all the parties to come together to discuss the debate, we cannot help. I intend to mark this as "Failed" 24 hours from now as we've only had one editor come forward with this issue. Hasteur (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am another volunteer on DR/N and I agree.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I will leave a message on the involved parties talk page so they come back here again. of the don't, then we shall close this. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think there has been POV comments and edits on both sides of the isle, this is a conflict ridden article and needs to be approached with WP's guidelines on encyclopedic contributions. For issue (1), the opening "It should be noted..." is an assertion of opinion and therefore unencyclopedic. However, if its rephrased as "This person (insert name) noted...", that would adhere to guidelines if the comment will improve the topic. For (2), the sources need to mention ACL or its affiliates related to the topic being discussed. Wikipedias guidelines on sources are very clear on this point.Righteousskills (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm still certainly interested in resolving these issues. I couldn't help but notice Dominus Vobisdu said he wasn't interested in this discussion, and the only other editor opposing these concerns has a bit of a habit of not replying to messages, so I'm not surprised he hasn't joined in here yet. This is kind of helpful in the sense this means these changes can probably go ahead unopposed now, since nobody can be bothered giving their opinion against them. Freikorp (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not had time to take part in this, but I believe I've explained myself quite well in both edit summaries and on the article talk page in regard to the matters at hand. Additionally I feel that this should be sorted out on the article talk page. --Grotekennis (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I am very determined that these matters be properly resolved. Sam56mas (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, obviously, there is one ruling that comes out of this discussion and from several Wikipedia guidelines: If a source does not mention or treat the topic in a notable way, then such source should be removed. So, all of the sources that have been added to the article and do not talk about the ACl should be removed and the content it was supposedly supported, removed too. Othe reditorial matters about the writing style should be held on the article's talk page. Are we all okay with this? — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree and thank you for your work. Sam56mas (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Then, I will close this discussion and follow further events at the talk page. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:21, 25 October 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:Misha B (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jennie--x (talk · contribs)
• Zoeblackmore (talk · contribs)
• Sionk (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We are having trouble deciding how to document a controversy on the Misha B article. During her time on The X Factor, she was accused of bullying and me and other editors are disagreeing on how to include the events with compliance to BLP guidelines.

Sionk's most recent proposal: "Bryan became subject of a controversy during a live show in week three when judge Tulisa accused the singer of making "mean comments" and judge Walsh a "bully" backstage. Both later apologised. However, judge Gary Barlow later said he believed the wrongful allegations had ended Bryan's chances of winning the contest."

Zoeblackmore's most recent proposal: "Bryan became subject of a controversy during a live show in week three when judge Tulisa accused the singer of making "mean comments" and judge Walsh a "bully" backstage. Both later apologised. The other two panel members and several contestants leapt to Bryan’s defence.^[4] Judge Gary Barlow later said he believed the wrongful allegations had ended Bryan's chances of winning the contest, "You have been wrongfully accused in the past of being someone that you are not."^[5] However good Bryan's performances were that followed the damage was done, she never recovered from the accusation. ^[6][7][8]..."

(own view) Personally, I support Sionk's proposal as I think that dealing with this controversy it would be best to document the events, rather than opinions, as this damages the neutrality of documenting the conflict. Previous attempts of including this conflict have been removed for these issues and I think that the issue needs addressing in a succinct and neutral way. —Jennie | ☎ 21:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the article talk page.

See also

• Talk:Misha_B/Archive_1#Bias_about_bullying
• Talk:Misha_B/Archive_2#UNDUE

UPDATE: The current issue seems to have been resolved on the Talk page. Sionk (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

Decide which proposal would be best to include.

In the First Place I don't think it should be covered at all. But if it is, then it must be covered that clearly shows a NPOV.

SHOULD IT BE INCLUDED

What is said on a reality TV series by celebrities (in the spirit of making headlines & publicity) & subject to a UK gutter press media circus should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Each year X Factor labels contestants as bullies, rebels, underdogs, diva's its all part of the script.

Surely "Accusations" on "reality shows" are not of actual biographical value & irrelevant for Wikipedia.

The remains absolutely no verifiable evidence about her bullying on the show, in fact the is very strong evidence of the opposite, if it did not happen then why raise it?

It is too controversial & unreliable to be included on someone's biography page.

If B had been accused by someone of a crime to which the was no evidence or no witnesses, the main accuser apologies the next day & all the witnesses say she was innocent would a reputable source still print the story?

What makes her notable for Wikipedia now is not the X factor at all. It is becoming less relevant to this artists notability .e.g. one editor here put her several month competition history under a drop down menu on the page..another editor actively prevented an article before her first single because the events on xfactor where deemed not notable enough.

I doubt whether it should be even covered on the XFactor 8 page.

IF IT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED

Just because a false allegation by a celebrity is verifiable from a reality TV show, does not mean Wikipedia should cover it & disregard NPOV record of the event.

Practically all the attempts to include the saga by other editors up so far have been one sided, based on unreliable UK tabloid new reports (not reliable sources for controversial events)

To briefly mention just the widely believed (but false) accusation would merely gives the false accusation & rumours undue weight, & is likely seriously mislead the the unknowing reader... the reader is likely to consider that accusation was true. Wikipedia states she was accused of bullying = the must be truth behind it, nothing here says she didn't”. Mud sticks. The reader can only make fair NPOV judgement if all the authoritative facts are presented. .

If one side of a controversial accusation is raised, then you need to present the other, with equal weight & space. Where the is very strong, more authoritative verifiable evidence that this was a wrongful accusation, then it should be given more space.

If all the potential victims & witnesses denied it happened then a record of their statements is relevant and important in recording a NPOV report of the saga?

The quote from Barlow "You have been wrongfully accused in the past of being someone that you are not.... I don't think you can win this competition because of that & that's a real shame"  is authoritative as the reports of the original accusations by Walsh & Tulisa.

COMPROMISE

However I am very tired on the constant battling I have had on this issue over the last 4 months

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_38#Misha_B.2C_Talk:Misha_B
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive161#Misha_B
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive159#Talk:Misha_B_.26_Misha_B (twice)
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misha_B/Archive_2 UNDUE SECTION ...forget how to link
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misha_B/Archive_1 Bias about bullying , Why does the Misha article read like a magazine article? & Too much information and way too biased....

........and so I am willing to compromise.

Bryan was involved in a controversy during the third live show when judge Tulisa Contostavlos accused her of making "mean comments" and judge Louis Walsh accused her of being a "bully" backstage. Both later apologised. The other two panel members and several contestants defended Bryan during and after the show. Judge Gary Barlow later said he believed the wrongful allegations had ended Bryan's chances of winning the competition.

which needs to be written to fit Guy Macon (talk) recommendation below When dealing with TV reality shows, the concept of "reporting events" needs to be approached with care. The "events" you see on your TV set are edited to show a certain story. Because of this, when possible use language like "In episode three, viewers saw John argue with Mary" or "John was shown arguing with Mary" rather than "John argued with Mary".

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(other editor's comment) I'm pleased that you are willing to compromise, however, I have issues with your statements above. It is and will remain your opinion that the events never happened, as previously shown on the talk page, we found sources written that suggest that the events may well have and Wikipedia isn't the place to vindicate anybody against any claims (unless it is said explicitly somewhere). Similarly, you can't criticize other editors' documentation of events, when yours (still found here) contains sources from "Telly mix" and a parody Twitter account, I see no problem with any of the current sources me or any other editor is using. Accusations are of biographical value, as shown at WP:WELLKNOWN, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Bryan chose The X Factor as the platform to begin her career as a recording artist and later said the allegations caused her to lose the competition, it would seem strange not to include them. Just because something isn't notable enough to start an article doesn't mean it shouldn't be included, by that premise we should also remove her Early life section. —Jennie | ☎ 16:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Jennie Is this right place on this dispute board to reply or should it be in the discussion? Volunteer DRN admins is it ok to reply here or should it be moved below?

"Yes it remains my firm "opinion" that the events did not happen, from the first day the accusation happened I have been looking at the event, I have looked at every article I can find...however trashy and unreliable upwards and I have not seen any evidence that it had. With all the camera's following the contestants and TV crew around them X factor would have lept upon the spectacle. The senior series stylist said it did not happen. The is even evidence that the teenage hopeful was not even warned about the accusation before it was splurted out by Walsh on live TV. Wikipedia is not a record of gutter press or trash gossip mags. I would be interested in seeing your reliable sources. Who was the supposed victim..??

I wrote that piece you refer to because if it had to exist then I thought best I did it, so I could tell both sides of the story...as the previous versions were one sided. The have been many editors demanding it, often in aggressive ways. So it was a compromise and an attempt at NPOV, despite my own personal opinion. However originally it was too wordy and overshadowed the early page. It existed on Misha B's page for a while. I was very glad when a couple of BLP editors suggested strongly that it should be removed. The previous versions on the X Factor 8 page were also one sided ...which i updated...but I would have liked the version on the X factor 8 page be removed all together, but the was at least one senior members/admin there liked it and I have only been a editor for 4 months. The main thing for me it was off the Misha's Bio page.

As I am a newish editor (circa 4 months) I was and I am still learning about quality sources, and recognising blogs ...the two bad sources you mention crept in under the wire. Tellymix I am now aware and I regret I also forgot about leaving the the twitter one (Sophie's Denial) there especially...(further I have no idea of it being a parody twitter account, if it is) ... I now see the is a Unreality TV one there too. Tut Tut. Other sources for the fellow contestants denials Metro, Standard, Huff post are as least as good as those reporting the accusation in the first place ...plus "They apologised the next night < Walsh/Tulisa>, while the other two panel members and several contestants leapt to Bryan’s defence." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/x-factor/8935329/Why-was-Misha-B-knocked-out-of-the-X-Factor.html

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN,If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article....answer No hardly, No not really, Nothing supports the allegation.

If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. ...... answer No & ?leave it out

In contrast all Wikipedia bio's of music artists have an early life section it would be rather odd to leave it out;) Bryans early life is reliably documented, not an unsupported and controversial allegation and is relevant as it describes the first steps of her career.

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As per Jennie's overview, there have been repeated attempts by a number of editors over a number of months to mention the allegation of bullying in the article, which was a notable and lasting controversy during the TV contest where Misha B was centrally involved. In contrast, one of the editors in this 'dispute' prefers to expunge all mention of the 'b' word. Bullying is a hot topic, rousing passions and I have some sympathy with this editor's concerns. However, in my view a satisfactory compromise would be to have a brief, factual mention of the allegations. Generally I can't remember any editor asking for a lengthy section about the controversy, but to have no mention gives the impression of censorship. The controversy is covered in more detail on the X_Factor_(UK_series_8) article. Sionk (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I am entirely in agreement with Jennie--x and Sionk on this. Wikimucker (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello there, I'm a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. While looking through the comments and the talk page, it does appear that this has been resolved without our intercession. Pending objections, I intend to close this in 24 hours as "Resolved". Hasteur (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Full disclosure: I have worked on several TV shows (but not X Factor) on the technical end of things. If anyone thinks I am unconsciously showing bias, please let me know and I will withdraw.

It looks like the specific issue has been resolved, but if you don't mind, I would like to cover a couple of general priniples before we close this, just so that everyone is on the same page.

When dealing with TV reality shows, the concept of "reporting events" needs to be approached with care. The "events" you see on your TV set are edited to show a certain story. Because of this, when possible use language like "In episode three, viewers saw John argue with Mary" or "John was shown arguing with Mary" rather than "John argued with Mary". Here are a couple of articles on this topic:

Serious: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1154194,00.html

Humorous: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-secrets-making-reality-tv-they-dont-want-you-to-know/

Wikipedia style: Reality television#"Reality" as misnomer

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 23 October 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

• The Australian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Skyring (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

partisan editor repeatedly deleting text and links regarding studies that have found bias in The Australian's reporting on Climate Change

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

tried talk; re-edited. skylink still insists on mis-reading and deleting references.

How do you think we can help?

review history, refences and advise on suitability of text and edits. Skylink is similarly partisan at a number of sites. I request they be asked to use talk rather than directly delete/edit anything they don't like politically.

To me, this is pretty clear cut. The material that is being added violates undue weight. There has also been very little discussion on the talk page, so I'm going to refer it back to the talk page for discussion. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:44, 25 October 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

• Stargate Season 1-5 All episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hua89 (talk · contribs)
• AussieLegend (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have been going through the Stargate SG-1 series as I watch them and have been removing the spoilers for each show. I have changed the episode summaries to still be able to know which episode is which, but have removed the spoilers for the episodes so it does not ruin the show for those who have not seen them before. I would like other people to look at the changes I have made, and then look at the other summaries and ask yourself, if you had not seen the show, would that summary not ruin it for you? If people want to do individual writeups for each episode providing every tidbit of information about that episode, then they should be able to do that. That way there is both a basic plotline for people to see without ruining the show, AND there is a section where there can be all the other info available. Thank you for your time. Josh

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have suggested that he leaves a basic summary for people who have not seen the show previously and if he wants to provide extra information on the episode, then he can link to another page that contains all other information about the episode.

How do you think we can help?

Read each of our summaries, ask yourself if that ruins the show for others who have not seen it. And then suggest to him if he wants to provide more information, to do so on another page.

Hua89 has been removing "spoilers" from the Stargate SG-1 season articles despite WP:SPOILER, which clearly states "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." This is a guideline that has wide consensus as we need to treat content encyclopaedically, not like a fansite. Use of spoilers has been discussed at length in appropriate forums,[12] and WP:TVPLOT specifically encourages spoilers. "His/her edits have quite appropriately been reverted by one other editor and Cluebot.[13][14] I've tried to explain that this is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite, both at his talk page and mine, to no avail.[15][16] Replacement of concise plot summary information with teasers, which is Hua89's method of dealing with spoilers,[17] is unencyclopaedic and therefore unacceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. AussieLegend is absolutely correct. Wikipedia rules expressly allow spoilers and do not allow content to be removed merely because it is a spoiler. (That rule also prohibits adding spoiler warnings to articles, by the way.) Removing text for that reason is a violation of policy and continuing to do it after being informed of the policy may cause you to be blocked or banned for disruptive editing. If you disagree with that policy, the proper way to proceed is to seek to have the policy changed through the procedure described in the Policy policy (not a typo), not by editing in a way that violates it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. TBrandley 02:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Even if WP:SPOILER weren't in effect, knowledge of content of episodes does not constitute a spoiler once an episode has been broadcast. After that, personal responsibility takes over. We should not have to tie this project into knots because someone expects to be able to read a detail-free summary long after an episode was broadcast (how long ago did Stargate go off the air?) Moreover, we're then left with the issue of what is and what is not a spoiler, which is wholly in the eye of the reader. Sorry, but WP:SPOILER is both appropriate to an encyclopedic standard and the only reasonable way to manage episode summaries. --Drmargi (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with their policy then and have sent a formal complaint to wiki management. There IS a solution to this and that is having BOTH a page for basic plot outlines and a link to the episode in question with further information as is shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_%28Stargate_SG-1%29 Why can't there be both? Hua89 (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER was the outcome of an extensive discussion, and represents the general consensus of the community. Although consensus can change, the discussion will have to occur on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. Sending in a formal complaint won't change the guideline.--xanchester (t) 04:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Where was it sent? (FWIW, I can't find anything in OTRS, but the above users are correct, policy long supports the inclusion of all information about a fictional subject, including plot "spoilers". Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I sent it to info-en-o@wikimedia.org. Hua89 (talk) 05:44, 25 October 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:Berber people (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dzlinker (talk · contribs)
• Iadrian yu (talk · contribs)
• JovanAndreano (talk · contribs)
• Omar-toons (talk · contribs)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs)
• Amazigh-cause (talk · contribs)
• Tachfin (talk · contribs)
• WilliamThweatt (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Users refusing proved facts of berber ancestry of ± known people. The Talk page gives more information about the made consensus.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Waiting

How do you think we can help?

third party opinion

I have reverted 2 edits by User:Dominic20 which I considered as a unexplained removal of images, some tags and infobox. I noticed afterwards by this [18] that I got in the middle of something else. I did`t intended to agree or disagree with anybody. My edits were aimed at reverting complete removal of data removed by Dominic20. Adrian (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I am not opening the thread for comments yet; Right now we are waiting for more editors to make their opening comments above. While we are waiting, I encourage you all to read the guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:34, 25 October 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

• Atlas Shrugged: Part II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lenin and McCarthy (talk · contribs)
• Rahmspeed (talk · contribs)
• Jonathan Hemlock (talk · contribs)
• DiligenceDude (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Rahmspeed, User:Jonathan Hemlock and to a lesser degree User:DiligenceDude have hijacked this article. Claiming a consensus between themselves and, according to JH, many other editors, they (JH particularly) insist on adding the Rotten Tomatoes user rating to the reception section in an apparent attempt to discredit the overwhelming negative reviews the film received. This explains why it is done no where else, but they persist, even when other film editors weigh in.[19][20]

Worrying to me is deliberately misrepresenting the significance of the user rating figure. This shows Rahm falsely claiming a user rating was something special introduced for this movie, and the less active User:DiligenceDude can be seen here falsely citing this Fox News article as referencing the user rating. I can no longer assume good faith, so I defer to resolution. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

People have tried to explain this on the talk page, to no avail. JH cites "consensus" and WP:IAR.

How do you think we can help?

It seems reasonable to assume this (call it what it is) shilling of the film is inspired by partisan politics, and consequently, I don't know what can be done in mediation. Nevertheless, I feel I can just let the situation remain as is.

I wasn't "attempting to hijack a thread." That is a is a gross mischaracterization. I was merely trying to add a properly sourced piece of pertinent information from a valid third party news source. Fox News. Wikipedia has both rules encouraging and a tradition of accepting major news outlets as verifiable, reliable sources, since these organizations have the staffing required for fact checking. If you look at my editing history, you will see that I have had NO NEXUS with the other editors that also made good faith edits, trying to add this same referenced piece of information. I'm not part of any cabal, nor am I anyone's sock puppet. I am an independent editor. I simply made the same commonsense conclusion as several other editors. I am baffled by the unwillingness of some editors to accept a properly referenced piece of pertinent information that came from a valid third party news source. DiligenceDude (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies - I just listed you because I knew you'd be part of JH's "consensus". --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:21, 26 October 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

• The Bible and slavery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• null (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

I am new wiki user, I have a roving IP. I do not understand the full ins and outs of wiki so I do need someone to look over something to make sure procedures that must be in place at wiki are forfilled.

I made a notification on the talk page 6 weeks ago that I believed this page had an Authenticty of information problem which was agreed upon with another member (see talk page).

After 6 weeks of waiting around for responses to my query about this page I decided to edit. I do not know if this is the required time to wait but I decided it was ample.

There are already notices on the page querying the neutrality of the subject matter.

I agreed with this.

With me putting the notice on the page someone put an add on to the page which states; This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. (September 2012)

I decided to start changing wording which better discribed what was going in the article belive this is (TW)(all new terminology I am using).

This tinkering brought people to the page to change back what I was changing. See Page History

They are saying that dictionary defintions and enyclopedias are (OR) but checking on the (OR) page I find this to be Teritory Sources which the page says is ample to edit with.

I also believe I do not need (OR) because as with 'Paris is in france' does not need a ref, then changing this word becuase it is used in the dictionaries and enclyclopedias does not need (OR) either.

I have been attacked by a sock-puppet trying to make these changes (see talk page), and now the page is locked from making changes.

I believe there is a deeper motivation going on here then protecting wiki as to protect one faith.

I believe this page is starting to become a blot on the wiki landscape, with the persons who look after the page refusing to not acknowledge the attrocites made to women in the time of Classical Antiquity because it may damage the perception of a particular religion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have been using the talk page for 6 weeks and people in my opinion do not understand the Philosophy of Language.

The talk page where I have notified people of my understanding of the page is now coming under attack.

Currently taking a Master of Philsophy course (MPhil) at a top 100 University

How do you think we can help?

I need a third person to look over this dispute and make a decision (being a new user) I do not know the full ins and outs of wiki protocols and ettiquettes.

As a user without a name or fixed IP I would like the findings, if possible to be put on the talk page.

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

• Windows Server 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Codename Lisa (talk · contribs)
• Jasper Deng (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am concerned about the meaning of the cell colors in Editions table of Windows Server 2012 article. I feel the colors at the top section are completely meaningless.

At the bottom, the green color is used for "Yes"(meaning that the feature is present), the red is used for "No" (meaning that the feature is absent) and yellow is used for "Partial" (meaning that the feature is present only to some extents). But at the top, silvery gray, light red, green, cyan and yellow are used but they are meaningless. For example why the term "unlimited" is sometimes green and sometimes cyan? Why some numbers are light red and some are yellow?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I discovered that we have a dispute over the cell colors. Normally, this is not even considerable but in this case, it took me a while.

How do you think we can help?

We need to establish a guideline for using color guidance in editions table of Windows Server 2012 article. Every color must have an indisputable meaning. I am open to negotiation and I think mediation is what is needed.

This color-coding scheme is used in other Windows edition comparison articles. I feel that if there's still a licensing limitation on a feature it should not be marked as a full yes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I can find no prior discussion, much less extensive discussion, of this issue at the article talk page or on either editor's user talk page. Such discussion is a prerequisite to obtaining dispute resolution services. Perhaps I'm just overlooking it, however. Could one or the other of you please give a link to that discussion? Please note that discussion via edit summaries cannot satisfy that requirement. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, TransporterMan

A discussion has indeed taken place but I have suppressed a link to it to allow for a more peaceful conversation here. Please remember that Wikipedia laws are not written on stone; I will never intentionally open a DRN discussion only because I am too lazy to discuss it in talk page beforehand. I will reveal the discussion if it proved necessary.

Hello, Jasper

So, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a good reason. If it is proven that the use of color is indeed not scientifically justifiable, we will reconsider all affected articles. Would you be so kind to tell me the meaning of each of the colors, all of which seem to mean "partially"?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Scientifically? This isn't science (and OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not applicable here and isn't my reason). We use different colors to indicate various degrees of partiality, with green being truly unlimited, blue being unlimited but with licensing restrictions, {{partial}} and {{no2}} to indicate two degrees of partiality (for example, 2 physical processors in Essentials is better than 1 in Foundation, but are both worse than Standard and Datacenter, but Standard and Datacenter are restricted by licensing, while Essentials and Foundation are not).--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jasper

Skipping the conceptual dispute over what is "scientific", I simply do not agree with haphazard varying degree of difference. So, tell me, why number 1 is painted yellow in one cell but red in the other? Why limitations on users is painted red in one cell and yellow in another? It seems there is an arbitrary user limit in both. Besides, why did you paint a cell containing 64 in cyan? This seems to violate your own rule of "limited only by license". Naturally, the 64 limitation is arbitrary, not by license. Finally, when I read the source, it seems all inbound connection to a Standard/Datacenter edition of the server needs a CAL, so it seems the two Unlimited cells (green) must also be painted cyan.

You said "This color-coding scheme is used in other Windows edition comparison articles". This looks like pretty much WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST to me.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(OTHERSTUFFEXIST only applies in deletion discussions). 64 is limited by license because you need 1 license per pair. Yes, anything that needs a CAL should be blue. --Jasper Deng (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There is no mention of the word "License" or "CAL" is source 41, so no it shouldn't. And you left the rest unanswered. Overall, one cannot write a color guide for this table. Colors don't have a meaning associated with them. (And every rational person knows that "other stuff exist" is a bad argument. e.g. "let's cheat; others cheat" or "let's steal it; there are 50 robberies each day".) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a valid comparison, thus OTHERSTUFFEXIST does not apply here. Colors do have meaning associated with them - green meaning + or red meaning - . Other intermediate colors indicate intermediates. I don't know how much more clear I could be.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: I'm going to AGF and accept your statement about a prior discussion and refrain from closing this listing, but let me suggest that many DR volunteers, myself included, want to review the prior discussion as part of their decision whether or not to help with a dispute and, if they do decide to do so, also as part of their preparation for working on the case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(there was no prior discussion).--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, TransporterMan. It was I who said there was a past discussion and I stand by it (despite Jasper Deng's comment). Thanks for assuming good faith. If you must have a discussion, you will find one above. We are awaiting your mediation. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am another dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Unless I see convincing evidence of extensive prior discussion in the next 24 hours, I will close this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. May I remind you that the object of this forum is to provide a peaceful place for discussion in presence of mediation? If I feel that revealing the past discussion is deterrent to this objective, I will not reveal it. (Although the discussion is not hidden; you can find it easily.) Remember, Wikipedia rules are not written on stone; exceptions are allowed. Now, if you must have a discussion, look above. You will find one.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sir Charles James Napier (1782-1853), British Commander-in-Chief in India, once said the following:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

In like manner, if you feel that revealing the past discussion is a deterrent to dispute resolution, you are free to not reveal it. And then I will close the discussion because of lack of prior discussion. You may follow your custom. And then I will follow ours. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, this is not a situation where IAR may be invoked. Prior discussion means on the talk page of the article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

As I write this, it is roughly 2 hours from the time I will close it. Perhaps it might help if I explained why we require talk page discussion. Assume for a moment that there are four or five editors who have Windows Server 2012 on their watch list and who have a strong interest in the topic of cell colors. What Codename Lisa is asking us to do is to discuss the cell colors here on WP:DRN where they won't see the discussion, and then to allow undiscussed changes to be made to the article based solely on a discussion conducted somewhere else. That's not fair, and it's not how we do things here. Also, I simply don't believe Codename Lisa. Wherever this alleged discussion supposedly took place, it does not show on Codename Lisa's edit history. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's because Codename Lisa thought that the above discussion was sufficient, and that IAR applies, which it does not.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have an alternative theory. My theory is that when Codename Lisa wrote "Although the discussion is not hidden; you can find it easily", he/she was not telling the truth. I certainly could not find it. The 24 hours are up, so I am closing this. If Codename Lisa wishes to reveal where this alleged discussion took place I will add a not here saying that my theory was wrong. Closing now. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 28 October 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

• Saxophone#Uses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:Hstokar (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:Saxophilist (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hstokar (talk · contribs)
• Saxophilist (talk · contribs)
• Eliotgattegno (talk · contribs)
• Le Saxophone (talk · contribs) (added by Gyrofrog (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC))

Dispute overview

In the middle of this article there is a list of repertoire for saxophone. I have added missing major contemporary works that keep being removed by Saxophilist. On the talk pages Saxophilist keeps using the word 'standard' to refer to what works should be included here. Standard is subjective. Saxophilist has not even heard of the composers whose works I am trying to add and only offered derogatory comments about one - Xenakis.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk pages - of the article and on talk pages of Hstokar and Saxophilist

How do you think we can help?

To rectify I would like to suggest that ALL of the 'repertoire' be moved to separate page(s) - where anyone/everyone can add repertoire and this becomes less subjective. For one writer to control what is on a short list is simply not right by wiki standards (would be fine on his/her own personal web page).

Hello, the pieces that he is trying to add to the article are not standards in the repertoire. A lot the ones he tried to add are experimental and are only played by very few musicians. I asked a university saxophone professor and he said he's only familiar with 2 of hstokar's pieces. Also, the list on Saxophone should be kept to 25 pieces, as to stop it from getting too long and to stop people from just adding their favorite concerto or such. Also, the quartet list needs to be kept to 10 pieces. I suggested last week that a new article be created entitled "Saxophone repertoire", where people could add any piece of the saxophone repertoire that they can think of. I know that the violin has a similar page for repertoire, and I'm sure other instruments do as well. Saxophilist (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, who is eliotgattegno? I suspected he was a sock-puppet of hstokar, but I could be mistaken. Look at his edits, they are exactly the same a hstokar's. Saxophilist (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. The contested section has no citations. The composition of the list must be supported by reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, the list may qualify as original research.--xanchester (t) 05:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

@Saxophilist. Welcome to DRN. Concerns over sock puppetry should be brought to WP:SPI. This noticeboard focuses on content disputes.--xanchester (t) 05:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I just added some references. I could get some more from some other classical saxophonist's lists if you want. Saxophilist (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Along the lines of Xanchester's comment, I believe WP:Source list trumps all other concerns. But given that guideline, I don't see why this couldn't be split to a stand-alone list (as Cassianto has already suggested). I've left more comments at Talk:Saxophone. Also, Le Saxophone (talk · contribs) should have been included on the list of involved users (I have just added the account to the list, and left a notification for the user). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The editors are now working together on building List of concert works for saxophone. This case will be closed as resolved within 24 hours.--xanchester (t) 08:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have assessed the problems and reversions HStokar is having. HStokar wants to add more Saxophonic works to a list that is already far too long to be in a prose based article. Saxophilist is regulating that lists length by not expanding on it any more. HStokar keeps adding the information and it is being deleted by Saxophilist for the reasons already given. I am happy this dispute is not personal and there are no OWN issues by either editor. I have suggested to HStokar here that, IMO, the ugly bulleted lists could do with being pulled out of the main article altogether and a new, more detailed article, can be created which focuses on Saxophone works only. This list article can then be as detailed and exhaustive as the creators like but must be backed up with reliable citations obviously. I have pointed the user in the direction of how to create a list article and have warned him of his 3rr and his alledged sock puppetry issues. I believe that these breaches were far from sinister and were merely a desperate attempt to add, what he believed was, very important information, which would benefit the reader. I have posted on Saxophilists talk page and will wait to hear a response from both editors. -- Cassianto^Talk 12:22, 26 October 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:Barefoot#Going barefoot (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hadashi Black (talk · contribs)
• Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I started editing this page last night and had left it as it was to resume today. I had altered substantial sections to reflect the large amount of research on this matter and intended to spend today making it more even-handed and fixing the formatting, however an editor by the name of Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot keeps blanket-revering these edits for poorly explained reasons and without any justification I can see. He is also acting in an insulting and derogatory way and seems to think that spelling errors are a capital offence.

Please could someone come and help with this as he is being obstructive and rude and reverts everything I write with little to no explanation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried talking to him nicely and compromising but he seems to have some sort of unexplained personal vendetta.

How do you think we can help?

Just having a third party with a nice calming voice would help. I am fed up with argumentative Wiki users and have no intention of giving him what he wants, which is a flaming row.

This is no longer an issue and this wikilawyering attempt can be closed immediately. I never violated WP:3RR and I am no longer reverting the page with the "nuclear option". I am, however, correcting obvious incorrect information and removing invalid citations with a surgical option. WTF? (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me closing this? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 28 October 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

• German battleship Bismarck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Parsecboy (talk · contribs)
• Wdford (talk · contribs)
• MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An editor, Wdford, has recently attempted to insert highly biased language into the above article, concerning the competing British and German claims as to what was the proximate cause of its sinking. The issure has been discussed for over 2 weeks now, and Wdford refuses to accept that his proposd changes are unacceptable per WP:NPOV (see for instance here). NPOV requires that we treat both sides with equal weight, as both are supported in numerous reliable sources, which I have provided on the article's talk page. Several other editors have commented in the discussion and none of them support Wdford's proposed changes.

It seems that Wdford has something against the British, as exemplefied by this comment, where he insinuated that the British left the majority of Bismarck's crew in the water to intentionally kill them. This type of commentary (without any kind of source to back it up) is unacceptable. This apparent bias is demonstrated in this edit, where he deliberately removed citations to material he did not like, presumably to provide the basis to later remove the lines entirely.

I have proposed several compromise options on other areas under dispute, but Wdford has either ignored them or finds them to be unacceptable to him. The article has been protected twice to prevent Wdford from attempting to edit-war his changes into the article, which is of course not an acceptable course of action. Wikipedia requires collaboration, but this is something Wdford does not appear to want to do. Several editors other and I have been working together on this article for many years without any incidents this disruptive.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the article talk page over the past 2 weeks.

How do you think we can help?

Help convince Wdford that his proposed edits are contrary to policy and are therefore unacceptable.

These accusations are baseless and misleading. I hold that the edit-warring has been on the part of Parsecboy, who has reverted reliably-sourced and relevant information.

I attempted to insert some extra details, all of it relevant to the article and all of it well supported by reliable sources. I also attempted to correct several cases of bias in the Introduction. Parsecboy has flatly rejected all of these edits, and has invested much effort in defending his POV.

Inter alia he attempts to maintain the impression that the differing British and German "claims" as to the cause of the sinking deserve equal weight. I have argued, with sources, that the eye-witness and archaeological evidence both weigh heavily in support of the German version, and that the conflicting British version is based only on supposition. I accept both claims must be mentioned, but maintain that representing these claims as equal constitutes WP:UNDUE. The “compromises” proposed by Parsecboy have largely been “go add that material into a different article”. This is not compromise at all.

At [21] I merely stated (on the talk page) an undisputed fact, which is well supported by reliable sources, with no “insinuations” at all. At [22], I fact-tagged the citations because they do not actually support the quotes which are attributed to them.

In addition to repeatedly side-stepping my attempts at resolution, Parsecboy has made false accusations, has resorted to uncivil language, and has tried to chase me away from this article - see e.g. [23] and [24] Wdford (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, Wdford and I are currently working out a solution to the main issues, and this will probably not be necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular DRN volunteer. That's great and the way it ought to work. Props to the both of you. Unless you or Wdford changes your mind and asks for this to be kept open in the next 24 hours, I or another volunteer will close this request as withdrawn. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

My major concerns re the Lead have since been addressed, and we are currently working smoothly on further improving the article. Thank you for this opportunity. Wdford (talk) 15:52, 31 October 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

• History of Cambodia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kabulbuddha (talk · contribs)
• TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have posted some information to said page with statements to the effect that the SAS were training Khmer Rouge fighters. I have provided a quote from an Member of the UK parliament and two former members of the SAS stating that the SAS did train Khmer Rouge fighters.Another editor keeps deleting everything that I posted using various different excuses that I feel do not hold any water.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have opened a talk page but the discussion there is not going anywhere as the other editor I feel is not really discussing what I posted and brining up other things unrelated. I have also been to the reputable sources page to ask if Hansard was a reliable source.Two people have posted to that question not including the other editor,one states that it is reliable source and can be used but only as member of parliament so and so stated that etc, which is how I used it. No room....

How do you think we can help?

I would like other editors to have a look at what I posted and to say if they feel that it is badly sourced and should be deleted or if it should be edited.Also if they feel that the other editors excuses for deleting it are worthy.I do not want to get into an edit war with another editor.

Consensus at RSN is that "Hasnard should only be used to express the exact wording of comments that are mentioned in reliable secondary sources, i.e., rarely." Kabulbuddha is selecting out of context quotes from primary source documents by means of original research, and three other editors have stated that Hasnard should not be used unless it can be established that the quotes have are relevant and treated with due weight. For a broad historical overview, this kind of gossip (that did not hold up in court) does not merit lengthy discussion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I concur with the folks at RSN who said that the parliamentary record is a reliable source for what was said in that body, but only for that (at least in this context). That is, it is reliable for the fact that Mr. X said Y, but is not reliable for proving that Y is true or false. For that reason it is only useful in the article in question if the fact that Mr. X said something is relevant, not for the truth of what he said. Thus on general principles I would not think that the quotes from the parliamentary record would be usable in the article. To say that in a technical way, Wikipedia's policy on the use of primary sources says that primary sources can only be used if the point that they to be used for can be read from the source without even the slightest degree of interpretation, synthesis, or analysis. To use these parliamentary quotes within that restriction would be legitimate if the point to be illustrated was a question or issue over whether Mr. X said Y, but to use it to support an assertion in Wikipedia that Y is historically true requires analysis of what Mr. X meant and his reasons and support for saying it. That analysis violates the primary source policy. That alone is enough to exclude the information from Wikipedia, but let me also note that merely because an assertion comes from a reliable source does not alone require it to be introduced into Wikipedia. The reliable source policy can be a reason to exclude information from Wikipedia, but it alone is not a reason to include it. Finally, it appears to me that the discussion over that dispute has moved on to a discussion of other possible sources for the information which Kabulbuddha wishes to introduce into the article. There has not been sufficient talk page discussion of those sources, however, to discuss them here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have brought up two other sources on the talk page put they have been ignored by the other editor. Those sources were from two members of the SAS. Their statements and sources have been deleted from the page,the excuse to delete them in the edit summary the first time was "Revert--undue weight, consensus is to use scholarly sources and not the minutes of parliament." I changed it to include the British government point of view in that they deny any involvement plus a source but it was reverted again with this excuse "Yes, but the other editors at RSN have stated Hasnard should not be used unless it is cited in scholarly literature" That is about Hansard, no mention of any reason to delete the other sourced material about the SAS .I find these deletions of the SAS sources and statements to be wrong and without reason. A further two sources from books are under discussion at the moment.Kabulbuddha (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be fine using those two sources for the allegation, but it doesn't deserve more than a sentence. We don't need quotes, nor do we need primary sources, nor do we need official denials. Just say the allegation was made and cite the sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I have 4 sources and they are going to take up more than one sentence and they have quotes as well,none of the sources includes Hansard which I am willing to drop.Three of my sources are from books and one source is from a former SAS solider who was there training the Khmer Rouge.I will also need a denial by the British government for a neutral POV, as in both sides of the story. That is wikipedai policy I feel.Kabulbuddha (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That's undue weight for an article covering centuries of history.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The section that it will appear in is for a period of 14 years and it is one fifth the size of the section before it that is for 4 years.Kabulbuddha (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Kabulbuddha: why don't you put forward the text you are proposing here, in this DRN, so everyone can look at it and see if compacting it into 1 sentence would be appropriate or not. I suggest that you also supply the verbatim quotes from sources here (but don't violate any copyright: just brief snippets). It may be that after we see the sources, there will be consensus that more than one sentence is warranted. Or maybe it will be clear that one sentence is best. --Noleander (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, I will get around to it soon. Thanks. Kabulbuddha (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add this piece,[25] it was deleted before even though it is sourced from an academics book and the other piece about the SAS would be " Chris Ryan a member of the SAS at the time admitted that he was training the Khmer Rouge and had to come home when the story was broken by John Pilger. [26]. Alastair MacKenzie another member of the SAS claims in his book Special Force: The Untold Story of 22nd Special Air Service Regiment that the SAS were training them. The British government denied that they had ever trained the Khmer Rouge.[27] Kabulbuddha (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so you want to add:

It was revealed in 1986 from congressional lawyer Johnathen Winer's correspondence that the American government had funded Pol Pot with $85 million between 1980-86. Chris Ryan a member of the SAS at the time admitted that he was training the Khmer Rouge and had to come home when the story was broken by John Pilger. Alastair MacKenzie another member of the SAS claims [in a book he wrote] that the SAS were training them. The British government denied that they had ever trained the Khmer Rouge

and your sources are listed above in the links you provide. That doesn't look bad, but one issue that jumps right out, as TransporterMan said above, is that writings by people who were involved in an event are not considered great sources. It is 100 times better if you could find an independent source (professor, major newspaper, etc) that quotes Ryan or MacKenzie. Can you find such a "secondary source"? If not, the material probably should be packed down to one sentence. --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The other party, TheTimesAreAChanging, says that Kabulbuddha has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Since that appears to be so, this DRN case should be closed. --Noleander (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Gangnam District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• A1candidate (talk · contribs)
• YvelinesFrance (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute is mainly based on the sentence "Gangnam has been a stalwart supporter of U.S. forces in Korea for many years", which I sourced from this article published by the US Army

User:YvelinesFrance wrote "I don't believe this information is important not to mention the case for neutrality WP:POV" and that "US military is not a reliable source. It is military propaganda"

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the Talk page is leading to nowhere because my arguments are countered with claims and accusations that cannot be sourced

How do you think we can help?

It would be great if someone could advise on the reliability/neutrality of the US Army's article, and whether it is suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia's Gangnam District article.

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I would ordinarily wait for a response by YvelinesFrance before jumping in, but it appears to me that there is an outcome here which is clearly defined by policy. While YvelinesFrance's reasons for removing the assertion in question may or may not be questionable, the material clearly cannot be included in the article based on the army.mil source identified in the request. That is not because the military is unreliable per se or because of any allegation that it might be propaganda, but because this is a self-published source like a blog, press release, or corporate newsletter and per Wikipedia's self-published source policy a self-published source cannot be used if it involves claims about third parties. This is clearly a claim about a third party, therefore the source is not reliable for this purpose. The material must be excluded unless a third-party reliable source can be found for it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well then, I guess the dispute resolution can be closed -A1candidate (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Carolmooredc (talk · contribs)
• Festermunk (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

• User:Festermunk was blocked previously for edit warring on this article. After I and another editor cleaned up the article, removing or rewording much of the anti-RT material added recently by Festermunk, he reverted mostt we of it in a series of edits, which were reverted back in this one edit by another editor.
• He now is attempting to discuss some of those issues at the talk page by a) reverting "positive" material because he is discussing it here, Julian Assange show, which at least should have been moved to another section] and here, short sample list of guests, all ref'd, including some added via WP:RS info.
• Three times has interrupted my bullited comments with his replies, despite my copying my original comment to the top of his comments and asking him not to do this again. He has argued his right to do this and demanded my proof he can't on his and my talk pages.
• Today I put an edit warring notice on his talk page, commenting also on the talk page entry interruptions, and he copied it whole to my talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

See full discussion at Talk:RT_(TV_network)#Is_Festermunk_willing_to_do_dispute_resolution.3F as well as talk page references above. Since he later asked about Arbitration at my talk page, I decided to bring this here first just to assume good faith.

How do you think we can help?

I'm coming her rather than going to WP:Edit Warring noticeboard again, but if you think this is all behavioral and more appropriate there, do tell. Advice on whether Assange paragraph belongs in History or the (now deleted) guests section welcome; and how to list guests would be appreciated, but obviously can't discuss it in rational manner with the behavioral disruptions.

My opening comments will be a point by point rebuttal to CarolMooreDC's accusation

User:Festermunk was blocked previously for edit warring on this article. After I and another editor cleaned up the article, removing or rewording much of the anti-RT material added recently by Festermunk, he reverted most of it in a series of edits, which were reverted back in this one edit by another editor.

The word 'Clean-up' is just cover for pro-RT POV edits that violate WP:UNDUE, since the length of the criticism section of RT under CarolMoore's edits was disproportionate to the large amount of existing criticism of RT. Indeed this is an argument a third-party editor made I should also point out that most of the recent reverts I've made on the RT wikipedia page have either have the consent of editors on the talk page or are in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines.

He now is attempting to discuss some of those issues at the talk page by a) reverting "positive" material because he is discussing it here, Julian Assange show, which at least should have been moved to another section] and here, short sample list of guests, all ref'd, including some added via WP:RS info.

As per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, I don't see why: (i) it's wrong to remove content that is disputed even if it is properly referrence and (ii) the obligation I have to move disputed material to another section. The point at issue is why Assange's RT program should be put under the history section of RT's Wikipedia page when in fact it should be put under the Program's section.

Three times has interrupted my bullited comments with his replies, despite my copying my original comment to the top of his comments and asking him not to do this again. He has argued his right to do this and demanded my proof he can't on his and my talk pages.

Pardon the language, but that is a really bizzare criticism to make. I can't find any reason (let alone Wikipedia editing guidelines) why inserting my replyings to the user's bullited comments is wrong, so perhaps a third-party editor can help address this issue.

:Today I put an edit warring notice on his talk page, commenting also on the talk page entry interruptions, and he copied it whole to my talk page.

Third-party observers would do well to note this edit by the user on my talk page first.

Festermunk (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a DRN volunteer, and I'd be willing to help out. It looks like both parties have submitted opening comments, so let me do some research and we can get started. Feel free to continue updating your opening comments, or comment here. --Noleander (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Need specific content-based questions - Okay, I've read the summary of the dispute, and the Talk page. As is explained in the DRN synopsis above, DRN is limited to discussion content disputes, so any issues about behavior are off-limits here. So, let's focus on content issues. Can both parties please provide (here, in the Discussion section) a bulletized list of the key content issues with the article? For example "Should the article contain a list of guests?" or "Is fact ABC supported by reliable sources?" or "Into which section should Assange's program be mentioned?". After we get a list of the specific content issues, then we can go from there. From this point forward, please do not mention the behavior of other editors. Stick to content/sourcing issues only. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, both parties should read WP:CRITICISM since that may provide some ideas on how to deal with the Controversies section. --Noleander (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Since there are so many areas of dispute, I'll put them in an enumerated form for sake of clarity. Please note that this list only shows the major areas of disagreement between myself and user CarolMooreDC and is not meant to be a definitive one that shows all of our areas of disagreement:

1) As per this edit where the Assange section should go, in the 'History' or the 'Programs' section of the article?

2) As per this edit, whether the Ben Smith remarks should be included in the article.

3) As per this edit and the current version of RT's Wikipedia page whether the lead for the Controversy section is needed.

4) As per this edit, whether a section entitled RT Staff Controversies: a) can and b) should be included in the article.

5) As per this edit, whether the section of Margarita Simonyan: a)can and b) should be included in the article.

6) As per this edit, whether the criticisms section of the article should be structured according to what is shown in the edit and not according to the current version of the article.

7) As per this edit, a) whether the Marcin and NYT paragraph should be restored according to its formulation in edit as opposed to its current formulations; b) whether the Marcin and NYT paragraph belong in the criticism section of the article instead of the programming section of the article where it currently belongs.

8) As per this edit: a) how you decided which guests should be included in 'Notable Guests' section; b)which guests should be included in 'Notable Guests' section.

Festermunk (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks like a good list. Let's see if CarolMooreDC wants to add any more to it. --Noleander (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Noleander for helping out and for mentioning WP:Criticism which I've brought up on the talk page, along with concept of WP:undue criticsm. When I started editing the article seriously last month here after User:Festermunk had added a lot of critical material, it was a listing of outdated and repetitive factoids about stations and presenters, etc. and an absurdly large and even more repetitive criticism section. At least it has some substantive content now (except that deleted in last few days).

1) Assange: As I said to Festermunk, getting the Assange program brought more high profile media attention to RT really any of the other items in the history section. Since it didn't seem to be controversial, I didn't add any better references. He has not given a policy based explanation for his opposition. I also have a feeling he wants only a listing of the show, with none of the interesting commentary on it (unless of course it would be put in the criticism section), and no listing of guests. I haven't gotten around to rewriting the section to use some of the many high quality WP:RS that discussed it.

2) Ben Smith remarks: Ben Smith criticized an interview between Alex Jones and Russia Today discussing Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories and called Russia Today a "raw propaganda channel". I find it increcdibly POV that Festermunk has now deleted all mention of specific credible guests from the Guests section, but is hot to add yet more criticism of specific guests to the criticism section. He doesn't understand WP:Undue.

3) Lead for controversy section seems like a convenience, but not critical.

4 & 5) Staff controversies: all of the information was put in appropriate other parts of the article except all the WP:undue and repetitive criticisms of RT's producer editor-in-chief Margarit Simonyan on petty grounds. Festermunk just removed these sentences about her biases in the history section which I already said I did not see a problem with expanding somewhat. But he wants another big section under criticisms/controversies.

6) Going back to Festermunk's preferred structure: Unfortunately the other editor User:Ipsign, after he reverted Festermunks first mass reversion of the changes Ipsign, I and other editors did, has not opined on Festermunk's new efforts. Anyway, let me quote WP:NPOV:

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

7) I tried to do that with the Marcin and NYT paragraph, which are critiques of their programming, but ones that seem to me to be done in a neutral way. Since there already are lots of similar criticisms in the criticism section, I would say just delete them entirely if they are to be moved. There's more than enough biased criticism in Festermunk's criticism section.

8) Again Festermunk has removed any mention of specific guests from the guest section, even those mentioned by WP:RS. Those definitely should be in there, including those notable guests on the Assange show. The question is, should we list (in sentence form) a sampling of the politicians, journalists, professors, etc. who have appeared to give people an idea of who is willing to appear on the show. Since each is ref'd by an RT video of the show, and I'm willing to discuss who belongs on the list, it doesn't seem to me a major stretch of WP:OR. I also wonder if there is a policy on this. I certainly have seen whole articles listing every guest on a tv program, so it can't be totally illegal.

I think this is especially necessary since biased and snarky - hardly impartial for the most part - western critics who hate the growing popularity of stations like RT and AlJazeera love to bring up some of the odd balls they've had on, mostly in RT's first couple years. For NPOV sakes we have to list at least a few of the more credible people whose appearances have not been covered by WP:RS. I included a longer list of recently guests, assuming it might be pared a bit, which was: British politicians Nigel Farage, Laurence Kaye (UK Pirate Party UK) and Jeremy Corbyn; French politician Marine Le Pen; Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki; Israeli politician Avraham Burg; former US government officials Henry Kissinger, Jesse Ventura, David Stockman, Richard Perle and Paul Craig Roberts; United States Representatives Ron Paul, Dana Rohrabacher, Walter B. Jones, Jr., Dennis Kucinich and former United States Senator Alan K. Simpson; Chris Hedges, Naomi Wolf, Danny Schechter and Glenn Greenwald; current and former professors Craig Calhoun (head of London School of Economics), Patrick Michaels , Jeff Cohen and Norman Finkelstein; and assorted guests like former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, investor Jim Rogers, trends forecaster Gerald Celente, Israeli military analyst Uzi Rubin and Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Wozniak.

So that's the story. CarolMooreDC 00:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

1) Of course you won't find a policy based explanation for his opposition as it is based on common sense. The paragraph on Assange's (or more specifically, as per your words, "the Assange program") involvement with the channel is primarily programmatic and is perforce, by fact of common sense reasoning, most appropriate in the program section of the article. It has nothing to do with the history of RT (especially if one is to understand the words history as the historical background that led to the creation of RT) and the reason you provided to support the inclusion of the paragraph in the history section isn't compelling given, among other criticisms, the subjectivity of that criteria. You would have made a more compelling argument if you had instead said (and were able to prove) that but for the Assange program, RT's history would be drastically different but as that is your burden to prove I won't pursue this line of argument any further.

2) You need to talk about the Ben Smith issue, not this non-sequitur about what I did with the guest section. Does is stay in or no?

3) No it's an inconvenience because it is a tautology of is already known for any controversy section on any Wikipedia page: criticisms of the subject and response to those criticisms by defenders of the subject.

4& 5) Don't be ridiculous with the Simonyan edit, if you go through the paragraph, there's 13 citations documenting the various controversies of Simonyan's occupation (i.e. her dispute with McFaul) and occupational trajectory (her Kremlin ties) so of course it warrants something more than a one-liner, which would then actually be violation of WP:UNDUE

6) Fortunately, not everybody disagrees with my structuring format of the article. As for the NPOV quote, the key words are, 'based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself,' which is far from the case and in any case you'd have to prove how the information in the criticism section of RT violates NPOV. I should also point out that there's nothing in the quote that suggests creating subsections that are reasonably different in focus from each other can or should be prohibited.

7) If they are critiques of the programming (actually the criticisms are more specific, they are critiques of the pro-state bias of RT's programming), then it should be in the criticism section not the programming section. You're also in borderline violation of improper synthesis when you present the main points of their articles in a more "neutral way."

8) I've removed the entire list because we're disputing about who to even put on the list. Once we've reached a decision as to who we put on the list, then we (or I) will put the content in the appropriate section.

Festermunk (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's good to see that the eight issues are agreed upon. Glancing through them, I don't see any show-stoppers: I'm sure we can find a good resolution for each issue that is consistent with WP policies. I'll post my thoughts on the issues one at a time below. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

1) Assange program - I can see how the two sections are both valid, because the Programming sections appears to be devoted to current programs, so it is unclear where programs that are historical should be located. There are two choices: (a) put all historical programming in the History section (perhaps in a new subsection); (b) create a new "Historical programming" subsection in the Programming section. Looking at the precedent set by BBC (also BBC Television and Timeline of the BBC) it appears that listing RT's historical programs is most conveniently put under the History section, perhaps with chronological subsections. The RT's programming section should, as it is already, continue to focus on current programming. Of course, if Assange's program is still on the air, the Programming section would make most sense. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM replies: First, thanks Noleander for a policy based opinions that make sense, many of which I myself have made over and over again:1) Festermunk wrote: “ if one is to understand the words history as the historical background that led to the creation of RT” - OK, finally I understand the disagreement. History to me means anything significant and notable that has happened up to today influencing the development or reputation of an entity. It even could include the most notable specific incidents and controversies (like war coverage), instead of sticking them in criticisms. And it definitely should note the most notable show, Assange, and perhaps Alyona show which has been mentioned by number of WP:RS, even if nothing about it yet as been put in. CarolMooreDC 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FM reply 1) "Of course, if Assange's program is still on the air, the Programming section would make most sense." Since it's still on the air, I presume we have an agreement that the program should be in the programming section. CarolMoore, as for your reply that, even according to your definition of history (historical?) you've still yet to prove how the Assange program has had an influential impact on the development and reputation of RT, aside from appeal to Google hits which is borderline argumentum ad numerum.

Okay, since the program is still on the air, let's go with the Programming section rather than History section. --Noleander (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

CM: The show only is airing in re-runs on RT website. I just did research and there is a vast amount of opinion on the topic of Russia Today hosting the show including this explicit quote from The Independent: The first episode was broadcast yesterday afternoon and quickly made global headlines as it emerged that Mr Assange's first guest was Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Shia militant network Hezbollah.[28] Additionally, I forgot that there already is a whole article on the World Tomorrow so it's not necessary to have it in the programming section, just mention a couple of the other guests who also got a lot of media attention. Note that a large portion of the current references (minus the ones to RT shows and awards) have come since the Assange show was announced and/or refer to the show. Finally, if Assange show is not historical, obviously the two sentence paragraph on the denial of service attack in revenge for showing Assange also should go. Funny Festermunk didn't think of that. CarolMooreDC 06:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think the location of this material is very significant. If there is an entire WP article already on it (World Tomorrow) then the RT article will only have a few sentences, maximum. Since the show is no longer in production, but only in reruns, it is a coin-toss as to whether the History or Programming section is best. I'd suggest that we just flip a coin on this one, and instead devote our time to finding additional non-US sources which could give the reader a more global perspective and hence address issues (3) and (5) below. --Noleander (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Reply 1)CarolMooreDC, in addition to being unable to read, it turns out you're unable to reason either. The fact that the show was subject to a DoS attack doesn't imply anything about the importance (historicality?) of the Assange program to the history of RT; perhaps the show was attacked only because of the choice of Assange's guests on his TV program. Also, your sentence about the show making global headlines is not sufficient in proving that: a) the show is an integral part of the development of RT and b) even if it was an integral part of the development of RT, why it shouldn't belong in the programming section.

@Nole 1) "since the program is still on the air, let's go with the Programming section rather than History section." I concur with this

CM; assuming Verizon doesn't die out after first rain smatterings tonight, finishing up cleanup of World Tomorrow article which will provide further evidence of relevance to RT. Will report (______when done here ____). CarolMooreDC 22:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone object to putting the Assange/WorldTomorrow material in the Programming section? That seems like the best path. --Noleander (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

2) The Ben Smith criticism appears to be valid, but WP generally does not permit accumulation of large amounts of primary source criticism without balance. In other words, if 400 persons have criticized, say, Hillary Clinton, the HC article does not have to list all 400 critics. The best approach for most articles where lots of criticism is available is two-fold: (a) limit the criticisms to those that are documented by secondary sources; and (b) balance the criticism with rebuttals or positive information. Applying that to the RT article: First, it appears that the Ben Smith criticism is primary source, that is, Ben Smith is the critic, and his own writings are the source. It is better to utilize secondary sources (independent media, journalists, academics) that are unbaised, and rely on them to document the criticisms of others. Primary sources can be used, but are discouraged when WP:UNDUE is a concern. Second, I presume that RT has supporters that endorse RT or its programs. RT broadcasts around the world, true? Is this article too US-centric? The US and Russia were at odds for many decades, so it is natural that US may be the source of much criticism. But the WP article should represent a global perspective. What about Russian sources? I think that the WP:UNDUE policy is on the verge of being violated here. Before adding more negative material, editors should spend some time getting materials that (i) are from outside the US; and (ii) mention RT positively. --Noleander (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM replies: I agree with you on both points. Primary sources that are just biased criticism are especially problematic. CarolMooreDC 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FM reply 2) First, given that WP:UNDUE is a principle of relativity, it is entirely possible (and to the extent that WP:UNDUE is a Wikipedia guideline, appropriate) that an "accumulation of large amounts of primary source criticism without balance" could happen if nothing there are no (or few relative to the amount of criticism - as is the case of RT) significant viewpoints praising the Wikipedia subject. Also, there is nothing in WP:UNDUE which disapproves of using primary source when WP:UNDUE is a concern, so please clarify what you meant you write, "Primary sources can be used, but are discouraged when WP:UNDUE is a concern."

Second, turning to your objection to the reliability of using the Ben Smith blog article, see WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:USERG.

It is far more encyclopedic to rely on secondary sources (objective, neutral commentators) that analyze or summarize the criticism. Relying on primary sources (the critics themselves) lends itself to cherry-picking and OR. Look at it this way: If the negative criticism of RT is so overwhelming, there should be tons of secondary (neutral analysts) that summarize the criticisms, true? Question for FM: Can you identify some secondary sources that summarize/analyze the criticisms of RT? --Noleander (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM 2) But Ben Smith is an objective commentator, he doesn't work for RT nor is he part of some institution whose focus is exclusively anti-RT, and was commentating in his capacity as an independent blogger in regards to the Alex Jones segment on RT. Also, the Ben Smith citation is a secondary source because he is discussing information that was originally presented on RT.

CM: Cherry picking nasty quotes from pissed off opinion columns by minor journalists is just not very encyclopedic. That's one reason primary sources are to be used carefully. CarolMooreDC 06:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM 2) Don't give me this ideological shit about cherry picking nasty quotes, last time I checked you managed to twist the main point of the article written by Marcin Maczka beyond recognition.

First, please refrain from commenting about the behavior of other editors within DRN, it is not permitted. Second, Ben Smith is a primary source: he is a critic: the Smith material is being presented to tell the reader about Smith's views. A secondary source is a neutral source that analyzes or discusses the criticisms made by critics. If numerous, significant secondary sources are identified, then that may justify a dedicated Controversies or Criticism section. Without such justification, those sections are strongly discouraged. The Criticism of the BBC article is a poor article that is not in compliance with WP POV policy; the PETA article is far superior and is the model to follow here. Again, I ask: Can you identify some neutral secondary sources that analyze and comment on the criticisms? If not, the section names should be changed to neutral phrases (the criticisms can still be retained in the body text, subject to UNDUE constraints). --Noleander (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 2) You obviously don't know the difference between a primary and secondary source, so let me break it down for you further. These (this, this, andthis) definitions of primary source all have a common central element - that it is authored by somebody who directly experienced the relevant event. In the context of the Ben Smith article, the primary source would've been the film clip showing the dumping of bin Laden's body off the Navy ship (which is why I said the 'information that was presented on RT' though to be absolutely clear, RT isn't the primary source only that it showed the primary source), while the Alex Jones and Ben Smith article are secondary sources because they are analyz(s)ing and evaluating the bin Laden body-dumping process. There's also nothing in the definition of secondary sources that says that the source (I think you meant content) must be neutral; indeed, that would be impossible given how secondary sources allow the evaluation of primary sources, implying bias in interpretation.

"Again, I ask: Can you identify some neutral secondary sources that analyze and comment on the criticisms?" I already told you where to look, but since you didn't do it, here are some of the sources you are looking for: [29], [30] and [31].

I guess I'm not making myself clear. I"m not disputing that criticisms can be in the article. The question is whether the section title should be the negatively-titled "Criticisms/Controversies", or something more neutral like "Reception/Reviews". WP policies strongly discourage the former unless there is a body of secondary analyses of the criticisms. Having 1,000 critics does not justify a Criticism section. Having 20 academic articles analyzing the criticisms would justify such a section. Since we may be at an impasse here, I've posted a note on the DRN talk page asking for other editors to provide input. If that doesn't help us reach consensus, the next step may be an RfC on the article. --Noleander (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 2) Barring a relevant response from you, I presume we have an agreement about the appropriateness of using the Ben Smith article. As per the criticism and controversies section, I will discuss my opinions on that issue at the link you provided.

I'm waiting for some uninvolved editors to jump in and provide some fresh input. If we can't get consensus here within a few days, the next step would be to close the DRN case and open an RfC within the article Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your continuing consideration. Because Festermunk just kept reverting neutral/positive material and adding gobs of negative info, despite my complaints here and on the talk page, doing 4 reverts in 24 hours, I did an Edit Warring report and he was blocked for a week for "battleground behavior". (His response made it clear he really does not understand what 3rr means.) I am going to suggest on talk page reverting back here to a version before he went on his latest binge, and then going through and making any valid changes and see if any editors respond. If not, I'll just do it. I believe the behavior issues have driven away several editors who were willing to make some good contributions. So you might remove the below until we see if he comes back with the same issues but in a less "battleground" mood. CarolMooreDC 03:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I also posted a note at NPOV noticeboard asking for input, since this is an issue that arises fairly regularly. --Noleander (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

3) "Criticism and Controversies" section - The emphasis and title of the "Criticism and Controversies" section is almost certainly a violation of the WP:POV policy. The preferred approach is to have a section titled "Reception" (or perhaps, "Issues over coverage") which contains neutrally titled subsections on the various important incidents (for example, the existing title "War coverage" is ideal). Sections titles like "Criticism" or "Controversies" are strongly discouraged. Within the Reception section, there should be both positive and negative information. There used to be an article Criticism of the New York Times, but it was considered POV and that material was folded into the New York Times article. There still is the article Criticism of the BBC, but that is the exception that proves the rule. Turning to the issue of an intro paragraph within the Reception/Issues section: It is best to omit it (for example, see New York Times#Issues over coverage) unless there is a significant amount of secondary sources which are devoted to compiling reception/controversies. From my assessment of the sources, I don't see that, so an intro paragraph probably should be omitted. --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM Replies: :3) As I opined in talk, I do think generally reception is better than controversy or criticism because it allows positive comments as well as negative (and finding a place to put them has been a problem). I was thinking of putting in a separate section, until Festermunk returned, reverting everything. CarolMooreDC 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 3) Your assertion that the "Criticism and Controversies" title is a violation of WP:POV policy is totally invalidated by Wikipedia:Criticism, especially the line in this section of the article, which says, " If the sources treat these topics independently, that may result in sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism.". Also, please see this section and this section for background information on this.

The starting point is always to use a neutral title, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. RT, being a media product, like a book or movie, receives both positive and negative assessments ... indeed, most are a mixture of the two. Readers are misled if the section titles suggest a negative tone before the reader even reads the text. Much better is to use a neutral title like "Reception", and within that list positive and negative assessments. A great example to follow is the PETA article ... a highly controversial organization. There is no section titled "Controversies" or "Criticisms". Instead, the section titles are "Positions", "Investigations", etc. Within each section, the text often describes controversies, but the section titles avoid negative connotations. The RT article can and should follow the same model. --Noleander (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Reply 3) For every PETA article there is a BBC controversies or Press TV controversies page, so it's far from clear that the practice of not having sections titled "Controversies" or "Criticisms" for highly controversial organiz(s)ations is as widely accepted as you are implying it to be. But the reason why the RT section should have the "Criticisms and Controversies" section is that there are a plethora of independent (both primary and secondary) sources exclusively critical of certain aspects of RT.

You assert that "there are a plethora of independent (both primary and secondary) sources exclusively critical of certain aspects of RT." You use that assertion to justify the existence of a Criticism section. But, as you know, editors are not allowed to use their own personal knowledge as a source. Do you have an unbiased reliable source for that assertion? Please reply above in #2 so we can consolidate these two similar threads. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 3) No but even if I didn't, my point would still stand. I don't need to prove whether there are a plethora or dearth of independent sources that are critical of RT, I only need to prove that sources have treated criticisms and controversies of RT independently in order to be justified in creating sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism of RT." Of course I need to prove that there is a reasonable amount of criticism (i.e. more than a stand-alone article) of RT, but not a plethora of criticism as if to imply that that threshold for creating "Criticisms and Controversies" sub-sections is capable of quanitification.

CM; I happened to notice last night through wikipedia search that a bunch of articles -- including couple media ones -- actually have "Criticism and Controversies" (or "Controversies and Criticism") sections. Might be a good project to go through them all and change the ones that are WP:Undue, or that are called controversy when it's just criticism by a couple people.

I agree it's best to have secondary source note numbers of criticism or note there's been a controversy, especially if the criticisms might be based in part on bias, like media jealousy or national partisanship.

In any case, I think a "Reception" section is necessary for the various positive or neutral comments I've found and still intend to put one in. CarolMooreDC 22:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

4) Section devoted to " RT Staff Controversies". The general rule is to avoid sections that are, by virtue of their title, focusing on negative issues. Better is to have a neutral section titled "Staffing" or "Personnel" and summarize the staff there, including both positive and negative material. The material should be be encyclopedic, which means balanced and informative. The only justification for a section on "RT Staff Controversies" would be if there are several neutral secondary sources that are devoted to summarizing multiple staff controversies. In the absence of such sources, a neutrally-titled "Staffing" section is best for the readers. --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM replies: Simonyan is the only notable staff (as opposed to reporter/commentator) member. Some info about how she got the job and Putin gave her flowers definitely could go into the history section. There’s some minor dust up over some tweets, but it’s really silly. We can parse that out separately if you like and see if any of it belongs in criticism. All other "staff issues" are about reporters and/or commentators and are already incorporated into other sections because reporters and/or commentators were acting on behalf of (or against policy of) RT editorial policy, as I remember it. CarolMooreDC 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 4) Perhaps something like, "RT Staff Issues"?

Non-loaded terms like "Staffing" or "Personnel" or "Organization" are most encyclopedic and neutral. Adding the word "Issues" into the section title prevents the section, for example, from doing something as simple as listing the key management personnel. --Noleander (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Reply 4)That could work, but only if it's under the controversies and criticism section. Putting it in such a format would strike a balance between your (a neutral heading) and my (that Simonyan's occupation and occupational background is controversial) position.

CM: FYI, Criticisms_and_controversies_of_RT_staff_members as he originally wrote it is pretty much all that Festermunk wants. Obviously as Noleander proposes, in addition to listing who the present (or past notable) reporters/commentators are, one can have a listing of notable events regarding them, negative and positive. Of course, if WP:RS show far more positive items, I'm sure we'll hear complaints about that. CarolMooreDC 06:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

5) Section for chief editor Margarita Simonyan: The Staffing section should certainly contain a paragraph on the chief editor. An entire section? It depends on the sources. Again, the current content of Margarita Simonyan (and the RT article) is 99% devoted to negative material. Going on the presumption that there is some positive and neutral material out there on this editor: Why is that material not in the article? Are negative sources being sought out? Are non-US sources being avoided? Editors should look to Russian and Armenian sources to get more input. If language is a barrier, it may be better to de-emphasize the negative material until that barrier can be overcome, otherwise the section/article is violating the WP:POV and WP:UNDUE policies. The section cannot be 99% negative until compelling evidence is provided that no balancing (positive/neutral) material is available. --Noleander (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM replies: See above on Simonyan. I agree on more global sources and have to look harder. CarolMooreDC 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 5) Not an entire section, the Simonyan paragraph would be under the "RT Staff Issues" section

Okay, it sounds like the Simonyan material can be a paragraph or two within the Staffing/Personnel section. Is that good for everyone? --Noleander (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

CM: I think you need to mention in history how she got the job (which Festermunk has removed unnecessarily) and add her getting the flowers from Putin. If you read what Festermunk put in in the Criticisms_and_controversies_of_RT_staff_members section he wants back, it's really petty and redundant complaints, and an NPOV/WP:BLP problem. It's just more of Festermunk's POV piling on. CarolMooreDC 06:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Reply 5) Why the hell would it be under the history section? She's a presenter for the TV program!

6) See (3) above. --Noleander (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM; OK, I've never seen her present on the TV program. But obviously her job as editor in chief and chief spokesperson (she's almost always the main person quoted speaking out for RT) is far more important to the overall programming. Therefore it's important to mention her, her connections, how she got her job in the history. I also think we need an "Organization" section (with budget subsection) that will make clearer the relation of RT to RIA Novostri, if Simonyan is totally in charge of all editorial decisions, etc. Obviously, if she is in charge, any of the policy etc changes/problems that are quoted emanate from her.

I finally researched what the Alexey Navalny related tweets were all about and found a larger context, including an RT story which should be part of a section on RT coverage of the Russian 2012 elections and the protests that followed. Why have it as a two sentence criticism that just makes it look like she's a "liar"? This is part of larger more complicated issue for which RT may be criticized, with its response or other WP:RS commentary where it exists (and I think I've seen some). To me that's just POV attack against an individual, not something to educate readers. CarolMooreDC 23:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 6) Because it's a significant part of the discussion, especially as it is coming the opposing (and central) party in the dispute Simonyan is currently engaged in.

CM - My point meaning it needs context such as a section on the elections and protests, NOT just a couple sentences about some tweet that one must do ones own research in order to understand the import. This is an encyclopedia, not a guessing game. CarolMooreDC 00:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 6) What are you talking about with the elections and protests, the paragraph is about how she got her job and what she did/has done during the time she's been doing her job.

I don't see any disagreement here: the article should have a section/paragraph on Simonyan. The paragraph should be a neutral representation of her job & responsibilities. If a RS documents some allegations of incompetence/bias (e.g. the "liar" incident), those can be mentioned ... the same way that positive information about her should be included. But the material cannot be limited to negative information. --Noleander (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

7a) Marcin Ma;czka material: This person (a PhD student at the university of Jagiellonian University?) is a rather unimportant primary source critic and thus their opinion of RT doesn't bear mentioning in the article, unless I'm missing something. --Noleander (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM Replies: Marcin Ma;czka - I included him because he IS non-US/UK but not necessariy pro-Russian. Plus he is an academic published in an academic journal. So I don’t think he’s more primary than any other academic in an academic journal. I think he’s ok for factoids and some analysis, if not for major criticism. Plus he’s got a few factoids elsewhere no one else has, like on budget. CarolMooreDC 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 7a) Shouldn't the criteria be WP:RS? Why does it matter if the person is a primary (it's actually secondary as his work is published in another magazine) Also, the focus of his article is RT and his criticism of it so I don't know what you are talking about.

Okay, it sounds like there is agreement that Marcin can be used as a source. Any other issues on this one? --Noleander (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

7b) NY Times article by S. Heyman: That is a good source ... much better than primary source critics. But the particular snippet used in the RT article appears to be cherry picked to focus on negative material. The article also has many positive things to say about RT: why aren't those included in the RT article? For example, mentioning that one of RT's goals is attempting to counter Western biases against Russia ( "some of the channel’s specials seek to expose and correct Western biases about Russia"). In summary, the NY Times article is a fine source, but we cannot utilize only negative information. As presented now, the NY Times material violates the WP:POV policy. --Noleander (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM replies: I agree with you on adding more positive material from Heyman and other sources that have positive material. I certainly would like to put more but anything positive about the station is reverted ASAP by Festermunk as whitewash, WP:Undue, POV etc. CarolMooreDC 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 7b) I take it when you say, "we cannot utilize only negative information" that you concede it is possible to use the negative information of RT in the NY Times article. It's fine if user's want to use the supportive parts of RT in the NY Times article, but as per WP:UNDUE, those supportive parts must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

Sure, the negative information from NY Times can be used. The bigger issue here (see #3 above) is: Are editors spending lots of time searching for negative information, and ignoring the positive information? It is a violation of WP policy to do so. Again, I don't doubt that many US sources are critical, but WP is supposed to represent a global perspective. I challenge all parties to spend a few days hunting for sources that are not from the US, or that present more objective/positive information of RT. For instance, contact the Russian WP and ask for their input . If the search turns up nothing, then so be it. But the search really needs to be done to fully resolve this DRN case. --Noleander (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Reply 7b) I don't understand your criticism what relevance does the fact of editors searching for negative information (which is legitimate, as per this and this) and ignoring positive information (which is also legitimate, as per this) have to do with whether the information can be used with the NY Times article?

CM: There is lots of positive information and opinion and I won't bother to quote the various excuses Festermunk uses for deleting it.[[Added later: see below this entry.] And I don't think you have any great majority viewpoint that RT is somehow so much more corrupt and biased than western media. In fact, between today's and past research I've found at least 6 good sources pointing out that western media is absurdly hostile to RT, while ignoring its own biases. That opinion at this point could, and will, have its own section - and certainly a paragraph - in reception. CarolMooreDC 06:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Reply 7b) We're talking about whether what is written in the NY Times article can be included in the RT article; none of this soapboxing please.

CM additional note: Comment welcome on this exchange at this diff where Festermunk says: "there's no way somebody reading the Heyman article could come to the conclusion that it wasn't a criticism of RT, especially in the context of the paragraph in the article so unless you can provide convincing reasons as to how Heyman's paragraph (or article) supports RT..." He is inferring that if an article or paragraph has negative information, any neutral or positive information in that article or paragraph cannot be used. I would like to see him recognize that this is not true. CarolMooreDC 00:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

CM; Festermunk writes "We're talking about whether what is written in the NY Times article can be included in the RT article." Above in first 7b) note Noleander writes: The article also has many positive things to say about RT: why aren't those included in the RT article? I thought that was the topic. CarolMooreDC 23:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 7b) No it isn't and even if it was I just showed you why the positive things about RT are ommitted. Festermunk (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

CM - Are you referring to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Common questions#Balancing different views#Giving "equal validity which reads: Wikipedia's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views.) I don't think it means you can just delete any positive commentary about RT you don't like. And I'm sure most editors will agree. CarolMooreDC 00:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't delete positive commentaries about RT just because I don't like them I remove them because they violate Wikipedia editing guidelines. Festermunk (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to explain that one. In other words you want 10 negative items to one postive one or it violates guidelines?? CarolMooreDC 17:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

8) List of notable guests: Such a list is encyclopedic & informative for the readers. Ideally, the list would come from a secondary source, otherwise if editors search through YouTube and compile the list themselves, there is a possibility of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Yet, compiling a list of opinions is very prone to OR & SYNTH, but compiling a factual list of guests is not so dangerous. Are there any secondary sources for such a list? I've done a quick Google search, and I don't see much: the Jesse Zwick article lists 3 or 4 persons, so they should be included. If no additional secondary source is available, editors can compile it, as a last resort. The list should only include notable persons (with their own WP article). Arbitrarily deleting notable guests from the list, if there are less than 8 or 10 total, is not appropriate. On the other hand, if the list got unwieldy, say over 20 persons, then it could be trimmed. My gut feeling is a list of 8 to 16 representative, notable persons would be a good amount for readers to absorb. --Noleander (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

CM replies: Festermunk deleted the names mentioned by Zwick, thus my question does he want all positive material out. I did do a search of “Rt guest” and various other words and didn’t find anything besides Zwick. But just have to try more search terms. But that also is the reason I said I put in a draft list of guests, hoping that reasonable NPOV editors could decide on those that seemed more representative of a spectrum of guests, in part to counter all the criticisms about terrible guests. (And I think I previously deleted at least one of those as redundant.) CarolMooreDC 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 8) "8 to 16 representative, notable persons would be a good amount for readers to absorb." That's exactly what I had in mind, not the 20+ person list that CM wants.Festermunk (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it sounds like a good resolution on this one: let's shoot for 8 to 16 notable guests. --Noleander (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

CM replies: Festermunk, I have said several times I threw up a bunch of names to see what people wanted to do about them. Please do not misrepresent my position. Start with ones mentioned in WP:RS (and not a repetition of those already criticized elsewhere in the article) then pick the most notable in those and other categories. CarolMooreDC 06:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 8) My apologies as this edit shows you didn't put 20+ people in that list, you put 30+ people in that list.Festermunk (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

But that response does not respond to my showing a willingness to cooperate on who should be in the list and makes me feel like you don't want any credible guests listed at all, even if mentioned by WP:RS. (And in my researches I've already found about five more such people.) Let's just drop that topic til I come up with a list of WP:RS mentioned people and then we can see who might fill out any dry spots. CarolMooreDC 23:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

FM Replies 8) If you were serious about co-operation, then you would've presented the list on the talk page first before plastering it on the main page.

CM - Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I repeatedly announced what I was going to do on talk, got no opposition and was bold and waited for discussion. CarolMooreDC 00:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

But you didn't announce what you were going to do on talk before you made your changes on the RT page. Festermunk (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle I don't have to. But read the page and you'll see I did, while you were out being blocked and to another editor, not to you. CarolMooreDC 17:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That concludes my initial thoughts on how WP policies apply to the issues raised. Perhaps it would be best to post any replies, indented, within the text above, so that we can have threaded discussions from this point forward? When posting replies that involve specific material, it is best to include quotes from sources (preferably secondary sources) that are utilized for the material. --Noleander (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like there is agreement here ... so let's focus on the Criticism section issues 2,3,4,5 above. --Noleander (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I think it's only point #3 (maybe 2 as well) over which we are having disagreement.

Hurricane note': We lost power 3 days during last year's hurricane, so that might happen again, any time Sunday. So if I don't respond in next few days, that's why. CarolMooreDC 23:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. We'll keep this DRN case open at a minimum for a few more days, just to be sure. --Noleander (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In case it turns out to be 4 or 5 days, don't worry about it. At least Festermunk got to hear another opinion on policy on these issues. Once I get my greatly improved versions on these issues and he reverts them again, or if he does any of those same mass changes which have been reverted by a couple other editors without gaining the slightest big of consensus, I can go to the appropriate noticeboard and often other editors come by who help out til the article is good and NPOV. CarolMooreDC 05:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Dang, I thought I'd get a nice rest from Wikipedia for a few days but the power stayed on!!!

A note to all involved editors, I've started making changes according to the points on which we have an agreement. (1, 4, 5, 6, 7a and 7b, 8) Editors should also note that I've re-added sourced materials that were previously removed. Festermunk (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I only see one number where there was clear agreement, a couple where it was not clear if there was any, and several more where there wasn't any. A major question in a new section at the talk page also remained unanswered by Festermunk, even as he made relevant changes. But I will deal with problems with ensuing POV pushing edits on the talk page or by improving edits/structure of the article or at appropriate notice boards. CarolMooreDC 19:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"I only see one number where there was clear agreement" No kidding, since you can't read, but then again that wasn't a surprise.

4)"FM Replies 4) Perhaps something like, "RT Staff Issues"? Non-loaded terms like "Staffing" or "Personnel" or "Organization" are most encyclopedic and neutral. Adding the word "Issues" into the section title prevents the section, for example, from doing something as simple as listing the key management personnel. --Noleander (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC) FM Reply 4)That could work, but only if it's under the controversies and criticism section. Putting it in such a format would strike a balance between your (a neutral heading) and my (that Simonyan's occupation and occupational background is controversial) position."

4) Note that my suggestion has yet to be disputed.

5) 5) Not an entire section, the Simonyan paragraph would be under the "RT Staff Issues" section Okay, it sounds like the Simonyan material can be a paragraph or two within the Staffing/Personnel section. Is that good for everyone? --Noleander (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

5) Note the non-response from you.

6) I don't see any disagreement here: the article should have a section/paragraph on Simonyan. The paragraph should be a neutral representation of her job & responsibilities. If a RS documents some allegations of incompetence/bias (e.g. the "liar" incident), those can be mentioned ... the same way that positive information about her should be included. But the material cannot be limited to negative information. --Noleander (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

6) Note the non-response from you.

7a) FM Replies 7a) Shouldn't the criteria be WP:RS? Why does it matter if the person is a primary (it's actually secondary as his work is published in another magazine) Also, the focus of his article is RT and his criticism of it so I don't know what you are talking about.Okay, it sounds like there is agreement that Marcin can be used as a source. Any other issues on this one? --Noleander (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

7a) Note the non-response from you.

7b) "Sure, the negative information from NY Times can be used."

7b) Note that you don't dispute this. ::Festermunk (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk quotes me and responds: "I only see one number where there was clear agreement" No kidding, since you can't read, but then again that wasn't a surprise. I have left an appropriate comment on his talk page about his comment.

Otherwise we have a list of Noleander quotes which may or may not be her last comment and which I may or may not have responded to in the order he seems to demand. To make it simple my views are:

4) RT Staff: the issue is does it belong under Criticism/controversy or in other sections as relevant, including an organization or staff section, the latter being my clear position.

5) Simonyan: same as above

6) She is not saying that such a paragraph should be in Criticism/controversy nor is she excluding mentioning other info about her in other sections

7a) Marcin is the one where there was a clear agreement so no response necessary

7b) I don't dispute adding the negative info from NY Times, I dispute your removing any positive information from there or other WP:RS. Like this new edit where Festermunk deleted neutral analysis info writing: (the entire paragraph is irrelevant soapboxing) Why are long sections full of negative criticism NOT soap boxing, but a short paragraph of neutral informative material from The New Republic and The Independent is?? This is the kind of POV that made it necessary to come here in the first place, but you don't seem to understand the point at all. CarolMooreDC 23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

4) No the issue was the title in regards to issues related to RT Staffers - should it be, 'RT Staff Controversy/RT Staff Issues' or 'RT Staff'

6) But the paragraph on Simonyan is under a sub-section entitled, 'RT Staff'

7b) Because paragraph contains either nothing describing the guests as notable, only as, " little known," "legitimate" and, "are critical of United States foreign and civil liberties policies" or non-sequiturs, as the last sentence when it writes, "a primary reason for RT's success in the United States is that RT is "a force for diversity" which gives voice to people “who rarely get heard in current mainstream US media.”Festermunk (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it is clear that I framed 4 and 6 somewhat different. As for removal of material, if the section title is wrong, i.e., "Notable guests" you change the heading to "Guests", you don't remove WP:RS neutral information of interest, unless of course you believe it too much of a balance against the mass of negative information you keep adding. CarolMooreDC 02:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the heading being renamed to Guests and parts of the paragraph I removed reinstated, though don't assume that I will allow it to be reinstated without changing some of the content. Festermunk (talk) 03:23, 31 October 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.