Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 27#Prem Rawat

{{DRN archive top|1=No talk page discussion. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)}}

Users involved:

• User:Tenebrae
• User:Dragonn1973
• User:Norrico
• User:Gosox
• IP: 12.233.146.130

They can't seem to agree whether he died on April 13 or April 14. I have also asked for full protection on WP:RFPP but haven't gotten a response yet. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:So far, I see no talk page discussion which is a prerequisite for this noticeboard. The main issue seems to have stopped with edit warring warnings and a report to RFPP. If necessary, you can report this to the edit warring noticeboard. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::I've protected the article for a few days, so hopefully that will force discussion onto the talk page.--Slon02 (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 20, 2012 at 00:31 (UTC) because no talk page discussion Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|1=Referred to formal mediation. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 14:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Prem Rawat}}

Dispute overview

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

There is a difference of opinion between editors on whether or not there is any confusion about the idea that Prem Rawat may have claimed he was God at some point, or that it has been interpreted that way, and that he has backed away from this idea in recent years. The two sections on the talk page that discuss it are here and here

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|Maelefique}}

:* {{user|Momento}}

:* {{user|Rainer P.}}

:* {{user|Surdas}} (1 edit only)

:

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Lengthy talk-page discussions (two sections), as well as an RFC which has had no editor involvement, other than those editors engaged on the talk page already.

• How do you think we can help?

It seems clear we are not going to be able to move forward on this issue without some outside help, I suspect both sides of this discussion feel the other is exhibiting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and we will need some guidance from some more experienced editors in overcoming this issue, especially since there is not enough editors currently engaged in the talk page to arrive at any kind of consensus.

Maelefique^(talk) 06:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::This issue has been created by Maelefique in spite of the fact that the Prem Rawat article has 141 sources, many being religious scholars, and more than 50 references and none of them say that Rawat has ever claimed to be God. In fact, when Rawat first came to the West in 1971 as a thirteen year old he made his position absolutely clear in his first talks in Europe, North America and Africa. In London he said "People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And he is an old man and he has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy". In Ontario he said "What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk". In Johannesburg he said "People ask, ‚"Do you say that you are God?‚" I say, ‚"No, I am not God. . . . . . . I don't want to be God". On the contrary Rawat is totally focused on telling people that God is the energy that keeps us alive and can be experienced inside every human via meditation. However his talks were peppered with examples and stories from Hindu, Christian and Sikh scriptures, he dressed as an Indian, he was called "Guru Maharaj Ji", people bowed to him, his followers lived in Ashrams and sat on the floor. And as the article says "Sociologist James Downton said that from his beginnings Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs that might impede them from fully experiencing the Knowledge (or life force), but this did not prevent them from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and to project millennial preconceptions onto him and the movement". But by the early 80s Rawat decided that the religious and Indian aspects of his teaching were an impediment to his message. And as the article explains, "In 1980, Rawat removed all the "religious" aspects of the movement and declared he now wanted "no movement whatsoever". The Hindu references and religious parables that had been prominent in his teachings gave way to a focus on the meditation techniques. Once called "Perfect Master", Prem Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru" but affirmed his status as a master. Scholars such as Kranenborg and Chryssides describe the departure from divine connotations". In conclusion, none of the scholars who have studied Rawat and none of the respected contemporaneous media say he has even claimed to be God. And all of the scholars who have studied Rawat agree that he removed the Hindu based religious aspects of his teachings in the early 80s. Apparently half the people in the US think Barak Obama is a Muslim so who knows what people think of Prem Rawat but as far as the people who are knowledgeable on the subject go, there has never been any confusion about who he is or claims to be.Momento (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:I agree with Momento completely, but I read Maelefique's concern a little differently. the people who are knowledgeable on the subject (Momento) are not the problem. "This man has claimed he is God" has and is being used as a means to derogate Rawat's work by damaging his legitimacy and credibility, mainly in populistic media or in publications from interested sides (relgions; apostates etc.). Whenever this confusion has penetrated to Prem Rawat himself in form of questions from anyone, he unvariably and without exception unequivocably declined being God. There was never a confusion there. At the same time he has referred to God when it came to the "Knowledge", which according to him is hidden in every human being and which he claimed to have the capacity to reveal. That was unvariable, too. The problem has decreased in the last decades, as Rawat apparently evolved from his Indian socialisation and grew more experienced in western idiosyncrasies. Maelefique, as I read him, wants to have this apparent discrepancy mentioned in the article in order to serve a NPOV, but it seems to be difficult to find a reliable source for it. It seems to be a classic sociological occurence (remember e.g. the well-known Jesus trial, if you chose to accept the Gospel, when the same accusation was used by interested parties, and remained unsettled, as the main argument to obtain a verdict at all costs). Insofar I think it deserves being mentioned in the article, but we should steer very clear from taking sides. A good exercise in neutrality. And, of course, we need a good source. This whole "God", "Lord", "Guru" and so on confusion is a bottomless can of worms and can in itself not be resolved by an out-of-context-quote-battle, as there are agendas behind it. But the conflict itself can be or perhaps has been the subject of sociology, that's why I would like to have Prof. Geaves's advice on it. There is no hurry.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of brevity, and as per the request on this page, I don't see any need for me to repeat everything I've said on the talk page again here (Momento seems to feel otherwise, although I note he hasn't supplied any references for his claims). If someone here needs me to recap what I've already said I will be happy to do so, but I don't feel a flood of text here is helpful otherwise. I will state that I specifically disagree with these statements (previously refuted on talk page as well) of Momento's:

: "none of the scholars who have studied Rawat and none of the respected contemporaneous media say he has even claimed to be God"

:: The Encyclopedia Handbook of Cults in America. p. 143, "In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration."

: "In 1980, Rawat removed all the "religious" aspects of the movement and declared he now wanted "no movement whatsoever"."

:: I believe Momento is referring to, among other actions, the book burning that Rawat ordered of all his organisations' newsletters, which contained quotes from Rawat, such as The Peace Bomb (scans still available online), "But when the Lord saw that the troubles... had reached the final point...[he] manifested Himself in a human body. So He has now come to reveal the lost Knowledge and to restore true peace. The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world"

Many more examples on the talk page, brevity is hard!

-- Maelefique^(talk) 15:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:Funny! Sometimes almost feels like I am the neutral editor... ;-)--Rainer P. (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::Indeed Rainer. I think this whole issue can be settled now if Maelefique can accept that an "embodiment" by definition cannot contain the whole, a "manifestation" is a product of the whole and an "incarnation" is "a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or abstract quality". None of which suggest that the "embodiment", "manifestation" or "incarnation" are the "whole" or in this case "God". And a "book burning"? Inflammatory words. Momento (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• With a dispute as large as this, I'd be pretty quick to suggest mediation. It'd take too long to resolve at DRN, and isn't really suited to lengthy disputes. I have a bit of ring rust, but think I can take this one on. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 03:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::Hopefully that won't be necessary. It all hinges on whether Maelefique can accept that an "embodiment", "manifestation" and "incarnation" of God cannot be God.Momento (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::::do i understand this right? You accept that Rawat is an incarnation of god, but just not the whole energy? Surdas (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:At this point Steven, I would welcome some input. What's next? -- Maelefique^(talk) 05:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::We could, in theory, do this at MedCab or MedCom. I'd have to liaise with MedCom to do it that way though. But DRN is too small for a dispute like this, as I know too well. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 06:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:::Do I need to do something to move this to the next stage, or just wait for you to decide on the best route to go? -- Maelefique^(talk) 07:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::::I'm going to poke a few people and see what we can arrange. Watch this space. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 11:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to remind folks that I only make edits on the talk pages of the Prem Rawat series of articles because of my conflict of interest as a former follower of Rawat. I think that Rawat-adherents (current followers of Rawat) also have conflicts of interest here and all such editors should limit their edits to the talk pages. I have probably made 3 edits on the main article in all the years of the existence of this article. Since the above-mentioned issue has been discussed at great length on many occasions without any resolution (or hope of resolution over many years) I don't believe there is any point in pursuing this issue. (That's why I made my comment to Maelefique asking about his point in bringing up this issue.) That said, I will continue to argue on talk pages (argument in a good way!) against what I know is pure revisionism about the life of Prem Rawat. Saying that Prem Rawat never said "I am God," is literally correct, but it's ludicrous to present any argument that Rawat never said things about himself as Divine, greater than God, Jesus, Krishna, Lord of the Universe, etc. There are also plenty of reliable sources which back up my argument. So mine is a provable assertion. I also don't see the point in going through another attempt at mediation, arbitration, or dispute resolution because the article as it stands is adequate. Best wishes. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:This confusion has been plagueing humanity for centuries and provided the fuel for many an autodafé. genocide, war and what not (I hope you don't need a source for that). It would be unwise to believe we can settle it here for good. But I would rather warn of deciding this by referendum or plebiscite - that usually leads to civil war. Please give me some time, and I will provide, God willing, some quotable academic material that will enable us to form a neutral sentence for the article.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:::One way to improve conversations on the talk pages would be to stick to the bare bones of editing the article, providing proposed additions/changes, instead of voicing opinions, obfuscating the issue by voicing one's opinion, and tossing in irrelevant discussion topics. I'm going to peruse the talk page archives during the next week in order to find previous versions of arguments concerning Rawat's divinity. I'm position that those previous sections on Prem Rawat's divinity will be voluminous. Be well. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::Without worrying about cites, or even the *exact* edit you're proposing, what do you see that neutral sentence saying in essence? -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:Make a suggestion! I trust you linguistic capacity even more than your sagacity.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::"Early in his life, there was controversy amongst the public about whether or not Rawat claimed he was God due to the language he used and its interpretation by Western audiences; despite his denials, when he answered the question directly. He has moved away from that controversy from the mid-1980's until the present, focusing more on his attempts to help individuals find peace within themselves." -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:Not bad! We have the same idea. Only we should not state "due to the language he used and its interpretation by western audiences", and denial is not a nice word. Perhaps disaffirmation or rejection? I think it was not only the language, but rather differing sets of cultural socialisation, that created space for misunderstandings. Still, we have not yet a solid source for that. Otherwise it is all OR. And the peace-within-themselves-bit neglects the never abandoned goal of creating peace in the world also on a social level. Might be difficult to find sources for that, too. Think we should return to the talk page?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::The problem with that phrasing is that Rawat's claims to be greater than God did not only take place early in his life. Can we please wait until I have a chance to review more material? I don't see what the rush is here, given the extreme controversy of this particular piece. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::Keep in mind, I was only trying to get the essence across, we can discuss the exact words at any time, but the problem is, I think that's what I was trying to say to begin with, and so I expect to see another editor here completely disagree with the text, or try and completely alter its meaning. Will wait and see on that. How would you rephrase ""due to the language he used and its interpretation by western audiences"? I think that almost perfectly encapsulates the situation. and you would prefer "despite his rejections of the idea, when answered directly"? Your "cultural socialisation" is the same as "Western audience", only less easily understood I think. I don't think we have to necessarily engage in OR, if we show what was stated, how it was interpreted, and let the reader draw their own conclusions, for example the back of "Who is GMJ?" asks why do 6 million ppl think Rawat is the embodiment of God (not a quote), no one is asking that today, AFAIK. The only difference is the fact that he doesn't talk about the divine/Divine anymore and avoids all the Indian culturally misleading terms, I don't think people are fundamentally different today, slightly yes, but fundamentally, no. I think if we can agree on this concept (essence), we should be able to craft an edit. Possibly more than one sentence, maybe a heading if we *really* need to explain more, "Eschewing Divinity" or "Divinity/divinity" are two catchy section headings, or we could get clever and cute with something like "The "Divine" declined", or 1 of many other possible "fun" titles (I'm not holding my breath on that last one {{-)}}. And don't worry Sylvie, there's absolutely no rush, everyone will have lots of time to input their ideas, but that doesn't mean we should all sit around and do nothing in the meantime either. It may be that his claims extend past the early parts of his life, but they do seem to be less controversial now than they were in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. But again, no one's rushing anything. -- Maelefique^(talk) 18:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:I don't think it deserves its own heading, as it is in reality a rather factitious problem, which has mainly been generated and energized by Rawat's detractors and should not be given undue weight here. One sentence can be enough, if it is really neutral. I agree with Maelefique, the core of Rawat's teachings has not changed at all, maybe we can find even sources for that. His command of the English language has improved considerably, and he can of course formulate with greater differentiation, but that is trivial, as he knew English only from school to begin with and lives now for 40 years or so in the USA. So it seems in fact not as easy to misunderstand him anymore. And times have changed, Rawat has today a better chance to be taken seriously, and not just an object for cheap fun of media people. Still the problem does not have much do do with the person Prem Rawat, so a special heading seems out of place.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::I'm not saying it needs its own heading either, but I'm leaving the option open to accommodate any large amounts of explaining, if we need them. I don't think that the problem has been mainly generated by detractors either, although it has certainly been a bone of contention with them. The Who Is GMJ book as well as the LOTU video were complimentary to Rawat, and they both give that impression as well. I'm not sure how far we can get into the core of his teachings without bumping into Knowledge techniques, and I don't think we want to do that. And again, to be clear, I do not believe this was *only* caused by "cheap fun for the media". Although I'm sure the idea sold a few papers too. -- Maelefique^(talk) 20:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:Are our services no longer required here? Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 19:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::We're still waiting to hear what Momento has to say, if he continues to stay with his position that there's never been any confusion, then we're no further ahead than we were yesterday, so we'll have to see Steve, but don't leave yet! -- Maelefique^(talk) 20:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:I don't remember the LOTU video as being really complimentary to Rawat. Who is GMJ certainly was, I think I could find my aeruginous copy and look for a place where Rawat says I am God, though I think I would have memorized that, because it sounds crazy, not like him. Remember, satgurus, perfect masters, incarnations and manifestations and the like do not count, and this is not just hairsplitting. Meanwhile you should have at least registered this point. I am assuaged to hear that you don't want to get into the techniques, we are definitely at one about that.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::Once again let me make it clear, it's not what we think, it's what reliable sources say. Some people are certainly confused about the meanings of the words "manifestation", "embodiment" and "incarnation". They don't mean "God" and never have. So its safe to assume that some people would be confused about Rawat's teaching but unless someone can come up with a reliable source saying people were confused the whole idea of confusion is WP:OR. And the closest I've seen to that claim is already in the article - "Sociologist James Downton said that from his beginnings Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs that might impede them from fully experiencing the Knowledge (or life force), but this did not prevent them from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and to project millennial preconceptions onto him and the movement".Momento (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::The back cover of who is GMJ says "Why do more than six million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet?"" (and where the heck did you dig up "aeruginous"?! {{-)}} ) which points to the fact that people had that impression of him, which is my point. I don't think anyone thinks that now, or at least, very few. It's hard to agree with your statement that "satgurus, perfect masters, incarnations and manifestations and the like do not count", especially when we have quotes from Rawat saying the opposite, like these two, ""The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world", and ""Lord of Mercy." Some only say "Lord," some say "God," some say "Lord Christ." Same thing." It's not hairsplitting, and that's, again, my point, they don't necessarily mean the same things in the Western world, as they do in India, when Rawat uses the word Lord, referring to divinity, there's going to be confusion, no question. -- Maelefique^(talk) 22:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:Oh, I wish you had not brought up this issue to begin with! Good night now.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::Why is this discussion still going on? It doesn't matter what we think, you need a RS not OR!Momento (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

:::See Steve? Not to worry, we'll find something for you to do. -- Maelefique^(talk) 07:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

::::At present, I think we may be in a bit of a stalemate. Some here seem to have indicated their opposition to mediation, which would mean that any attempt at mediation would be futile - we need everyone to at least agree to mediation, even if they're not on the same page as to where the dispute stands. The subject of Prem Rawat obviously has its controversial aspects, and due to the age of some of the material referenced both in the article as citations, or in discussions on the talk page, it's very difficult for third parties to give comments on the dispute. They just don't have the material, and thus cannot understand the dispute. I think that may be one of the main reasons why this dispute is stuck. It's almost four years to the day that I first looked at this dispute, and one thing I struggled with was understanding the dispute - again, because I didn't have access to the materials being discussed. So I think that anyone that assists with this dispute will need to get copies of the material being discussed, whether it be links to the content in an online format, or scans sent by email. But it'd need to be specific - generic links to the Prem Rawat Foundation website, or to websites created by former followers of Rawat, would not suffice. If a newspaper article from the 70s is being discussed, email a copy to those that need it, so they can fully understand. That seems the only way forward.

::::I suppose that brings us to our current status, and what happens next. At present, it's more likely that, if anywhere, this would be mediated through the Mediation Cabal, though formal mediation through MedCom is also possible - however the mediators at MedCom are a bit tied up at present. I see two clear options here. The first would be for all parties here to walk away from the article, permanently, and edit a different topic. The second would be to proceed with something like mediation. A dispute that has been on and off for over four years needs dispute resolution, and on a larger scale than this noticeboard can provide. I remember last year, there was a formal mediation that had lasted over a year, and it basically rewrote the article from the ground up. Maybe that's what needs to happen here, I'm not sure. Maybe I'm looking too far down the road.

::::The next step from here is for everyone to decide what they want to do. Whether to agree to mediation or not. Once that's out the way (assuming everyone is in agreement), we can discuss venue, and mediator. It's something I could do, though I haven't mediated since August - been busy preparing the dispute resolution survey, amongst other DR stuff, so I am a bit rusty. Additionally, it wouldn't be the first time to mediate this topic. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not. But let's decide on where to go from here. If you could all either agree or disagree to mediation, and provide reasons why, we will go from there. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 11:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

::According to the "Dispute Overview", that Maelefique started the dispute is about "There is a difference of opinion between editors on whether or not there is any confusion about the idea that Prem Rawat may have claimed he was God at some point, or that it has been interpreted that way, and that he has backed away from this idea in recent years". Obviously people can think what they like but WP:RS says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources", so the personal opinions of editors is irrelevant. Likewise WP:OR says "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". Once again the personal opinions of editors is irrelevant. The only source we have for "there was confusion" is Maelefique and I'm afraid he is neither reliable nor published.Momento (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

:::But the fact is that disputes on the article have been on and off for years shows this needs some form of protracted mediation. Maybe the article needs to be broken down, section by section, and discussed, negotiated over, and edited, so this dispute can hopefully be laid to rest. As for RS/OR claims, the possibility for confusion I imagine would be based on what sources say on the subject in question, so I can't comment. I don't have the material, so I can't make an accurate assessment. There's a difference of opinion among the editors here - which is very common on this article, thus I see a need for dispute resolution.Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 12:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

:I agree, mediation might bring some concentration into our discussion. But then, of course, you never know. But then, again, you never know anyhow... So, give it a try, is my feeling.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

::Perhaps you could remove this discussion to Maelefique's talk page, since it isn't based on reliable sources and therefore has no bearing on the PR article.Momento (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

::Steve, if everyone here, except Momento, agrees that some sort of dispute resolution is necessary (which looking at this page, seems to be the case, everyone has agreed but him), how do we proceed? If mediation isn't possible until all parties agree, is the fact that he's deliberately blocking all attempts to resolve the issue considered disruptive behaviour (see latest example directly above this reply)? It seems like continual attempts and examples of WP:OWN, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:TENDENTIOUS, and that would all violate the disruptive editing sanction on the article probation. If he's so sure he's right, I don't see why he's so worried about discussing it with mediators. -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

{{outdent}} I would like to invite the parties, if interested, to file a request for mediation to the Mediation Committee. We are interested in taking the case, and have a mediator who is willing to proceed. All other prerequisites for consideration are still pending, but the chance of acceptance is very high. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

:Thank you for the invitation, I will file a request ASAP. Done. -- Maelefique^(talk) 23:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

::Yes, that's the next logical step here. Hopefully all will agree to mediation. I'll keep my eyes open. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 20, 2012 at 23:29 (UTC) because referred to MedCom. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|1=No talk page discussion. Will leave message on involved users' talk pages. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 14:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Koevoet}}

Dispute overview

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

It is well known that the previous South African government and its security mechanisms have been victim to defamation and a leftist world media view that totally distorts the facts and history surrounding its integrity and operations. In the article reference is made to a one "Lise Morje Howard's" book where she claims that Koevoet was indiscriminately brutal and responsible for 80% of "Namibian" deaths. This is not fact! I have forwarded a communiqué to the author to see if I can get clarification on her sources which I believe to be SWAPO members. The editor, however, is not forthcoming in listening to counter arguments and numerous sources to counter claim. This leaves the page with double meaning and confusion.Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|Socrates2008}}

:* {{user|Boetfaas}}

:

I have at least three sources to appose claims made by Howard which proves that she is spuwing propaganda devoid of fact. The argument left by Socrates2008 is that if it is a valid source then it is fact. That makes me believe that if I can get a source to state that Elvis Presley was son to multi-racial parents and that he enjoyed homosexuality with Asians, it will be accepted as fact. This statement is outrages, but so is the statements made by Howard.

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Socrates2008 have not spared the effort to discuss this issue with me on the talk page. Neither has any other user. I reverted to leaving a message on his user page and was met with a policy on truth vs. sources.

:I'm generally busy in real life, and also wanted to give you the opportunity to read the two policies (WP:V and WP:RELY) that I referred you to, as you have apparantly not yet appreciated what they mean.

• How do you think we can help?

Consider the facts and sources that outweigh ourages sources and convince Socrates to consider my argument.

Boetfaas (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

:I'd strongly urge this user to learn to ropes at WP before picking battles with editors on the grounds that they won't listen to his him. Furthermore I'd like to point out that having a personal disagreement with the content of an article is not grounds to delete material that is referenced to a Cambridge academic, which is why I reverted him. He's on very difficult ground trying to paint Koevoet in a positive light - to use an analogy, this is a little bit like trying to portray the SS as a bunch of saints. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) I see no talk page discussion which is a prerequisite for the dispute resolution noticeboard. For that reason:

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 20, 2012 at 23:13 (UTC) because no talk page discussion Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|1=Feel free to re-file when the RFC is finished and if it's not resolved. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Kurmi}}

Dispute overview

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

(Ref: Talk:Kurmi section: kurmi varna status) Article does reflect complexities regarding kurmi varna status, also indicates difference/dispute/whatever but only missing thing is that all positions on said difference/dispute/whatever are not clearly mentioned or clarified. If we just simply do that, we are only balancing the article which is at present tilted overweight towards "they think they are". Its not my concern at all what varna kurmis traditionally belong to or not belong to. Actually, i am only politely trying to convey or request that lets merely mention or clarify all the positions(at least well-referenced ones),anywhere in the article, regarding difference/dispute/whatever which is already significantly expressed in the article and so summarized in lead, nothing more. And that too because, It is clearly unbalanced when all positions in difference/dispute/whatever are not clarified. I am in no way confronting any point of view or wish to disrupt present article in any way. My only concern here is in all discussion about varna "what they think..." is explicitly provided in the article but other positions are not mentioned clearly. When we mention about difference, we mean difference and that implies there are multiple positions. Why should we shy away from just mentioning all positions clearly. We are not supporting or confronting any side by doing that but just being neutral, balanced and encyclopedic.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|Jaychandra}}

:* {{user|Sitush}}

:* {{user|Fowler&fowler}}

:* {{user|Qwyrxian}}

:* {{user|Thakurta}}

:

By Thakurta: Position 1: 'Kurmis are traditionally classified as Shudra under Hindu Varna system.' Position 2: 'By the early twentieth century Kurmis defined for themselves Similar Kshatriya identities. Kurmis think that they belong to kshatriya varna.' i fail to find both this positions clarified in the article which is certainly 'unbalanced'

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

1. Provided references and requested not to delete well-referenced content 2. Discussed matter thoroughly on talk page by responding to all comments with proper reasoning, explained point of view with references and present indications already in the article. Also suggested solutions and alternative solutions that too, number of times, repeatedly.

• How do you think we can help?

Read discussion on Talk:Kurmi especially, section: kurmi varna status and give your valuable independent view. Thank You.

Jaychandra (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) An RfC is active already. Further discussion across a variety of forums is not necessary. For that reason, If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 21, 2012 at 21:31 (UTC) because RfC active. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

:Sorry, this is my fault: I gave Jaychandra bad advice, and wasn't clear that this should have waited until after the RfC is finished. I suspect Jaychandra will want to come back here at this point, since so far the RfC has mostly drawn comments from already involved editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

::No problem. Jaychandra, should feel free to re-file the dispute when the RfC is complete. Thank you for the note. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 13:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|1=No dispute. Will leave a message on talk page. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 19:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)}}

Dispute overview

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

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

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|Khushbash11}}

:* {{user|Khushbash11}}

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

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=User:Khushbash11}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

• How do you think we can help?

Khushbash11 19:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Closed because technically there's an RFC open; this is partially resolved, and partially at an impasse, generally agreed to be resolved with sources and policy at Talk:Prequel. See there for later developments. JJB 02:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Prequel}}

Dispute overview

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

The article Prequel includes a list of works that fit that description. The dispute is about whether the films : Escape from the Planet of the Apes, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, Battle for the Planet of the Apes, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes are prequels of Planet of the Apes (1968 film). User Gothicfilm has repeatedly deleted these films from the page. So I started an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prequel#RfC:_Planet_of_the_Apes_prequels RfC]. Gothicfilm argued that these films were not "true prequels", using a definition of his own devising. The article had, since 2009, the definition as "A prequel is a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting." The four films above fitted the definition. This did not convince Gothicfilm, who continued to cite his own special rules. I found citations for three of the films, two explicitly being described as prequels. This included notably the director of Rise of the Planet of the Apes stating that the film was a prequel. So explained this on the Talk page and restored the films with references, as seen here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prequel&oldid=487471205]. Still, today I found that Gothicfilm has deleted all of them again.

Note: I have copied the disputed section, including new references, on the Talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prequel#Deleted_.22Planet_of_the_Apes.22_prequels here].

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|Barsoomian}}

:* {{user|Gothicfilm}}

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussed on Talk page, called RfC. When challenged, provided cited references to support my position.

• How do you think we can help?

Advise whether cited references and discussion support the disputed films' inclusion.

Barsoomian (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What was his (User:Gothicfilm's) definition of "prequel"?Curb Chain (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

: He started off with this: "In the original series, the third film Escape from the Planet of the Apes goes back in time, but it's the next series of events that happen for the principal characters - thus it and the following two films are sequels, not prequels. A prequel covers events that happen to the principal characters before the earlier work. That's not the case here. In Escape, the characters talk about what happened in the previous two films - because they're from the future. In a true prequel, characters never talk about events that happened in the earlier film, which supposedly took place later."

: He seems to say that the terms "prequel", "sequel", "reboot" are mutually exclusive. I see no reason to assume that. Also of course time travel means that the setting can be in the past of a previous work, while in the personal future of a protagonist. Godfather II for instance is both a sequel and prequel. Rise of the Planet of the Apes is both a reboot (of the series) and a prequel (to the 1968 film). Barsoomian (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

::Right, and I cursorily looked over talk:Prequel and noted the main dispute:

::User:Gothicfilm is violating several polices: WP:RS and WP:OR

::As noted, by you (above), in a series of movies the words "prequel" and "sequel" are relative terms that are not up to Wikipedia editors to use as labels for works of fiction or otherwise. Generally, with User:Gothicfilm's definition, a minor change in a film can automatically turn a film into a sequel! His definition is not reliable. Thus we have to turn to sources and use entries that have sources to prove that a film is a prequel. Thus your source of the director saying that the film is a sequel is solid proof that the film is a sequel for our purposes on wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:::Barsoomian has gone against consensus on the articles talk page and at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Escape_from_the_Planet_of_the_Apes_-_does_going_back_in_time_make_a_sequel_a_prequel.3F WT:FILM] He also keeps leaving out how director Rupert Wyatt contradicted himself a year later, when Rise was released. The filmmakers had decided by then to call it what it was, a series reboot He then said "It's not a continuation of the other films; it's an original story. It does satisfy the people who enjoy those films. The point of this film is to achieve that and to bring that fan base into this film exactly like Batman Begins". A prequel would be in the same continuity. By the way, Barsoomian also took out a part of the prequel article because it went against his POV. It stated:

"It is also important to note that a prequel must be part of the same series as the publication to which it is a prequel. If, as with the case of Batman Begins it starts the story (and the series) anew, it is not a prequel; but rather a reboot." - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

::::There is no contradiction between a film being a "reboot" and a prequel. The text I removed was inserted by an IP editor without any source or prior discussion. It has no more authority than any other editor's opinion. Barsoomian (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:::@CC, Barsoomian said the director said Rise was a prequel not sequel. Obviously the usual or basic usage of "prequel" does not account for time-travel fiction; e.g. Merriam-Webster's 10th Collegiate has "a literary or dramatic work whose story precedes that of an earlier work". So we would not want to rigidly exclude or include cases unaccounted for by the simple definition, and I'd hate to categorize Lost or Mulholland Drive. I also don't see Wyatt saying directly "it's not a prequel", so although he may be an impeached source the case for exclusion is not complete. Is there a more detailed source for defs of prequel and reboot? Are there other RS defining the Apes movies? (Sorry for not looking myself.) JJB 00:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:::: We don't need to consider Lost, or Doctor Who, as TV episodes aren't considered stand-alone "works". So within such a "work" they can have "flashback" episodes, but not prequels. I've looked for sources describing the Apes movies. There are literally 1.5 million describing Rise as a prequel ([http://www.google.com/webhp#hl=en&site=webhp&q=%22Rise+of+the+Planet+of+the+Apes%22+prequel Google search]). The movies made in the 70s though are a bit harder to source. For one thing the word "prequel" only came into common use in the 1990s, so contemporary reviews wouldn't use that. But I did find a few, which I added as references when I reinstated the films (deleted regardless by Gothicfilm). Barsoomian (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::Well, no, an episode is a prequel of another episode if it says so. Should such examples be included? ProbablyCurb Chain (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::: If you really want to add TV episodes, feel free, if you can find citations to support it. But "flashbacks" are such a common device in TV series that it would get unwieldy pretty quickly. Barsoomian (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And there are literally 3.2 million results describing Rise as a reboot.

Check out the article's Talk page, e.g. Betty Logan and others, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Escape_from_the_Planet_of_the_Apes_-_does_going_back_in_time_make_a_sequel_a_prequel.3F WT:FILM]. Consensus is they're not prequels. Those film critics and the director who used the term prequel to describe these films were making imprecise, you could even say sloppy, use of the term. It happens. That doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. I don't want to repeat everything - please check the Talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prequel#Planet_of_the_Apes_series_has_no_prequels here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Escape_from_the_Planet_of_the_Apes_-_does_going_back_in_time_make_a_sequel_a_prequel.3F WT:FILM], and especially [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prequel#RfC:_Planet_of_the_Apes_prequels here]. You will also see how Barsoomian is determined to plow on with this despite people's issues with what he's doing, and consensus is clearly against him. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

: It's a different issue as to whether a particular film is a "reboot". Has no bearing on whether it's a "prequel" or not. "Reboot" refers to restarting a franchise of movies. "Prequel" is about the relationship between two specific movies. Barsoomian (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

: While on the talk page, note the cited reliable sources supporting my edits, and the absence of such by Gothicfilm. Barsoomian (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

So User:Gothicfilm, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prequel#Planet_of_the_Apes_series_has_no_prequels here], you make the statement (the first post in the section): "In Escape, the characters talk about what happened in the previous two films - because they're from the future. In a true prequel, characters never talk about events that happened in the earlier film, which supposedly took place later.", that the series is in chronological order because the characters are "sequels". Do you see the variety in film and how your definition is too narrow to be utilized? A lot of films simply do not fit in "reboot", "sequel", "prequel" categories (squarely). This is why we need to rely on sources. If you can produce reliable sources, maybe you can rather include and discuss this film series with these mechanics.Curb Chain (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

::In a sequel, the characters are older. In a prequel, the same characters from the original are younger. I think most people at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Escape_from_the_Planet_of_the_Apes_-_does_going_back_in_time_make_a_sequel_a_prequel.3F WT:FILM] would agree with that.

::Dictionary.com: [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prequel?s=t&ld=1030 Prequel: A literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age].

::I would rather not go beyond that here, on yet a third page. See what Betty Logan, who has a good record working on film articles, says about the reliability of Barsoomian's sources for this purpose. Please read the whole conversation at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prequel#RfC:_Planet_of_the_Apes_prequels Prequel Talk page], and perhaps at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prequel#Planet_of_the_Apes_series_has_no_prequels earlier on Prequel Talk], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Escape_from_the_Planet_of_the_Apes_-_does_going_back_in_time_make_a_sequel_a_prequel.3F WT:FILM]. I can continue this tomorrow, if necessary. You can see over there that consensus is against Barsoomian from the people who usually edit film articles. Repeatedly it's been stated we operate by consensus at WP, so surely that means something... Gothicfilm (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:::It surely means something, but wikiprojects do not override the greater community's consensus. I see no solid arguments provided if you don't provide sources.Curb Chain (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

::::What greater community's consensus? The only consensus I see on this topic is that none of these films are prequels. And Rise does fit squarely and snugly into the reboot category. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

::: @Gothicfilm: You say "In a prequel, the same characters from the original are younger." A misrepresentation that you tried to put in the article until you were caught. The dictionary.com definition says "as by portraying the same characters at a younger age". Where the as means that this is an EXAMPLE, not a precondition. And of course, it doesn't work in a story about time travel. The important factor is not how old the characters are, but whether the setting is earlier. Plenty of historical prequels have no characters from the original, being set long before they were born. (E.g., First King of Shannara (1996) / The Sword of Shannara (1977).) And then, whether the story in the prequel reveals events that are part of the "original" work. Your vague statements that the sources I cited are "unreliable" is no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You haven't given any reason that the sources are unreliable. You just don't agree with them. Hundreds of film reviews described Rise of the Planet of the Apes as a prequel. You just say, they're "unreliable". We should just use your definition and not worry about any published film reviewers. Barsoomian (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::Look in the mirror. That is a blatant misrepresentation of what I did. What I first put in the article's lead was It usually portrays the same characters at a younger age. - as can be seen at this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prequel&diff=487571930&oldid=487543894 dif] - which you then took out. That's what you "caught" me at. I did not make it a precondition, I said "usually." (I'm reasonably satisfied with the new definition now in the article's lead, BTW.) This is at least the second time you've misrepresented what I'm trying to do here. I first said In a sequel, the characters are older. In a prequel, the same characters from the original are younger on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Escape_from_the_Planet_of_the_Apes_-_does_going_back_in_time_make_a_sequel_a_prequel.3F WT:FILM Talk page] in response to someone's question of how to refer to a story with time travel like this. Contrary to your claim, I never tried to put that in the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

::::I gather RS say Rise is a prequel and RS say Rise is a reboot. RS also give generic definitions of prequel and reboot, but those RS do not apply the definition to the borderline cases such as here; instead I see participant(s) doing that. RS also do not say these defs are hard and fast and therefore mathematically applicable to all cases. On one side, Barsoomian could find a suitable definer RS, and WP could then say, "By X's definition Rise is not logically a ...." On the other side, Gothicfilm could meet a burden of proof by citing an RS stating, "According to Y Rise is not a ...." If either would like to quote short prior discussion that might be helpful too. JJB 16:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::And, contrary to Barsoomian's other claim, the reliability of his sources for this purpose has been answered. Not just by me, but by others. He just doesn't like the answer. Among other things, Betty Logan also said on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prequel#RfC:_Planet_of_the_Apes_prequels Prequel Talk page]:

:::::*I really don't think film reviews cut it for this type of claim. They are to all intents and purposes opinion pieces that are trying to convey a sentiment to a reader.

:::::*It is not the function of film reviews to categorise films. They are personal opinion pieces. It is their job to say how good the film is, and even then we only include someone's opinion if they are notable. As an example, take this [http://www.empireonline.com/promotions/theaffair/ list of prequels] from Empire Magazine, a highly respected British film reviewing magazine (possibly the top-selling one). It includes "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", but in your honest opinion how many of the others fit the formal definition? Chris Nolan is on record as saying Batman Begins is not a prequel. Casino Royale can't be because it contradicts the earlier films. Hell, Manhunter was the first Lecter film so how can it be a prequel, sequel, reboot or anything else? If I decided to add Manhunter on the basis of my source from a respectable film review publication would you permit me to go ahead and add it, or would you object on the basis we all know it's not really a prequel? On that note I think in the case of contentious films we should find sources with a more formal and scholastic approach.

:::::*Do you think that Casino Royale or Batman Begins are prequels? [http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=prequel.htm This chart] at Box Office Mojo seems to think they are, but how is "Rise" different to these two? None of them depict events leading up to the previous films, all three re-imagine the origins of the mythology in a way that is clearly inconsistent with the previous films (the POTA series depicte dtheir own 'uprising'. Clearly this chart, the Empire list and the reviews you cite are mis-applying terminology that has a specific application. The troubling thing here is that you are clearly not consistent with your application.

:::::*People who don't believe it is a prequel are hardly likely to describe it as "not a prequel", they are much more likely to describe it as something else. 2.6 million Google hits decribe it as a "remake", and 3.2 million hits describe it as a reboot, as opposed to 1.5 million that describe it as a prequel i.e. 80% of hits describe it as something else. Given the fact that there are more sources describing it as something other than a prequel, then do you honestly think it is acceptable to abide the minority opinion. If so, how do you reconcile that stance with WP:WEIGHT that says that viewpoints should be presented in proportion to their weighting in reliable sources?

:::::Again, all four of the above are from Betty Logan, not me, on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prequel#RfC:_Planet_of_the_Apes_prequels Prequel Talk page]. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The other big problem here is Barsoomian keeps picking and choosing what he thinks is important. He repeatedly states that it doesn't matter that Rise doesn't fit in with the other films in the original Planet of the Apes series. This is obviously just his opinion and POV. To me and most everyone else, that's the main difference between a prequel and a reboot, and why it can't be both. A prequel should fit in with the original series. Barsoomian has no standing to say it doesn't, and it's a mystery why he's so obsessed with pushing this point. He should not be allowed to override consensus and commonly accepted use of the term prequel (among those of us who care) just because a minority of writers made imprecise, sloppy use of the word in their articles on Rise.

At one point Barsoomian went what we might call forum shopping by posting on the talk page of Jerzy•t, who had put in the unreferenced, simplistic definition of prequel Barsoomian had repeatedly cited to justify his position. But guess what? Jerzy says

I don't know where i got that definition, bcz the word is too new to be in the print dicts that i routinely consult. I assume i regarded it as obviously what had been meant every time i had heard it used (and i thot my wording as more straightforward -- less likely to confuse -- than the first sent of what i found there). In other words, WP:OR.

Even after that, with the new, improved definition in the Prequel lead, Barsoomian continues to insist it doesn't matter if Rise doesn't fit in with the other films in the original Planet of the Apes series. To me, not only does it matter, it's one of the most important points. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

: I agree with Gothicfilm here. Several of us have voiced the opinion that Escape and Conquest cannot be considered prequels because they continue a narrative from previous films rather than predate said narrative. Barsoomian seems to insist that any work which is based on a previous work and is set in an earlier time is a prequel. No other editors have voiced any support for this. Barry Wom (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

::I am uncertain why Betty Logan's personal views have more weight than others' personal views. There are a couple ways to resolve this essentially in-universe problem. One is to list any classification any RS says, and, in the case of disputed RS, to footnote or otherwise advertise why the classification is on shakier ground. Another is to agree on a clear subset of RS, for instance, to exclude reviews. Another is to list all (or some) RS who define the words at issue and either to resolve inconsistencies informally or to list when RS defs would yield different classification results. But in each case the interjecting the personal view "'tis-'tisn't" is the source of the dispute. WP works by attributing, "X says 'tis, Y says 'tisn't". Those are facts people can agree on, and if there are enough then often people are satisfied to leave conclusions to the reader. Perhaps it would be good to make a section below this one that lists undisputed attributed facts about the movies in question? Or perhaps an article structure other than "WP says this is a .." would be useful? For instance, add a section "Prequels also classified as other categories"? JJB 19:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:::It seems that BettyLogan and GothicFilm have the better of the argument. Reliable sources have mistakes of all kinds, and misidentifying a film as a prequel would not be surprising. Those who are not writing for an encyclopedia may use a word in a way that our precision wouldn't allow. Editors of course are attuned to that reality. My reading of the dictionary definition for 'prequel' is that it agrees with GothicFilm's conclusion; the time line of the characters in the film in question is not earlier. Yes, it's earlier on the calendar but, no, not earlier to the characters. I don't see how Barsoomian's view is an effort to use the word 'prequel' precisely. Instead, it seems to accept the loosest usage with no linguistic gain. That is not good for the reader. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::Well put. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:::My views come on stone tablets. To summarise, yes there are sources out there that call "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" a prequel, but the definition of a prequel is inprecise, which makes its application arbitrary, even by film writers. In many cases—such as The Phantom Menace—it is straightforward but in others it is not, so in view of that I fully support Barsoomian's approach of using sources to support inclusion. However there are several issues:

:::#Reviews are opinion pieces, so a review that states a film is a prequel only reflects the reviewer's opinion of it. If a reviewer thinks a film is a masterpiece, it doesn't automatically make it one.

:::#Source cherry-picking is a resulting problem of the above issue. Since the application of the definition tends to be an opinion, then we can pretty much dig up sources for any number of films that aren't prequels claiming them to be prequels. No-one one here agrees that Casino Royale and Batman Begins are prequels, but there are many sources out there proclaiming them to be.

:::#Weighting of collective opinion is essential as per WP:NPOV, to avoid the problems due to source cherry-picking. We use review aggregators in critical reception so that one reviewer's opinion doesn't receive too much weighting. We sometimes get this with genres, where we get four or five genres listed in the lead, and the idea really is to go with the more commonly applied label as the most representative term.

:::I think there are only two solutions to this at the end of the day, since there doesn't seem to be a "golden source": we either make it open season and permit inclusion of any film that has been described as a prequel (which would see the inclusion of films like Batman Begins), or we have to weight the collective opinion in some way. My personal preference is for the latter, because I think the former would invalidate the list to a certain extent. Betty Logan (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Also well put. A list of true prequels would include Butch and Sundance: The Early Days, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, X-Men: First Class, and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_prequel_trilogy#Prequel_trilogy Star Wars prequel trilogy]. Everyone agrees they are prequels. And even Barsoomian agrees Rise is a reboot. So there's no dispute on any of that. But he also wants to call Rise a prequel, even though to most WP:FILM people that's a contradiction. He has a big problem, which he's repeated often, with expecting a film to be a "true prequel", even though there's plenty of them. Isn't that what a reader should expect from an encyclopedia? If you stretch the meaning of a word to include more and more areas, it loses its precision and meaning. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::We certainly shouldn't be misleading readers about the concept when there is strong dissenting opinion in the cases of some films. Maybe what we need is a section about the misapplication of the terminology. A reboot shares many traits with prequels since they effectively "go back" and tell a fresh story, but they have fundamentally different approaches, and we can give a few notable examples of where the terminology has been conflated. If a substantial number of sources refer to it as a prequel maybe we can cover what differentiates it from 'true' prequels. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::Sounds fine to me. It's legitimate for the Prequel article to go into the distinction between a "true prequel" and one that's being expansively added under the umbrella. But if there's only one list, it should stick to true prequels. Someone perhaps could then add a second expanded list of others, like Rise, making it clear these are only loosely under the prequel umbrella. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::OK, would Barsoomian accept a section or a few subsections of "Ambiguously termed media" for conflated cases that can be narratively grouped? JJB 22:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, splitting the article into List of prequels, List of sequels, and List of reboots is entirely possible (with a good inclusion criteria definition which is usually the first sentence on the article).Curb Chain (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, since again everyone who commented is ignoring any citations, any dictionary definitions, in favour of making up their own definitions and rules, (Gothicfilm has again rolled out his own gold standard of "true prequel" as certified by him, as the only standard that matters) it seems it's pointless to cite sources. But one last time: below is the disputed section that Gothicfilm repeatedly deleted. Including citations to reliable sources that support the labelling of the films as "prequels".

{{Reflist-talk}}

And while we're at it: Definition of prequel. [http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/150546 Oxford Dictionary] (you need a login to see this online):

prequel, n. Etymology: < pre- prefix + -quel (in sequel n.).

A book, film, etc., narrating events which precede those of an already existing work.
(That is the complete entry.)

If a work is a "prequel" of another work, only the two named works are relevant to the discussion. Doesn't matter what happens in any other works. So for instance, "Escape from the Planet of the Apes" and "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes" set out to explain how Apes came to be intelligent as seen in the "original" film, "Planet of the Apes". And 40 years later, they made "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" which did the same, but in a different way. Both films made many references to the "original" film. (And both films made continuity errors in some details, which doesn't affect the main intent -- every film does, there are websites devoted to that.) The latter film was explicitly called a prequel by its director. If either or both films are also "reboots" or "sequels", that is a different question. There is no rule, except in Gothicfilm's mind, that these terms are mutually exclusive. I've found numerous articles describing "Rise" as a "prequel/reboot", which again Gothicfilm decided didn't count against his own opinion.

• [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zaki-hasan/rise-planet-apes-2011_b_921598.html Huffington Post], "director Rupert Wyatt's prequel/reboot of the legendary Apes brand"
• [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1923903/news/1923903/weekly-ketchup-emplanet-of-the-apesem-sequel-is-coming/ Rotten Tomatoes] "Rise of the Planet of the Apes. The prequel/reboot arguably did not receive the amount of publicity and hype..."
• [http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/entertainment/movies/5427997/Wetas-digital-apes-the-stars-of-prequel-reboot Nelson Mail] "Weta's digital apes the stars of prequel reboot"

So, if despite all this, if Rise at least is not a "prequel", this is a declaration that editors' opinions override verifiable reliable sources. If it's upheld here to just ignore statements by, e.g. the film's director, numerous film reviewers because the editors here think they know better, though they have failed to cite any sources themselves, I will recuse myself from editing this article any more, since I can't accept that. Barsoomian (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

:User:Barsoomian, the Apes series is a special case as has been commented by the above other editors. I don't think a black or white categorization per your definition or User:Gothicfilm's (original) definition fits. A discussion of these special circumstances is anyway more informative than either a straightforward inclusion or exclusion as first proposed.Curb Chain (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

:: I don't understand what you are proposing. There is a list, and a work is either on it or it isn't. That is "black and white". And "my definition" is from a dictionary. "Gothic film's definition" is from Gothicfilm. Barsoomian (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

:::With all the above evidence, we can make a separate section as suggested, or leave out this series because including it would allow many other films theto be included, and I doubt this is what you want.Curb Chain (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Sorry, but what "special section"? Where? Why? I don't agree that the films that provoked this dispute should be excluded from the list because of some slippery slope argument about other films. It seems you want to implement Gothicfilm's "true prequel" standard. I won't be a part of that. Barsoomian (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::The proposed second section would address reboots where the reboot/prequel terminology is used interchangeably. Rise and Batman Begins are essentially reboots that are often described as prequels. The "prequel" terminology is being applied in a more liberal sense i.e. telling an origins story that predates other films, whether they tie in with continuity or not, and what is being proposed is to introduce the distinction into the article. We can use [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RJ-XSNgfDR8C&pg=PA140 this source] as a basis, which addresses whether Batman Begins is a sequel, prequel, remake, or standalone film. I don't agree with some of their conclusions about the films, but they go some way to explaining this is anything but clear-cut, and we should be depending on more scholarly sources. Betty Logan (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::: The article Prequel is just about prequels. It's not an article about all the other terms that might be applied to a film. There is already a list of Reboots at that article. And there is what can serve as an umbrella article at Sequel, which includes links and discussion about the various kinds of sequel/prequel/reboot/ etc. Prequel should not duplicate Reboot or become more general and duplicate parts of Sequel. Each work included in Prequel is a link to the article on that work, and there you can read all about it, including discussion of what categories it is in. (If somehow Batman Begins were to be in the list -- I wouldn't agree with that myself -- you would go to the article about that film to see a nuanced discussion that is impossible in a list.) Also, what about the 70s Apes prequels? They have been shitcanned repeatedly, despite them being the clearest example of prequels I can imagine. By the way, your book link is "unavailable for viewing", so I can't comment on that. Barsoomian (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::Excuse me, but the 1970s Apes sequels are the clearest example of prequels you can imagine? More so than Butch and Sundance: The Early Days, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, X-Men: First Class, and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_prequel_trilogy#Prequel_trilogy Star Wars prequel trilogy]? Those are pure prequels, but you'd rather call the Apes films prequels... After all that's been said here? You are unbelievable... - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::I'm so sorry. No, I wouldn't "rather" call the Apes films prequels. Just "as well". Happy now? Barsoomian (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::I found another source for the book mentioned by Betty Logan, on [http://www.scribd.com/pillowbookworm/d/52443704-second-takes-critical-approaches-to-film-sequel Scribd]. It's quite interesting, but the prequel chapter is mostly about Batman Begins. Quite distressingly for many here I imagine, it describes that without any hesitation as a "prequel". As well as Casino Royale. I find those a bit odd myself, but I'd have to defer to this if someone wanted include them citing this. And the same reasoning would include Rise of the Planet of the Apes, by the way. Ultimately, the number of films in this class (rebooted franchises) is quite small and it's not opening the barn door to include those few that are also referred to by reliable sources, such as this one, as a "prequel", despite what some editors may prefer. As mentioned above, the article on the film itself can go into the pros and cons if anyone is interested. No one is insulting Butch and Sundance: The Early Days by putting it in the same list as films with less purity of prequelness. Barsoomian (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::The point the book makes is that it isn't a simple labelling exercise ([http://www.scribd.com/pillowbookworm/d/52443704-second-takes-critical-approaches-to-film-sequel#page=153 chapter link]).

::::::::To quote: Christian Bale, who plays Batman, comments, “this is an origin story, not a sequel,” adding, “You could say it’s a prequel—it feels like a prequel—because we don’t have the pressure of following anything that’s already been created” (qtd. in Grove, “Christian Bale” 202). The film’s status as a possible prequel is contested too, however, with Christopher Nolan himself explaining, “I don’t see this film as either a sequel or a prequel to the other films. It just sort of exists in its own very different universe” (qtd. in Jordan and Gross 23).

::::::::To quote the author: The status of Batman Begins —as variously prequel, sequel, or stand-alone film is clearly something of a vexed question, and this difficulty of designation interests me here.

::::::::There are many different aspects, it discusses a "prequel" in terms of a narrative that simply sets its events before those of another film, and also in terms of its intent to "renew" or "remake" the franchise. In this sense the term is being applied in a way that is synonymous with a reboot. The problem here is that you refuse to accept that the term carries different meanings; traditionally it was used to describe an instalment that inverted the concept of the sequel i.e. the first film could be perceived as a sequel to the second film; however in this essay and in the media it is increasingly being used to describe a form of 'reboot', particularly origins stories such as Batman Begins and Casino Royale. The fact is, a 'prequel' in the form of Batman Begins and Rise of the Apes is fundamentally different to those that simply invert the sequel concept like Temple of Doom, and that distinction should be presented in the article if we include this extended family of 'prequels'. Betty Logan (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::: "The problem here is that you refuse to accept that the term carries different meanings". I understand the distinction. The problem is that we (as editors at Wikipedia), don't get to arbitrarily decide that one meaning is legitimate, because we agree with it, and another, equally well sourced, is not. Aside from that, Batman Begins is far less "pure" a prequel than Rise. I couldn't name a particular film that BB is supposed to be a prequel to; it's just a new origin story if I was going to describe it. But Rise has many callouts to the original PotA, including a mention of Taylor's ship, and there isn't much that couldn't be handwaved away to accept it as a part of the same history. Aside from the numerous citations I have given before on that question. "that distinction should be presented in the article": No, because unless you source it, it's WP:OR. And really, do we want to go the way of having to ascribe a degree of prequel purity to every film mentioned? That way lies madness, and shifts the edit war to which subgenre of prequel a particular film goes into. I already know Gothicfilm's top 10, and bottom 10, and he and me and everyone else would be fighting about that forever after. Leave that obsessive over-analysis to film bloggers. Barsoomian (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I came to this with a completely open mind and at one point thought you had the better of the argument, Barsoomian, so I can be persuaded. If you want to take this process seriously, I think you should be able to explain to someone like me why you are correct. My problem with your view is that the dictionary definition is consistent with both positions. If we take as our frame of reference the characters in the story, the dictionary supports GothicFilm's view as well as yours, so that tells me the dictionary is not trying to make the kind of distinction under discussion. You seem very convinced that this is incorrect, but I don't see why I should adopt your thinking. You want me to rely on your sources, but reliable sources have all kinds of half-hearted assertions and less than rigorous writing (see BettyLogan's 'masterpiece' example). So maybe you have an answer to this criticism of your position. There is another step to my thinking on this, but it depends on my view about the dictionary definition, so I will hold that back to give you a chance to respond. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what you mean by "positions" or "distinctions" here. Please say just what issue(s) you are referring to. And if you think that the sources I cite are unreliable, you have to say why a specific source is not reliable. You can't just blow off every film reviewer as "less than rigorous" and just follow what you think. That's just original research and disallowed completely. The "masterpiece" example is silly, that is a much more subjective assessment. A film isn't a "masterpiece" because any one person says so. It's a film that is universally lauded, not something that can be proven by satisfying a definition. That's why there isn't a List of film masterpieces article. For Wikipedia editors to dismiss all sources as "not rigorous" enough if you disagree with them leaves us with no authority, it becomes no more than a collective blog.Barsoomian (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

:::Well, of course, if I come to believe that 'masterpiece' can be used correctly or incorrectly, I am certain to reflect that in my editing, and I will defend my choice. That's what I'm asking you to do: defend your choice. You have taken the position that it is correct to use 'prequel' to refer to any film that has events that occur on the narrative's calendar before the earlier film. I don't find a place where you say why that is correct. By contrast, I am saying it is incorrect, and I will explain why: the difference between a prequel and a sequel is that the characters in a sequel remember the earlier film and they don't in a prequel (or reboot, by the way, which is why these categories can include the same film). By that standard alone, every successor film can be delineated into prequel or sequel. So, this is how I figure out which sources are rigorous and which are not. It's not arbitrary, it is by a principle that I can state and which makes things clear for the readers instead of muddy. So, please defend your choice. By what standard do you separate the good uses of prequel from the bad ones? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:::: "it is correct to use 'prequel' to refer to any film that has events that occur on the narrative's calendar before the earlier film. I don't find a place where you say why that is correct" See the dictionary definitions cited above and in the lead of the article Prequel. ("A prequel is a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting". ) Where is the definition you give from? From you? From Gothicfilm? I'm sorry, but if so, it's original research and irrelevant here. As for deciding if a use is "good" or "bad", that's a matter of opinion, a question to discuss in a forum, also irrelevant in an encyclopedia article. Barsoomian (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::Any time an editor thinks about what words to use in the article, is it OR in your opinion? That is what it seems to come to. By that standard, you are guilty of OR every time you write a sentence for Wikipedia. No, that's not serious. I am offering the observation that, if you look, it just so happens that the characters in a prequel don't remember the events in the original, while the characters in a sequel are able to remember the events in the original. The dictionary definition has this bit about "prefigures". What is entailed by "prefigures" requires some thinking. You seem to hold that "prefigures" amounts to nothing. But it's not nothing, it's in the definition. So, as a good rule of thumb, use the memory test. Characters in reboots and prequels don't remember the source film. That is how to apply the word correctly according to the dictionary definition. I don't think you can rebut that, but I'm interested in what you have to say. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::I hear Betty Logan proposing and Gothicfilm affirming, "We can give a few notable examples of where the terminology has been conflated. If a substantial number of sources refer to it as a prequel maybe we can cover what differentiates it from 'true' prequels." There is no need to have "one" list; applying logic from other cases, we could easily have a second table under Prequel#Films that explain this. Barsoomian also affirms Rise is a "prequel/reboot" (putting the other Apes on hold for now), which can be considered a slightly different category from "prequel" but perfectly valid for this article. Why not have someone paste Rise as a stub table with a title like ";Ambiguous prequels" (";" for bold but not listed in TOC)? Maybe include a column for rationales and add Casino Royale et al. JJB 13:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I also see Barsoomian regarding being on or off "the" list as black and white, and that may illustrate the sticking point. One view is "one monolithic list of all 'prequels' in any criteria-meeting RS", the other is "some nuance distinguishing more nominal 'prequels' from those less so". If these two views were upheld, they would be logically contradictory, and only a compromise from someone would suffice. But it seems to me that a second table immediately after the first, that looks almost identical but has certain footnotes or other markers, would be a valid compromise, as would a single table where disputed entries have an obvious asterisk or other callout. Certainly the current table does not appear to be sorted in any way and at least we can agree on improving that! Anyone want to flesh this out? JJB 17:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

::: No, it's not a "valid compromise". I see people saying that, in their opinions, "terminology has been conflated". Which means they disagree with the sources I cited, and therefore will ignore them. And you propose creating an "ambiguous prequel" list, that you deprecate and hide away in an unlisted section. And Gothicfilm's patented "True prequel" list. Who decides on what goes there? How? On what criteria? Dump all the prequels you disagree with in that list, regardless of any sourced citations, even if a "substantial number of sources refer to it as a prequel", because a couple of editors think their opinions override WP:RS and WP:V. Is this Wikipedia, or some fan wikia? As for sorting the table, it's "Wikitable sortable". i.e. alphabetic if you click on a column. That seemed simplest with editors adding entries willy nilly, it didn't matter where they put them. Barsoomian (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

::Whoa whoa, I'm trying to work from what you've said, such as that it's a "prequel/reboot". I don't believe in deprecating or hiding. Are you saying that the only solution is that all films called prequels anywhere in RS should be listed without any qualifiers? Usually WP is much better at demonstrating nuances than that. How are you intending to handle the nuances that you admit? (As for willy-nilly, feel free to add "cn" to any others that don't meet the criteria.) JJB 18:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• To summarise, because this is getting very word:

1. Barsoomian believes the Planet of the Apes sequels where they go back in time are "prequels", because they contain "events that precede the original". Gothicfilm contests this interpretation since "events that precede the original" is open to interpretation, either by literally reflecting the chronology (in which it would meet the definition), or it could be construed as being from the perspective of the time-travelling apes, whose experiences follow on from the original, in which case it would not meet the definition. An observation by Charl6 at the Film project was that the "prequel" terminology does not tend to be applied to time-travel sequels such as Back to the Future Part 3, which depicts events that chronologically occur before the previous films in the series.
2. As a result of the above disagreement, both editors agree that reliable sources should be used. The issue here is what type of source. There are many reviews that refer to Rise of the Planet of Apes as a prequel, but there are are even more that refer to it as a reboot/remake (more than twice as many in fact). This is the crux of the problem: asking Gothicfilm to find sources describing it as "not a prequel" is unrealistic, because reviews/sources that regard it as something else will call it by something else, such as a reboot/remake. In that capacity there are more sources out there that regard it as something other than a prequel.
3. The issue is exacerbated by conflated terminology. Barsoomian refuses that there is a conflation, but I have provided an academic source that clearly extends the definition of a 'prequel' to include reboots that predate depictions in other films, often in the form of an 'origins story'. Using Batman Begins as an example, the source explicitly cites Chris Nolan as saying it is not a prequel because the film exists in its "own universe", but the source (along with Christian Bale) argues that in some sense it is because it depicts an origins story that in a narrative sense predates the events of the old Batman series, even though they are unconnected i.e. the purpose of the 'prequel' is to 'renew' the franchise. It applies the same logic to Casino Royale too, which is a Bond origins story and has been explicitly been referred to as a reboot by the Bond producers, not a prequel. Even Barsoomian agrees that Batman Begins and Casino Royale are not prequels in a traditional sense, because he "can't see which films they are prequels too". I agree with him on that, so it is pretty clear that the terminology has transcended its original usage, and in this case is being used to describe a particular type of reboot as well, that is quite distinct from its original application.
4. The solutions are that we accept any film on the list that is described as a prequel, but this does not allow for consistency of usage, context of usage, nor significance of usage. The alternative solution is to only permit films on the list if they are primarily described as a 'prequel' i.e. if more sources declare it a 'reboot' then that's what we go with rather than 'prequel'. Both of these approaches have possible WP:WEIGHT issues. The compromise is to create a sub-section of the list for reboots that are sometimes referred to as 'prequels', for cases where the terminology is being used interchangeably in reliable sources. Gothicfilm agreed to this, but Barsoomian rejects this idea.

:I don't see how much further the participants can debate this. If you remove the viewer interpretation of these films and focus fully on reliable sources then the following patterns emerge for films that are described as prequels: films that are primarily described as prequels; films that are primarily described as something else; films where there is a strong correllation between being described as a reboot and a prequel; time-travel films that depict events earlier in the chronology but the story itself follows on from the preceding film. I really don't see the harm in explaining the different contexts in which the terminology is applied, and listing films that are representative of that application. That is where I stand on the issue, and then the reader can draw their own conclusions. After all, we don't need to just bundle everything into one big list without even attempting to explain the criteria for its inclusion do we? Betty Logan (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

::I agree with this very well thought-out analysis. You can see why I was quoting Betty Logan earlier. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::@User:Betty Logan: I agree with point 4. At first I thought we reached an impasse, but it seems that User:Barsoomian does not agree with all the parties here/consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::: @Betty Logan: You can add notes and discussion to the article explaining the niceties of how "true" a prequel is if you like, though that kind of analysis might be interesting it would pretty likely be WP:OR.

::: "Barsoomian refuses that there is a conflation" Don't put words in my mouth. Of course I "accept" that. [http://www.scribd.com/pillowbookworm/d/52443704-second-takes-critical-approaches-to-film-seque Paul Sutton's article] that called Batman Begins and Casino Royale prequels was something I find a silly conflation of the term. Nevertheless, it's about as "reliable" a source as we can find, and we must therefore include both films regardless of what fans think. The point is, that if reliable sources describe a film or other work as a "prequel', then Wikipedia's basic principle of verifiability mean we can't delete it and ignore it because we think we know better.

:::"This is the crux of the problem: asking Gothicfilm to find sources describing it as "not a prequel" is unrealistic" Tough. You want to ignore the sources I have provided because it's hard to find contradictory ones? How absurd an argument is that? Over and over, I have said that reboot/prequel/sequel are not mutually exclusive. A film can be any combination of these if it satisfies their separate criteria. The film Rise of the Planet of the Apes has been often described as a "prequel/reboot". I cited several sources in the previous discussion. You can't just blow these off because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's a false dichotomy to say that if a film is a reboot it therefore is not a prequel.

:::I think that all a simple focused article like Prequel should worry about is whether a work is a prequel or not, the link provided to each film or book's article will lead the interested reader to a full discussion of each work, and for instance if it's also a "reboot", something that is a separate category and a separate list in a separate article. Adding a burden of deciding exactly what kind of prequel any particular film is is what is unrealistic. No one will be able to consistently follow the guidelines and sub-categories you propose, analysing numerous obscure and inaccessible books, films, let alone video games (a big list that I have left alone except for formatting since I have no clue about them) even aside from that these rules and categories are WP:OR and unverifiable. Barsoomian (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::::You seem adamant and entrenched in your position. We have had, I hope, a deep and thorough discussion above. Alternatives and compromises have been provided. I believe I can no longer further help in this dispute except to point you towards consensus-as I have stated above. If you feel you need to take this up to a higher authority of dispute resolution, WP:DR has the information you are looking for.Curb Chain (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::::: Fine, so Prequel is now to be defined following rules arrived at by a group of editors, regardless of any verifiable reliable sources. In that case I recuse myself from the article from this moment. Barsoomian (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Um, if we want to avoid impasse: (1) recusing yourself would count as a resolution, but need not. (2) Betty Logan and Gothicfilm, and maybe other FILM members, may be forming a consensus, but the consensus must also be receptive to interaction with Barsoomian's concerns. (3) It is realistic to find "not a prequel" sources in general (one has been found for Batman Begins); but it is not realistic to give their absence unequal weight, when instead the "reboot" sources etc. should be given the weight. (4) Barsoomian need not say that "prequel or not" is simple yet "what kind of prequel" is unrealistic; WP is not about oversimplifying and the "prequel" article is fully capable of such nuances; and this is an article, not a standalone WP:LIST. We all agree that sources do not treat Rise like other movies. Therefore (not to say anything against Curb Chain's position) I'll get my hands a little dirty here: the below seems to meet Betty Logan's compromise position (based on consensus-building attempts) as well as Barsoomian's position (based on policy reading). Note that the first film is regarded as undisputed and the rest as in various other shades; references are simplified rather than full, so this is not of course final. Why wouldn't something like this be agreeable as to format? Then we can go on to ordinary discussion, more easily resolved, about what is RS or not, and the like. JJB 13:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::I don't believe anyone, not even Barsoomian, was for the inclusion of Batman Begins. It was not on the list before. We all agree it's a reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

*Classified both as prequel and within another category.

;References

:6. Director: "primarily a prequel"; The Telegraph: "prequel"; Collider: "prequel/reboot"

JJB 13:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Before we get too much further down the Clinton-esque What "is" is path can Gothicfilm and Barsoomian define susinctly what the sticking point is? From what I can tell it's the addition of the Planet of the Apes expanded films example. If this is correct, might I suggest leaving the content out as the article's list section is already very long? Hasteur (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion with Betty and Gothic is ongoing on Talk:Prequel. Barsoomian is taking a break but has affirmed the proposal above at my talk. The discussion has enough seeds now to blossom into harmonious editing but we'll see. JJB 14:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

:Since there's a RfC running currently and it appears this is being talked out, is there any objections to having this thread being closed down in favor of those routes? Hasteur (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 23, 2012 at 15:31 (UTC) because technically there's an RFC open; this is partially resolved, and partially at an impasse, generally agreed to be resolved with sources and policy at Talk:Prequel. JJB 15:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|1=RfC active. Allowed editor to re-report to my talk page if the dispute is still unresolved after the RfC expires. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Firefox}}

Dispute overview

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

Firefox article needs help determining what screenshot for Firefox 12 should be used in the infobox.

File:Firefox 12.PNG|Firefox12.PNG

File:Firefox 12.png|Firefox12.png

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|Trewyy}}

:* {{user|Robin Mathew Rajan}}

:

Robin Mathew Rajan believes that his screenshot Firefox12.PNG should be used instead of Firefox12.png (don't be confused, they are different files despite having the same name and extension). I come to DRN asking for advice on which image should be used. Thanks!

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

Not yet.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

• How do you think we can help?

ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 00:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) I think you should try a request for comments ← you can click that to find out how to set one up. It's quite simple. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 25, 2012 at 00:35 (UTC) because RfC a better option

:I was on the Wikipedia Help Chat, and they recommended DRN. I hope that more users will contribute before you delete this thread. Also I have asked for comments, just not with the RfC tag. I will add it now to the Firefox Talk page. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 00:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

::The RfC looks good =) Sorry, if it seemed like I was brushing you away. But, if the dispute is still not resolved after the RfC tag expires, please let me know on my talk page and I'll be happy to help you. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

:::Thank you very much for you help. I am always excited to learn new things about wikipedia (DRN, RFC, etc.) ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 01:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Premature, please thoroughly discuss at article talk page first, see closing note, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|List of Mr. Belvedere episodes}}

Dispute overview

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

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mr._Belvedere_episodes&diff=462458769&oldid=462349745 Before me, that was done in December 2011] before [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mr._Belvedere_episodes&diff=462840735&oldid=462458769 it was reverted back]. Now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mr._Belvedere_episodes&diff=489098023&oldid=486514423 I tried to remove excessive unnecessary amount of stuff and unsourced entries], but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mr._Belvedere_episodes&diff=next&oldid=489098023 Vnisanian2001, the major contributor to this page, disagreed]. I don't think article talk page helps, as he could say that I was wrong to remove stuff that is "needless" and "unnecessary". And I don't think third opinion helps. However, I decide to post this because I want to bring this into attention. I could not revert it back to table format, as it would lead to WP:3RR.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|Vnisanian2001}}

:* {{user|George Ho}}

:

Vnisanian2001 is the major contributor to this article; that's all.

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

• How do you think we can help?

Inform the user about how to do lists properly.

George Ho (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

From my talk page: --George Ho (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

{{talkquote|1=When I initially put together this list four years ago, I was inspired by Gerry A.'s episode guide:

http://www.oocities.org/mrbeaverfalls/guide.html

Notice how he has all the episodes listed in production order? I wanted to do the same thing. Hell, most, if not all Mr. Belvedere airings in syndication, were in production order. Plus, I prefer using that kind of formatting for the episode guide, than the typical table format. I think it makes the list of each episode much more linear, and easier to understand.

Ergo, the only way I think you and I can resolve this dispute is this: To let me keep the formatting, and production order arrangement, and for you to delete any tidbits that you feel may be either too trivial, and/or not enough research.

What do you say to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vnisanian2001 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 25 April 2012‎ (UTC)}}

Still unproductive to me... I wouldn't consider that source reliable per WP:RS. Let's wait for someone to decide this. --George Ho (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

George, if it's of any interest, the production codes can also be found from the U.S. Copyright Office/Library of Congress. Just search Mr. Belvedere in "Keywords", set the range from 1985-1990, "Motion Pictures", and in ascending format.

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vnisanian2001 (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2012‎ (UTC)

:Production codes I don't mind; in fact, I haven't erased them and production dates. I erased only trivia that has no effect on episodes whatsoever, such as guests' credentials on other works, such as Barney Miller. I arranged episodes in airdate order for general researchers... and readers, as well. ...Maybe arranging them in production order is not a bad thing, yet leaving list untabled and and full of intricate details (guests' credentials and trivia that may be either original research or irrelevant for the readers) standing... are general readers interested in those things? Would general readers care for that? --George Ho (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Closing note: Per the instructions of this noticeboard (and of most other forms of dispute resolution), this is only for disputes which have been thoroughly discussed at the article talk page. I can find no such discussion and it is inappropriate to engage in the initial discussion of what should or should not be done at an article here, as it removes the discussion from the place that other editors would expect to find it. Please discuss this issue at the article talk page and, if you come to an impasse, then consider dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|1=Close. I've been following the dispute since its arrival at DRN and there doesn't seem to be anything remaining. If there are problems remaining, they can contact me on my talk page. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Diet in Sikhism}}

Dispute overview

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

The dispute is the current administrator of DIET IN SIKHISM, has deemed that ONLY an orthodox view of Sikhism should be presented, and NO un-orthodox views should have ANY merit. The core of the argument is about whether Sikhism the religion, the culture, the tradition has accepted or rejecting meat eating as part of its beliefs. Now the current ADMIN of DIET IN SIKHISM, has presented views, that show scholars with the understanding that Sikhism has had a benevolent view on diet, and has provided three passages from the sikh holy book to support. However in the opening passage of the article DIET IN SIKHISM, it states, how a number of sikh sects DO NOT adhere to this view that sikhism has a ambivalent view towards meat, suggesting only a vegetarian diet is allowed by the Gurus. I take the stance, that those sikh sects, of which their are many, and of which hold a vegetarian stance, should have their argument presented aswell as the view that sikhism does allow meat eating. For the interest of balance and fair play, both sides, orthodox and unorthodox POV should be included, in the same manner UNORTHODOX Shia islamic sect views are given just as much exposure as the orthodox Sunni sect are. Wikipedia does not PROTECT one side over another, it presents all information for a balanced article.

Now the scholars used here in this article to present a meat eating argument, have also said that while in THEIR belief sikhism has no view on diet, their Are passages against meat in sikh scripture, AND ITS THIS POINT, THAT NEEDS ADDRESSING! The current ADMIN on sikh history has deemed any Sikhism which doesn't agree with his own ORTHODOX stance as void.

'''The following passages are an example of the double standards issued on DIET IN SIKHISM, passages alluding to a ambivalent diet are kept, while the assertion from the same scholar that their are passages against meat eating, are rejected. From the same scholar, same book, same ISBN NUMBER, one rejected and one accepted, the accepted statement fits in with the ADMINS own orthodox stance which he has openly declared on his Wikipedia page.

1.QUOTE FROM ARTICLE - Gobind Singh Mansukhani states how vegetarianism and meat-eating has been left to the individual Sikh.

2.QUOTE FROM DELETED PASSAGE -scholars hold a view that Sikhism has an ambivalent view on diet, yet some accept that there are, “passages against meat eating”.

REF for both 1 and 2. Gobind Singh Mansukhani, Introduction to Sikhism, Delhi: Hemkunt Press, {{ISBN|81-7010-181-6}}, “There are passages against meat, in the Adi Granth”.

Both references from the SAME scholar, yet one is accepted which is favor of an ambivalent view towards diet, while another assessment from the same scholar admitting their are passages against meat eating, is not accepted. Why the Double standards?

'''The ADMIN accepted one and rejected the other to protect his own biased orthodox POV. The history blog of the article has centered around one issue being, one sided.

Now also i used REF BHAI GURDAS in possible evidence that supports the alternative scholarly theory that a vegetarian diet is ultimately the only way of life for a Sikh, yet while the ADMIN QUOTES Bhai Gurdas himself, he deemed my quotes from Bhai Gurdas as not valid, when he was DIRECTLY DEALING WITH ISSUE OF DIET. The whole article should show both argument and not one side.

OVERALL.

1. SIKHHISTORY EDITOR, using selective references, synthesis. The article in its original form, already DECLARES, that their are sikh groups and passages from the holy book against meat, which is declared by the same authors who the EDITOR cited and then rejected my use of the SAME AUTHOR when he suggested against the SIKHHISTORY EDITORS, personal POV.

we have acknowledgment that no meat is served in temple, we have many references in the original article that openly state, uncertainty about issue of diet, even sholars that where used in the original form of the article state how their is evidence against a meat eating diet, yet the EDITOR on sikhhistory deems it a closed matter, and does not give both sides the neutral POV to erase the issue of a one sided biased article. If you want i can separate the article in two sections ORTHODOX AND UNORTHODOX. I and all the other sects mentioned in the original article that state sects and passages against meat, to expand on that issue and give both sides their due, for a balanced article not anchored to any ONE specific religious body.

THANKS!

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|Sikh-history}}

:* {{user|ONEDHARMA}}

:

Told me to take to a dispute resolution board.

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

Not yet.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Talked to editor, shown examples of doubt, and one sided article.

• How do you think we can help?

Bring balance to the subject, allow both POV of to be addressed, with scholarly debate and relevant verses. Address the one sided argument give balance to the subject that is not factual or a closed case.

ONEDHARMA (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

te u===Diet in Sikhism discussion===

Thanks for the reply, but i made the suggestion to the editor of the board but he would not listen or even discuss the issue, i have stated that the editor has maintained his own personal views into the article. The editor stated i should go and seek this dispute resolution, because as far as he is concerned he doesnt want anything that he doesnt agree with on articles linked to sikhism, which i deem very one sided and a bit intolerant. Thanks, i would like this issue sorted, i have offered to create an orthodox and unorthodox section on diet in sikhism, i have presented the same scholars that where in the original article, that the editor cited himself, yet when i cited the same scholars to show that they themselves agree that their are passages against meat and many sects against it, the current editor of diet in sikhism again took it off. How can a person cite a scholar and then reject my use of the same scholar when it doesnt fit in with his own POV, which he stated as only being orthodox. I know wiki also has information on Shia unorthodox sect of islam, does that mean we only adhere to one persons view on sikhism, when that person has cited sholars that openly admit that their are passages against meat, if that is the case then why cant relevant verses be shown? Thanks again, i only reponded on here, because to be honest im getting lost with all the forms on wikipedia.lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONEDHARMA (talk • contribs) 23:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hi. To start off, I think when talking with editors, you should tone down your comments. For example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASikh-history&diff=488683208&oldid=485801693 here], you used caps which implies that you are shouting. Most editors do not respond to such comments. They also don't respond to comments that are too long, so they just don't read it. I'm going to ask the other editor to talk with you on the dispute resolution noticeboard. But please focus on the content that you want to add and make sure that the information that you are adding is well sourced and the sources conform with Wikipedia policies. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for replying. I admit i got aggitated when my disputes where not being addressed, but i never abused anyone, it seemed like the current editors has NO reasoning what so ever, even on his page it openly declares a one sided pov. I gave him relevant evidence, with isbn, scholary debate, all sources where cited, NPOV, no original synthese, i took over 4 hours trying to make sure the article was up to standard. I have the additions i made on file, and you can view it to see, that my edits breached no rules what so ever. In fact i went into the original article, checked out the references that where made and found alot of synthesis the current editor has made.So when i re-edited the Diet in sikhism section, it breached no rules and clearly added to the dialogue, it was much better than it was in its original form. But the dispute lies with the editor, who does not accept any view which goes against his POV. So i needed maybe you to allow me to make those changes, and address the inbalance so that justice and Both pov can be addressed. Thanks again. I posted the dispute up, in an even shorter form. I didnt do it to challenge you. I have tried to address the matter with the editor, but instead of discussing it he doesnt address the issue at all. If you check the history of DIET in sikhism the main complaint is a one sided article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONEDHARMA (talk • contribs) 23:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:I looked over the additions that you wanted to add and the format that you've placed them in is not really conventional. I suggest you read over the applicable part of MOS: and try to make your additions wikified for easy reading. In addition, I don't know if the information that you are adding is important, and doesn't give due weight to the article. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

:::Hi Fellow Editors. Diet in Sikhism is a controversial issue and there was WP:Consensus on this article some time ago by people knowelagble on this issue. There were several things resolved then:

1. The Sikh Rehat Maryada or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_in_Sikhism#The_Sikh_code_of_conduct_on_the_Sikh_Diet Sikh Code of Conduct]should be taken as the WP:NPOV to start from. As this has been arrived an consensually by the Sikh Community and the Akal Takht which is the supreme authority on Sikh Matters. This is the so called (orthodox view)
2. Views that deviate from this should have their own pages (unorthodox). See the lead [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_in_Sikhism here], and pages for various Sikh sects backed up by a reference 'Some sects of Sikhs—Damdami Taksal, Akhand Kirtani Jatha, Namdharis, Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha{{cite book|last=Takhar|first=Opinderjit Kaur|title=Sikh identity: an exploration of groups among Sikhs|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=aeKWQzesOc4C&pg=PA51|accessdate=26 November 2010|year=2005|publisher=Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.|isbn=9780754652021|page=51|chapter=2 Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha}} and the 3HO{{cite book|url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XsBJnpCwWLYC&pg=PA397&dq=meat+eating+Sikhs#v=onepage&q=&f=false |title=Conscious Eating |author=Gabriel Cousens |accessdate=2009-08-09}}—believe that a Sikh should be meat-free.'
3. It was agreed to summarise Sikh Intellectual views as has been done [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_in_Sikhism#Sikh_intellectual_views here]. I personally think this is succinct and to the point and the footnotes allow people to form a view.
4. On quotations from the Guru Granth Sahib, the view was taken to only keep a select few verses. There are a sizeable number of article like [http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh.html this] on manipulation of religious texts to manipulate WP:POV

::On ONEDHARMA additions there were several problems:

1. WP:Verification
2. WP:OR
3. WP:Reliability

::Thanks SH 15:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Hi all, SH asked me to comment, so I just wanted to point out a few things. In terms of presenting views fairly, I don't think stringing together translations from different sections of the Gurbani is particularly conducive to a good article, because it's really easy to get into arguments about the context particular lines are written in and how their meaning should be interpreted. Also some of the links you provided, like [http://www.nihangsingh.org/website/trad-jhatka.html this one] contradict other links, by stating the British tried to remove meat from Sikh diets.

::::In addition, the section on "Sikh Reform Movements of the 18th and 19th Century" is pretty biased as you can probably tell from the last line: [the singh sabha reformers saw themselves in the reflected face of their british colonial masters]. It's also inaccurate, because many of the Tat Khalsa reformers fought against the british during the gurdwara reform movement and later became active in the akali movement. Overall, this section seemed to be unrelated to diet and inaccurate.

::::just wanted to add my 2 cents--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi SH. Your references are WHOLLY ambiguous. NOT ONE reference you give states a factual position its always a notion of assumption, opinion and possibles and MANY cases of synthesis which YOU have carried out. Almost all your citations contradict each other ref 24, 36, 38, 40 just a few. You have used one Bhai gurdas verse, yet refused my use of three, same source, why?. You have selected three verses from SGGS i have taken 20, how can i be selective? You have made SEVERAL factual statements based on citations that do not support your own FACTUAL synthesis which you have written in. Not one citation i gave for Sikh reforms breached any rule, You didnt show ONE example of breaches of NPOV, OR, RELIABLY. Even the citation that you use, make it CLEAR, their are dialogues against meat. In the opening introduction you state how sects are against meat, and a temple will NEVER serve meat, yet you refuse to allow me to expand on those issues.The edict of the of singh sabha in 80's is ONE position within Sikhism, whether its official or not is not an issue for wikipedia decide to on or use via you, as a yardstick whether to address the unorthodox sect, nor can you alone decide the integrity or value of it. Both sides need to be addressed.

'You said Sikh Reform Movements of the 18th and 19th Century" is pretty biased.'' That statement was fully backed by FOUR CITATIONS, with ISBN. You rejected because it goes against your orthodox stance.

1.Sikh Nationalism and Identity in a Global Age, By Giorgio Shani, 2008, pg 32,ISBN 978041542190

2.Faith & philosophy of Sikhism, Sardar Harjeet Singh, {{ISBN|9788178357218}}

3.World and Its Peoples: Eastern and Southern Asia, Page 359, 2007,ISBN 978076147313

4.Cultural History of Modern India, By Dilip M. Menon, {{ISBN|8187358254}}'''

My references used.

1.Gobind Singh Mansukhani, Introduction to Sikhism, Delhi: Hemkunt Press, {{ISBN|81-7010-181-6}},

2.Introduction to Sikhism, {{ISBN|8170101816}}, Hemkunt Press 2007,

3.The Vegetarian Solution, by Stewart Rose, Healthy Living Publications, |pages=159|isbn=9781570672057

4.S. Grewal, Sikh History from Persian Sources: Translations of Major Texts, {{ISBN|978-8185229171}},

5.Bhais gur das which you deleted, because you assumed we didnt understand him, as per your wikipage.

6.Over 6 cited ISBN referenced sources used in the Sikh reform sect. You didnt state one breach!

MANY cases of synthesis which YOU have carried out.Follows:

>He advocated a lifestyle consisting of honest, hard work and humility, focus and remembrance of God and compassion for all of humanity and God's creation all around, with these three key principles taking far greater precedence over one's dietary habits.

Note the statement the editor makes about the Guru is not backed up by any factual citation

>H. S. Singha comments in his book how the Sikh Gurus ate meat.

Again the statement is presented as a matter of fact, when the citation makes it clear its not matter of fact. Actual REF "The practice of the Gurus is uncertain. Guru Nanak seems to have eaten ... Guru Amardas ate only rice and lentils but this abstention cannot be regarded as evidence of vegetarianism, only of simple living".

You have made SEVERAL factual statements based on citations that do not support your own FACTUAL synthesis which you have written in, which i cant present all here.

Your references make NO FACTUAL STATEMENTS

1.REF 24 I. J. Singh. Sikhs and Sikhism. Delhi: Manohar. {{ISBN|9788173040580}}.

REF 24 contradicts REF 36 ^ William Francklin in his writing about Mr George Thomas 1805: Stating Sikhs don't touch beef. Contradicts my ^Ref Introduction to Sikhism, {{ISBN|8170101816}}, Hemkunt Press 2007.

2.Devinder Singh Chahal, Scientific Interpretation of Gurbani,

Again the author makes no FACTUAL statement.

3.Gurbakhsh Singh, The Sikh Faith, Vancouver: Canadian Sikh Study and Teaching Society, {{ISBN|978-8172051884}},

Again ref contradicts REF 38

4.J.S. Grewal, Sikh History from Persian Sources: Translations of Major Texts, {{ISBN|978-8185229171}},

Contradicts REF 24, REF 40, where you state Nanak ate meat again authors make no factual statement

Also many more statement of fact in the article appear to be statement of opinion and assumption.

The issue of cow protection and tradition in sikhism is addressed by following citation which you refused:

1.Ethnic Tensions in Indian Society: Explanation, Prediction, Monitoring, By P. N. Rastogi, pg 145, ISBN:0333924410176

2.Minorities in India, protection and welfare by Rajendra Pandey, APH Pub. Corp., 1997, {{ISBN|8170248736}}.

3.Lok Sabha Secretariat, Govt. of India, — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONEDHARMA (talk • contribs) 02:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

:::I think until the above editor can understand WP:AGF this can go now where. Thanks SH 09:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not about good faith, are you stating my changes where not done in good faith? on what merit do i assume your actions are done in good faith? I proved to you how your own references and citation CONTRADICT each other, but you overlook that part, I proved that your allegation that i was biased in sikh reform section was unfounded because i used four well cited references, but again you overlook that part, you already acknloedge in your origninal article that no temple allows meat EVER, sikh sects against meat, i used your own scholars to prove that what you where stating as FACT was mere opinion, assumption and def WAS NOT a matter of fact, you take off my use of three verses Bhai Gurdas, but you use oneverse yourlsef to prove your stance, i select over 20 SGGS verses you select three and you accuse me of being selective, EVEN YOUR OWN citation make it clear their are passages and dialogues against meatn, Bhais Gurdas makes the same dialogue against meat diet, you refer to Nihang singhs yet refuse my section that expands their view on diet, because it goes against your POV. EVEN YOUR OWN CITATIONS never once state a fact but Emphasize it as OPINION, AND ASSUMPTION, which you synthesis to read as FACT!! CAN THE MODS finally acknowledge that this editor OF SIKH HISTORY is wholly anchoring wikipedia to HIS OWN PERSONAL POV.You have made SEVERAL factual statements based on citations that do not support your own FACTUAL synthesis which you have written in. The edict of the of singh sabha in 80's is ONE position within Sikhism, whether its official or not is not an issue for wikipedia decide on or use via you as a yardstick whether to address the unorthodox sect, nor can you alone decide the integrity or value of it. Both sides need to be addressed. You accuse my of breaching NPOV, RELIABILITY, AND OR, and yet you cant give example. I assume you are hiding behind every possible diversion to maintain your inherently biased POV. So your article has SYNTHESIS in it, it breaches NPOV, your own citations contradict each other, you state matters of fact when they are opinion, you selectively choose verses and then you refuse my use because it goes against your stance. YOU are breaching alot of wikirules, which you hide behind. Now either REFUTE ME, or i will make the changes to that section and i will get MOD backing to do that. You cant accuse someone of doing something when in fact ITS YOU THAT IS DOING IT, and then you reply that i should assume your position in GOOD FAITH!!..lol This is not friendship, this is about one guy you, using wikipedia to maintian his biased POV, and then overlooking all the breaches that YOU MADE to attack me personally, to the point of my identity, this is about evidence, supporting argument is not about good faith, when the issue are SO blatantly biased in your POV. Then you claim my statement on sikh reforms, is biased, yet i proved it with citations, whereas YOUR ARTICLE in its current form is WHOLLY BIASED, and you have OFTEN used, synthesis, OR, and stating matters of opinion as fact. You defend your postion of using Bhai gur das than take my verse off, still you have not given a reason. So i repeat again, both sides need to be addressed, it does seem like you dont have ANY integrity on the issue. Also Take a look at your breaches of NPOV, OR, SYNTHESIS, AND RELIABILITY. So if you want others to assume what you do is in good faith, then i show your breaches, synthesis, OR, unrelible sources, contradictory references, are we then just to leave it like that, because you want use to assume your doing it good fiath, then tell me am i doing it in bad faith?..Where i have given verses, citations, references, isbn, am i doing this in bad faith to address your article which is wholly one sided? If so then please explain what good faith mean?..is it overlooking the errors that you have made, or is it about not assuming that you have a agenda to protect your stance? Also you use a citation to support your own POV, yet when i quote the same source and citation that gives supporting argument against your POV, you take it off. How can you use a citation to support you then refuse the SAME CITATION ISBN i use, When it supports another POV? lol.Thanks. OD — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONEDHARMA (talk • contribs) 14:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Conduct warning: I, like Whenaxis, am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. This dispute is either going to proceed with complete civility or I'm going to close it and it's not going to proceed at all, in accordance with the guidelines of this noticeboard. Stop talking about one another, POV, AGF, and the like and only talk about edits. We discuss edits here, not editors. Onedharma, stop using all capital letters for emphasis, use boldfacing only sparingly, sign your posts, try to be succinct (though I must admit that I, too, struggle with brevity), and don't engage in rants. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

::::I apologise. I am quite upset by some of the accusations leveled at me. I've always tried my best and tried to be impartial. Like most people I am human and am falable. I will however, try to do better in the future. Thanks SH 16:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As {{userlinks|ONEDHARMA}} is now indef blocked, is there any other editor that would like to advocate for the changes? Hearing no editors to take up the advocacy, this thread will be closed in 24 hours from 17:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC) with no change to the current consensus for the article. Hasteur (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Premature. No prior talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard (and most other forms of dispute resolution). The way to not edit war is to engage in discussion on the article talk page before editing the article, see consensus and bold, revert, discuss. If others will not discuss, then use a request for comments to draw other editors' attention to the matter. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Paul Gogarty}}

Dispute overview

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

Need to resolve content of this piece through means other than Edit War. The dispute centres around whether references to one incident of media coverage (negative) the former member received should be included at all or, if it is included, whether other pieces of equal media attention should also be included in the interests of balance and fairness.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|Darepng}}

:* {{user|Snappy}}

:* {{user|Exiledone}}

:

Although user Darepng has a personal interest in the entry, this should not rule out attempts by the user to ensure that the entry is fair, balanced and/or relevant. This may be a subjective process, certainly, but equally any entry made about an existing or former politician will invariably leave anyone making entries open to accusations of political bias. So one needs to tread carefully and be open to discussion. So far communications have centred around whether a user is a SPA, but there has been no engagement on the key issues of whether one paragraph is relevant and, if it is included, whether others of equal relevance should also be included.

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

Not yet.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Comments have been made in revisions and there have been some interactions on talk pages, but these have not been constructive and the issue ideally needs adjudication from third parties who are not from Ireland and could not be accused of having a political bias one way or the other.

• How do you think we can help?

Listed below are the contents from the most recent entry (which was frozen as listed by administrator for a week as part of a request for mediation and to warn against an edit war):

Contents [hide]

1 Early and private life

2 Political career

2.1 Local politics

2.2 Dáil Éireann

2.3 Media Coverage and Controversies

2.4 Call for cut in TDs pay

2.4.1 2009 Swearing incident

2.4.2 Ivor Callely phone expenses investigation

2.4.3 "Babygate" Controversy

2.4.4 Attempts by Taoiseach to appoint new Ministers in January 2011

2.5 Loss of seat

3 After politics

4 References

5 External links

This version is the one as amended by user Darepng. In this and an earlier revision, there is a section in the entry entitled "Babygate" Controversy. However earlier revisions did not include 2.4, 2.41. 2.42. 2.44 as listed above.

In a nutshell, user Darepng contends that this item is just one of many aspects of the former member's career that attracted media attention. While the 2009 Swearing incident received massive media coverage internationally, other stories over the former Deputy's term of office attracted similar coverage to the "Babygate" one in either print or broadcast media.

User Darepng, who amended to the current version at time of resolution request, believes that the "Babygate" Controversy entry should not be left in on its own alongside the 2009 Swearing incident as together these stories suggest that the entire career was one of media controversy rather than including achievements or media coverage about positive as well as negative incidences. There is no dispute over the massively covered Swearing incident paragraph.

If neutral observers feel that the "Babygate" entry warrants being included as one of the media highlights of a political career, then they are also asked to adjudicate on whether other stories in relation to Paul Gogarty that received similar media coverage should also be included.

Help is being sought not in terms of the background and motivations of the users concerned, but explicitely dealing with the merits of the entries themselves.

Darepng (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Premature. No prior talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard, but also see remarks by Equazcion, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Ted Cruz}}

Dispute overview

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

Within most pages for political representatives, there are external links to sites like ontheissues.org and votesmart.org, and others. I tried to add a link to a site called The Political Guide, which has a page for Ted Cruz that contains more info than the wiki page. I have added a few other links to this site for other representatives, as have other people. A user has removed these links and claimed that the links are spam.

I do not believe this is the case as the site is similar in structure to those already present and has more information. The page that I added is here.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Texas/Ted_Cruz/

A user named Dave Dial removed my links and accused me of spamming. This user is very active on the Obama pages and I believe that he made these accusations because he did not like an edit I made to one of those pages. I simply do not see how this site violates the external links policy when ontheissues and others do not.

I am fairly new to editing wiki stuff, so if I did something wrong, please tell me. I am on my iPad and can't scroll down further, but the other user Dave Dial.

I think that a user named Falcon8765 also removed a link. I have asked them on Dave's talk page to explain this, but haven't got an answer. The ut tick (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|The ut tick}}

:* {{user|DD2K}}

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

Not yet.

:I informed DD2k of this discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:48, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

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

Resolving the dispute

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

• How do you think we can help?

I notice you've been adding those links to a lot of pages. Generally this tends to look like an attempt at promotion. Even if it's not, you should see WP:EL for Wikipedia's policies on external links. Most websites, even if they're relevant, are actually not listed at Wikipedia articles. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:59, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Well, I first did notice this problem from an Obama page, the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article, with the attempt to add [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories&diff=prev&oldid=489244028 this] there. It was removed first by Falcon8765 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories&diff=prev&oldid=489244273 here], and I removed it after this editor reinserted the link without any edit summary or Talk page discussion. But before I removed the link, I went to the website to see what it was and if there were any problems with the addition to the Birther page. The "writeup" was obviously done by a birther with no editorial oversight, making claims cited as factual that were in fact false(such as it is required by the Constitution for any President to be born of two US born citizens on US soil). So I delved further into the site and tried to find it's credentials. It has none and seems to be run by someone who is interested in politics, but with no journalistic or other credentials. So I then looked at the contributions from the editor([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_ut_tick The ut tick]). All of the edits made by the user were to add a link to the website in question(thepoliticalguideDOTcom). A website that seems to be partially a copy and paste job from other websites(copyright issues) mixed in with the opinions of some unknown person. One copyright issue has been addressed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Bongino&diff=489298890&oldid=487375583 here], and the edit has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Bongino&diff=prev&oldid=489054793 oversighted]. So, I think what we have here are violations of Spam, conflict of interest and add to the fact that there are copyright problems and all the articles are living persons. Dave Dial (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Early close. Conduct dispute, but PurpleSteak indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet of multiple sockmeister JHerbertMunster. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|General Joseph Colton}}

Dispute overview

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

Today, PurpleSteak attempted to move the article General Joseph Colton to both "General Joseph B Colton" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Joseph_B_Colton&action=history] (without the period), and to "General Joseph B. Colton" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Joseph_B._Colton&action=history] (with the period). It was reverted both times by Favonian, who had reverted many edits by other users trying to perform the same cut and paste move. PurpleSteak has now proposed a move of the article to "General Joseph B. Colton", and has changed this information on other articles and files related to this article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G.I._Joe%3A_Retaliation&diff=489278678&oldid=489242721] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:GeneralColton.png&action=history]. He has also left several messages on my talk page, even though I have tried to come to a consensus with him on the article's talk page. In the meantime, he has continued to re-add several POV edits to the article, even after they have been disputed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Joseph_Colton&action=history] I also believe that sock puppetry may be involved, since these edits were attempted by other users before PurpleSteak (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JHerbertMunster).

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|PurpleSteak}}

:* {{user|Fortdj33}}

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

As stated above, PurpleSteak has left several messages on my talk page (Edits to Joe Colton and Joseph B. Colton), even though I have tried to come to a consensus with him on the article's talk page (Talk:General Joseph Colton#Requested move and edits).

• How do you think we can help?

I feel that someone other than myself needs to explain the concepts of original research, reliable sources, and coming to a consensus. PurpleSteak thinks that any information he can find online about the subject automatically supports his position. I believe that he is trying to prove a point, and he is going about it the wrong way, but my attempts to reason with him have fallen on deaf ears.

Fortdj33 (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The only original research here is the story fabricated by Fortdj33. I have been trying to reach a consensus with him and he will no cooperate. I have improved the citations to article to include more relevant sources (eg. MTV, ABC News) and he continues to revert any progress to the article. Most of the information provided by him and the G.I. Joe collaboration has been citing user contributed fan fiction websites and the likes. I myself would gladly appreciate it if someone would actually look at the references I have provided versus the references he has provided (which his are little to none). He completely ignores to read and check the references, his disruptive revision needs to be stopped. PurpleSteak (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Stricken as edit by blocked user, see closing note.

Clerk's note: This noticeboard is for content disputes, not conduct disputes, and is not for disputes which are currently being worked out in other forums. Though it's worked out on the article talk page, a move request (like a RFC) is such a dispute and disputes about it are not appropriate here. If you believe a user's repeated move requests or general lack of cooperation are inappropriate, then that's a complaint about disruptive editing which should be taken up at one of the conduct dispute resolution forums: WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, or WP:ARBCOM, but not here. On the other hand, if you have particular edits or content which you believe are inappropriate — you both seem to have complaints about the other's sourcing — please point them out in particular here rather than making general references to them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 26, 2012 at 16:00 (UTC) because no specific complaint, other than conduct complaints, has been brought forward. - TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=No dispute, no discussion on article talk page as required by this noticeboard. Consider making a request at Editor Assistance. If you would like to try evaluating the appropriateness of your proposed link yourself the policy is here, but I'd suggest making a request at Editor Assistance, instead. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Wikipedia nostradamus}}

Dispute overview

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

I would like to include an external link which is pertinent for discussion on nostradamus: www.sophyasphinx.com/flame.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|Radiofood}}

:* {{user|Radiofood}}

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

Not yet.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

i haven't tried.

• How do you think we can help?

I want you to have a look at the website and see for yourself, how necessary it is for inclusion.

Radiofood (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Pending at BLPN. Per instructions of this noticeboard, this is not a forum for disputes which are pending in other forums. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Daniel Tammet}}

Dispute overview

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

Insertion by XNQlo of original research, poorly referenced claims, while removing correctly referenced information from this living person biographical article. Page has been dispute locked after I (twice) raised issue on living persons bio noticeboard. Article has long history of edit warring involving this IP address.

- XNQlo continually inserts a sentence (or part of) from subject's first book, lifted out of context, and which has not been referenced in any reliably published secondary source that I can find. This seems an obvious example of original research.

- XNQlo inserts the claim that subject's interview in Icelandic lasted a "few minutes" relying on the English subtitles from the documentary film ("We are now going to try to speak to Daniel Tammet in Icelandic for the next few minutes" etc.) The Icelandic interviewer actually says "næstu mínútur" (literally 'next minutes'). No reliable published secondary source cites interview duration. This seems another obvious example of original research.

- XNQlo removed the referenced statement from subject's first book that he speaks 10 languages, claiming that 'only' French, German, and Icelandic have been 'verified'. This is a third obvious example of original research. The statement, drawn from the subject's own book, is well sourced, particularly as the article only states that subject 'says' he speaks these languages.

- XNQlo removed the referenced statement that subject was among the invited speakers at 2011 TED.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|Oughtprice99}}

:* {{user|188.28.211.03 aka XNQlo}}

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

I raised issue on noticeboard and discussed on talk page but XNQlo has long history of edit warring behavior on this article.

• How do you think we can help?

Are the above edits original research as defined by Wiki living persons bio article guidelines? If so, it would be helpful to have a third person editor state this on the talk page.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply in a few days. Thank you for your patience in advance.XNQlo (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=An RFC has been started on this issue since this request was filed and that RFC is now the more appropriate place to discuss this matter. If it does not resolve it and the dispute continues, then it can be refiled here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|List of vegans}}

Dispute overview

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

The dispute revolves around [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_vegans&diff=489716324&oldid=489703694 this edit]. A consensus was formed over a year ago to add the color codes to the list at Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Change_of_formatting_to_match_List_of_vegetarians. An editor has now unilaterally decided to overturn this consensus by removing the coding despite objections.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|Betty Logan}}

:* {{user|SlimVirgin}}

:* {{user|Muleattack}}

:* {{user|CCS81}}

:

A clear consensus was established for this color coding. User:SlimVirgin has ignored the consensus and pushed through her own unilateral edits. This is not consistent with WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, and being an admin she should be aware this is not how we develop articles

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_vegans&diff=489733078&oldid=489548654 was discussed] at Talk:List_of_vegans#Legends.2Ftemplates where I made it clear I was open to dropping the color codings, but would prefer to discuss the option withingthe broader scope of developing the article. User:Muleattack also indicated he was open to dropping them and replacing with some other organizational structure, but similarly was against the route User:SlimVirgin took by just removing the color codes. User:CCS81 took a similar stance to myself and Muleattack.

• How do you think we can help?

On the talk page, myself, Muleattack and CCS81 all expressed a willingness to replace the current system, but we are all expressly against just dropping the current system without replacing it with something. Indeed, myself and Muleattack had already started discussing a new organization with sample layouts at Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Can_we_make_this_sortable.3F. I would prefer it if SlimVirgin could be persuaded or overruled and have the roiginal format restored, so we can progress with discussions on how to best structure the article. It is pretty clear this is the preferred approach of the editors, and an admin shouldn't just be allowed to force through unilateral changes .

Betty Logan (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|Thank you user:Snamepi for identifying the map of Israel on Israel is not correct. Please indicate this on the article's talk page because this forum is for disputes between editors.Curb Chain (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Israel}}

Dispute overview

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

TYhe map attached to the article isn't correct and is misleading.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|Snamepi}}

:* {{user|Snamepi}}

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

Not yet.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Opening

• How do you think we can help?

Upload a photo of a correct map

Snamepi (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|1929 Palestine riots}}

Dispute overview

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

There is a problem at 1929 Palestine riots - bringing it here (after first going to Wikipedia:ANI#Tagging_problems_during_heated_editing_at_1929_Palestine_riots) as it involves a number of experienced editors, the consensus building atmosphere has broken down on the talk page, and it doesn't fit in to other obvious notice board categories.

In the last two years, only 70 edits in total were made to the page until the last week when 11 users have made 115 edits so far. There is a very heavy talk discussion, and many open disputes. However two experienced editors involved in the discussion have removed two instances of tags from the article which were intended to give readers an indication of the ongoing dispute:

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1929_Palestine_riots&diff=487907833&oldid=487907414], relating to the whole article, despite a clear explanation and 15 open parallel talk discussions here
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1929_Palestine_riots&diff=488598287&oldid=488561216], here relating to a specific unresolved dispute, despite clear discussion here

The addition of these tags was done with the guidance in WP:TAGGING in mind, but the two editors mentioned appear to disagree that these tags were constructive. Grateful for views as to whether these tags are appropriate or not in this situation.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|Oncenawhile}}

:* {{user|Jayjg}}

• ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute?

Yes

Resolving the dispute

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

Yes, detailed talk discussion back and forth with a number of very experienced editors

• How do you think we can help?

Grateful for views as to whether these tags are appropriate or not in this situation.

Oncenawhile (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular mediator / clerk here at DRN. I've not searched the article history closely enough to be absolutely sure that I'm right about this, but it appears to me on quick examination that this dispute results from maintenance tags being added to the article and then being fairly promptly reverted. If this is correct, then except in a very few cases which are controlled by policy (for example, removal of CSD nomination tags by the creator of an article), tags are just like everything else at Wikipedia. If someone wants to place them, and someone else objects, then consensus must be achieved to place them. If consensus cannot be achieved, then a no-consensus condition results and, per this section of the consensus policy, that thing cannot be done. In this case, I see no consensus for the addition of the tags and, as a result, they should not be placed on the article. If the editor wishing the tags to be placed upon the article wishes to press the issue, then they should file a request for comments to see if support can be obtained from other editors for the placing of the tags. Until there is consensus, then the tags should not be placed on the article. This noticeboard is not a proper venue to try to obtain that support, but the listing editor has requested advice on whether the use of the tags is "appropriate", to which I would say that the only way they would be inappropriate is if the problems raised by the tags not only do not exist but do not exist to such a certainty that it would be disputatious editing to suggest otherwise, which would not appear to be the case here since action at ANI was rejected. However, even we presume (or assume in good faith) that they are appropriate, that does not mean that they must be there or that there is a right to insist that they be there since there is no policy or guideline mandating that they be there if they are appropriate: it is a matter to be decided by discussion and consensus. I would end by adding this opinion: maintenance tags such as these neither add nor detract much value to the encyclopedia and engaging in a dispute over them is generally a waste of everyone's time. Your time would be much better spent dealing with whatever issues the tags are intended to highlight than dealing with the tags themselves. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

:Hi Transporterman, thanks for your response. I would like to respond to your thoughtful analysis to explain why I disagree with it, and that I believe this has highlighted a structural problem.

:Having considered your post carefully, the key problem is the phrase "tags are just like everything else at Wikipedia". I understand what you mean, and with your experience I am sure you are right.

:But this cannot be right in the spirit of what tags are intended to achieve. If tags are to have any value in highlighting disputes, they need to have a lower threshold. Specifically, consensus should be needed only to REMOVE tags, NOT to place them.

:You may think that is sacreligious - how could we ever consider such a carve out appropriate?

:This case is a perfect example. In one indident, tags were being used because a group of 4 editors had blocked consensus for a change. The change was supported by 3 editors. So a meaningful proportion of editors thought that key facts in the article were dubious. Tags were used to highlight this, but because the tags require the same level of consensus, they did not last long. If a lower threshold mechnism like the above was in place, the 3 editors would be able to use the tags to highlight their continuing disagreement, and thereby incentivise the 4 editors to find a better compromise. But instead we are now deadlocked and have a really substandard pov article which the reader is left blissfully unaware of. It seems self-defeating to me.

:Oncenawhile (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:::Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1929_Palestine_riots&diff=487907833&oldid=487907414 this] edit which occurred on 17 April 2012, the reason was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A1929_Palestine_riots&diff=487890156&oldid=487887063 explained] to you; three reliable sources were provided to substantiate the information. Despite this you tagged the information as 'dubious' and did not respond to editors' request to explain this baffling decision. The reason you gave for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A1929_Palestine_riots&diff=488555060&oldid=488552920 other] edit was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A1929_Palestine_riots&diff=488555060&oldid=488552920 this], you did not identify any NPOV concerns which editors could seek to rectify; rather, you uncollaboratively criticised "over zealous editors" with "techniques" that are "ridiculous".
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

: I'm copying this from AE, where I put it on the mistaken impression that the tagging was under discussion there: Regarding the nature of tags, I think that when there is an actual ongoing substantial dispute over content, then a tag noting the fact of the dispute is in order and removal of it by a protagonist while the dispute is still in full swing should be seen as edit-warring. I don't think a tag marking a dispute needs consensus from those engaged in the dispute, though a consensus from less-involved editors would of course be enough to add or remove it. (I'm intending these as general remarks, not to give an opinion on a particular tagging war that I have not studied very closely.) Zero^talk 12:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

::@Zero: I do not believe that there is a policy or, indeed, even general community consensus creating a 0RR requirement for tags. I'll grant you that such would seem to make sense from the nature of the existence of the tag, but I think that we also have to take into account — and by saying this I'm not suggesting that they were or were not used in this way in this particular case — the fact that they can also be used to push a POV or as a badge of shame to cast doubt about an assertion when no doubt is justified (see, e.g., the current mediation going on at the Mediation Cabal about the "under discussion" tag in the lede of the verifiability policy). Due to that possibility, tags are just like most everything else here at WP, subject to being added or disputed on the basis of consensus. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 30, 2012 at 14:44 (UTC) because matter is resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Block evasion by sockpuppet of banned user. — TransporterMan (TALK) 01:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Kashmiri Pandit}}

Dispute overview

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

Removal of well-sourced content regarding Oregon Legislative Assembly's resolution condemning ethnic cleansing of non-muslim minority (Hindus known as Kashmiri Pandits) bu Islamic militants in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The content was present in the article since very old time. But User:Fowler&fowler removed it here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmiri_Pandit&diff=483061055&oldid=483060946]. I restored it, but my edit was then reverted by User:Sitush. We discussed the matter here on talk page-[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmiri_Pandit#Oregon_ruling], but couldn't reach any consensus. I request admin intervention.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|SubQuad}}

:* {{user|Sitush}}

:* {{user|Fowler&fowler}}

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussed dispute on the talk page here[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmiri_Pandit#Oregon_ruling], but couldn't reach any consensus.

• How do you think we can help?

Check the matter and help us in resolving our dispute.

SubQuad (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir is a Muslim-dominated Indian state geographically divided into Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh regions. Kashmir region at present is 99% Muslim. However before 1989, a considerable population of Kashmiri Hindus (known as Kashmiri Pandits) existed in Kashmir. Due to continuous target killing of Kashmiri Pandits by Islamic militants, they had to leave the region and had to become refugee in their own country. For more info, read [http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/jan/19kanch.htm], [http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/kpsgill/2003/chapter9.htm]. The number of Kashmiri Pandits who took refuge outside Kashmir varies from 1,90,000 to 5,00,000. The killings of remaining Kashmiri Pandits continued and hundreds of them were massacred in mass murders like 1998 Prankote massacre, 1998 Wandhama massacre, 2000 Amarnath pilgrimage massacre, 2006 Doda massacre etc.

Disputed content: In 2009, Oregon Legislative Assembly passed a resolution to recognise 14 September 2007, as Martyrs Day to acknowledge ethnic cleansing and campaigns of terror inflicted on non-Muslim minorities of Jammu and Kashmir by terrorists seeking to establish an Islamic state. ([http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/sjr1.dir/sjr0023.intro.pdf Senate Joint Resolution 23, 75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—2009 Regular Session])

The dispute is about this content, which was removed earlier by User:Fowler&fowler, then by User:Sitush. To me, the matter is well-sourced and definitely relevant for the article's section Exodus from Kashmir (1985–1995)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmiri_Pandit#Exodus_from_Kashmir_.281985.E2.80.931995.29]

SubQuad (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Though the claim itself (that the Oregon legislature passed that resolution) is not contestable, generally, we don't use primary sources because only secondary sources can attest to the importance of claims or statements made in the primary source. Barring the existence of secondary sources that attest to the meaningfulness of this resolution, it's hard to see how this can be included. --regentspark (comment) 12:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment:The first link is to rediff.com which is on the mirrors and forks list here. The front page of WP:MF says very clearly "Mirrors and forks are not reliable sources and may not be listed as external links in articles." The second link is to the South Asian Terrorism Portal, the website for the Institute for Conflict Management, of which there exist several very similarly named organizations. This one is a not-for-profit based in Delhi. Whether or not it is a reliable source is being discussed here. JanetteDoe (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: It would have assisted me if you had notified me in the correct place on my talk page, which is something that was only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASubQuad&diff=490204570&oldid=490204408 explained to you] a few hours' previously wrt your ANI report. I cannot make much sense of a large chunk of my talk page thanks to your continued refactoring etc.

  The resolution is not meaningful, let alone notable. A resolution passed by the United Nations probably would be; one passed by the US Senate or Congress might be; one passed by a state legislature with no experience of or involvement in international relations, foreign policy etc is not. Especially when it has no obvious connection to the matter at hand. Any legislature can pass this sort of token gesture, and many do for reasons of "political correctness" etc.

  I wouldn't worry too much about rediff being listed at WP:MIRROR, JanetteDoe: it is a news site and the Indian news media regularly plagiarise each other &, of course, use common press agencies etc. I'd rather that we did not use it anywhere but that will never get consensus. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sock notice: I have been dealing with {{u|Elockid}} and {{u|SpacemanSpiff}} on and off for the last few hours, plus doing some checks myself. The reporter of this issue, {{u|SubQuad}}, has now been blocked as a likely sock of {{u|Mrpontiac1}}, a prolific POV sockmaster. - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Closed as conduct dispute, improper filing method. — TransporterMan (TALK) 01:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)}}

I would like to request the IP ban of 70.24.25.103 - who is associated with the film Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy. Warnings have been issued on the user's talk page, and IP traces to the location of the user "RobHeydon", who is directly involved with the film. Negative reviews of the film have been edited and replaced with positives. IMDB rating was falsified from 5.0 to 9.0. Rotten Tomatoes negative reviews were removed. And any critical review that the user doesn't agree with is changed. This is conflict of interest. With that said, after sufficient warnings, I would like to have the IP banned and "RobHeydon" should not be able to make adjustments to his own film's Wikipedia page, to avoid neutral point of view.

:This sounds like an editor behavior issue and not a content dispute issue, so this belongs at WP:ANI and not here... please move this over to ANI. Zad68 (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

::This has already been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Irvine_Welsh.27s_Ecstasy filed at ANI], and should be removed.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Moving to mediation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 12:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Occupy Wall Street}}

Dispute overview

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

A question has arisen in regards to how to use references to support a claim. Here is the disputed prose:

{{quotation|"Income inequality, defined as a wealthy upper class with economic stagnation or impoverishment for the rest of the population, has increased greatly since the 1960s."}}

The reference is [http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2011/11/01/occupy-wall-street-and-the-rhetoric-of-equality/] and the text being used to cite the claims is:

{{quotation|In an article in the second issue of the Occupy Wall Street Journal entitled “What Liberty Square Means: The Progress of Revolutions,” Rebecca Manski joins the debate from Zuccotti Park, renamed Liberty Square. Manski argues:

Liberty Square is the twenty-first century Liberty Tree. If you want to understand what is happening there, imagine: Under the Liberty Tree that stood in Boston Common, early in the first American Revolution, any and all could come to air their grievances and hammer out solutions collectively, and it was there the promise of American democracy first took root. We are reclaiming a democratic practice in Liberty Square.

Since 2008, national unemployment rates have remained above 9% with much higher rates for African Americans and youth—16% and 24.6% respectively. An estimated 10.4 million mortgages could default this year. Income inequality, with concentrated wealth at the top and flat incomes or impoverishment for the vast majority of the country’s population, has increased precipitously since the 1960s. The well known facts are worth reciting again: the top one percent of the country owns 34.6% of the wealth in total net worth; the next 19% owns 50.5%; the bottom 80% owns 15%.}}

The source used is an editorial opinion piece from the Personal Investment section of Forbes. It is disputed that this can be used as fact and is believed it should be attributed as opinion and not used to claim a straight fact. The references for this opinion being used are linked and show different articles from other publications and I think the belief is they are all based on a CBO report (the primary source) to claim the statement.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

:* {{user|Becritical}}

:* {{user|Equazcion}}

:* {{user|The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous}}

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

Yes.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Lengthy discussion on talk page until an editor expressed frustration and need for Dispute resolution notice board.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#A_Mickey_Mouse_argument.2C_literally]

• How do you think we can help?

Please advise the best way to handle the claim to be supported by the source per Wikipedia standards. Goal is for criteria that would pass GA review or at improving the article for a better assement.

Amadscientist (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't fully respond to this tonight, but just a few points: the source used is one of several highly reliable sources which can be used to support the claims (or claims with very similar content, each source has different ways of parsing the data such as different start dates). We have this, for example, from the LA Times:

"The year just past was one in which the stagnation of income and wealth for the great majority of Americans continued — indeed, bit so deep that it helped fuel the Occupy movement taking as its constituency the "99%," ... From the late 1940s to the early 1970s, the median American household saw its income double. Since then: a screeching halt, or barely a 5 percent rise in incomes for the less-affluent 90 percent of Americans. But between 1979 and 2007, the top 1 percent saw their incomes soar by 281 percent...A straightforward description of the trend was issued in October by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, which determined that for the highest-income 1% of the population, average after-tax household income almost quadrupled from 1979 to 2007, while income for the 60% of Americans in the middle of the scale grew by just over one-third. (Both figures are adjusted for inflation; in 2007, that middle group comprised households with earnings between about $15,000 and $70,000.) As a consequence of this trend, the CBO says, the share of after-tax household income collected by the top 20% of income earners grew to 53% in 2007 from 43% in 1979. Everyone else fell...One message of the Occupy movement is that the trend to deliver wealth to those at the top of the economic pyramid undervalues the contributions made by everyone else. This is not merely an important cause of our economic malaise, but a moral and political failing too."[http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/31/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120101] by Michael Hiltzik.

Similar to the last quote but more encyclopedic and using a reference suggested from the above editor. Income inequality need not be referenced for defintion as long as it is undisputable phrasing. --Amadscientist (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The sentence need not use the word "defined," and I offered to remove it. And no one disputes that the sentence is factual (yes, you heard that right, everyone knows/admits it's fully true). These are undisputed facts. Nothing, however, satisfies the critics at the OWS talk page. In an attempt to keep the info out of the article they have edit warred and even made up various additions to policy, such as that we as editors should research the history of authors and decide for ourselves whether they are qualified, regardless of where they are published. B^e——C_ritical 07:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• As BeCritical points out, with a Forbes source along with the primary source from whence it came (not to mention numerous other statistical refs, though those are claimed to be invalid by our opponents because they don't explicitly say OWS makes use of them), there's no chance of a reasonable challenge coming along. This is a factual statement and not an opinion. Even if the Forbes column could be said to be an "opinion piece," this particular statement is not an opinion, but a fact, and would have been fact checked by the editorial staff. The information is not being challenged and is not in dispute. It is just being held to some unreasonable standard of WP:V's "likely to be challenged" clause, and I see it as downright lawyering. If it could be said that a challenge may come along at some point (as with any data, one can never say it's impossible), this information is not at all likely to be challenged. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:29, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)
• PS. If you have the patience to take a look through Talk:Occupy Wall Street, you can see for yourself some of the ridiculous straw-grasping arguments that have been attempted in order to keep this info out. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:58, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)

::There are facts in the staement mixed with opinion and POV terms. It is not really factual.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a question here that I've been wanting more opinions about: it would improve the article to be able to go to the CBO report directly for a few statistics. Numerous secondary sources reference the CBO report and relate its data to the complaints of OWS. Do people think it's acceptable to go directly to the report? B^e——C_ritical 19:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• [http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf The CBO report (PDF)], [http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729 summary at CBO site], [http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/income-inequality-america?page=1Income summary by economist.com]. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:23, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)

• WP:NOT#STATS--Amadscientist (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• The crux of it is "claims with very similar content, each source has different ways of parsing the data ". The source may be a reliable one, however it is an editorial. The dispute is that the reference uses undisputed fact (that OWS has an issue with income inequality), mixed with opinion on on the data using POV terms (Actually the prose missuses "wealth", a simplified meaning for "money" with "wealthy", an opinion of great riches). I believe the source to be an opinion piece and not straight journalism and that the information itself is being phrased as fact. "[I]mpoverishment for the rest of the population" is POV and even the word "wealthy" can be seen as opinion. If we are using just the reference supplied, then the claim should be attributed to the author in the reference as it is written. The very claim (or similar) "Income inequality is an issue with OWS" is the undisputable information, and as such does not require referencing. Can we say it is the top issue? I don't know. We would certainly need to reference that in my opinion. Does the CBO report use the above terms? I don't believe so. The claim needs clean up and a reference that is not an editorial peice used to reference a fact, with a claim in an encyclopedic tone that can be supported by the reference. Using the above reference from a portion not included above I can write a very similar claim as fact:

{{quotation|"Income inequality (unequal distribution of income) in the US has increased over the last three decades."{{cite news |title= Presidential campaign needs to get real on salvaging middle class|author= |url= http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/31/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120101|newspaper= Los Angeles Times|date= December 31, 2011|accessdate=25 April 2012}}}}

_{This unsigned comment is from User:Amadscientist}

I already responded to this on the talk page, I'll paste my answer here.

The sentence under discussion is,

{{quotation|"Income inequality in the United States, with a wealthy upper class accruing large profits and economic stagnation or impoverishment for the rest of the population, has increased greatly since the 1960s."}}

Analysis to see if there is any POV, as opposed to presentation of fact done in a way much like the sources:

with a wealthy upper class accruing large profits

This is fact: backed up by the best of RS, the CBO report and secondary sources.

economic stagnation

This is also backed up by highly reliable sources, incomes have declined for most of the population on average, with slight gains for the middle class and less income for the poor.

That's where this comes in:

or impoverishment

Impoverishment is also backed up by fact, as per the Guardian source, about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line.

So either economic stagnation or impoverishment. This is simple fact.

Thus, you may be saying that reciting all these indisputable facts together in the same sentence is POV. But since they are facts, since the sources themselves put them all together, and since that is what OWS is upset about, I see nothing POV about it.

In actuality, the sources would paint a starker picture than the sentence discussed above: I left out that the country's economy has been growing, but that income only went to the top. That also needs to be put in. I don't see the POV in the statement. What I do see is some stark and obvious statistics which when you simply state them together in a neutral way sound POV because they lead the reader to an obvious conclusion. But giving the reader the facts is not what Wikipedia means by POV.

Terms:

The terms upper class and economic stagnation are not themselves disputed, they are technical terms and make for better linking. B^e——C_ritical 20:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

:We cannot use an opinion peice to attempt a POV definition of the term "Income Inequality". "wealth" has been changed to "wealthy" which is not defined. The reference is being used in a manner that is disputed as being actual fact. Wikilinks do not justify "Upper class", another undefined term and "economic stagnation" again undefined. Be neutral with wording for facts. Use brevity and don't use puffery.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

::We as editors get to use our own words, and in this case the definition of "upper class" and "wealthy" meet the data derived from the sources and "economic stagnation" is the same word used in the LA Times source, and means the same thing as "flat incomes." My sentence is a straight rendition of fact, without any POV or puffery, based on highly reliable sources. And just how far are you willing to reach to discredit? An editor can't change the words "wealth at the top" to "wealthy?" Seriously. B^e——C_ritical 21:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

::Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) I thought the dispute was already resolved. Or, was that just the half of it? Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

:::No, it's an editor problem, not a problem with any particular text. I recently rewrote the section to meet their demands. But all they do is attack it some more based on made-up policy. You can expect us back here regularly till an admin wises up, but given the low level, that may never happen. B^e——C_ritical 23:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

::::I suggest the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, in that case. We don't work with conduct issues since we can't give out blocks or warnings, only content disputes. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::As I said, it is too low-level for an admin to "get it." Ideally, a neutral admin such as yourself would take the page under his wing and constantly monitor, and take care of conduct issues (like violations of BRD) as they came up and also act as a mediator/third opinion to prevent made-up policy and the like. B^e——C_ritical 00:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::I remember an Admin already telling you an editor cannot violate WP:BRD. It's not policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::Whenaxis actually isn't an admin, but I agree it would be nice if admins were paying to attention to what goes on there. I'd welcome general additional eyes there either way though. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:32, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Oh, my bad :P Well actually more of a mediator/3O is needed. B^e——C_ritical 01:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::I wish I were an admin ;) But, I can get an admin to look at this, if you'd like, it's not too low-key if I explain it to them. Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::Okay cool, maybe they should talk to User:Dreadstar, an admin who has been trying to deal with User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous. B^e——C_ritical 02:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::I'm sorry, but that was simply incorrect. It is not an editor conduct issue. An editor was warned (not me) for edit warring over this issue and discuss it. He made a thread and Dreadstar made a comment about contiuing to discuss. We did untill Becritical stated his frustrations and wish to seek this at Dr or the RS notice boards. It is unfair to categorize this dispute brought here as a conduct issue as I have no such issue I am not edit warring over this. But I am beginning to take GREAT issue with the grouping of editors. If one looks at the other editors talk pages one might see an organizational attempt by two editors. And it aint me. You are right, This should now be taken to Admin Notice board. Also...If Becritcal is correct and he has changed the prose to suit the concerns of other editors where is that statement from him in the discussion? Made up policy? I have just about had enough of these accusations. The Occupy Wall Street talkpage and article are indeed looked at by several administrators. I personaly have been advised by two seperate Admin that they keep an eye on my edits and talkpage discussions because of concern that I would edit war becuase I have in the past. If I am making up policy, I can assure you Dreadstar, Drmies or a handful of other admin would let me know and they may still wish to advise me in areas I may have been mistaken or incorrect, and I welocme it. Always have and always will. IF this is to be an accusation of me let it be clearly spelled out. If this is an accusation of AKA, he has already been warned and this is part of the process of choice by the edior Becritial. He wanted to take it here so I started the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::Part of the user conduct issue is that corrections to the understanding of policy are not absorbed. One example is as I said above, you will not absorb a correction to your claim that Wikipedia editors are responsible for judging whether particular authors, as opposed to publications, are qualified: "And of course we research the authors of the references! If we don't know who is making the claim and we're just using any old person who writes an article, then we're not looking into the reference enough to know if it can be used. We need to know if this is a journalist or a academic or if they are posting opinion or stating fact, if they are staing fact and they themselves are not actualy the journalist but a guest writer and has no journalistic background that amounts to an opinion piece or blog, whether he's an English professor or ecomiics expert."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#A_Mickey_Mouse_argument.2C_literally] B^e——C_ritical 18:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

::That's not a conduct issue and we don't discuss those here but at the ANI. Writing an encyclopedia means research dude. The subject, the authors, the context etc...and what's that link supposed to prove?--Amadscientist (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

:::On Wikipedia, writing an encyclopedia also means not doing particular types of research. I would like someone besides myself, Equazcion and Littleolive oil to explain this to you. B^e——C_ritical 18:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Uhm...what does that have to do with researching a subject and being able to justify the use of an author? But it DOES say "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Anyone owant to take a shot at expalining that to the editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Nothing gets through, despite multiple editors trying to explain. That's why I say it's a user conduct issue, but one which we need help on, we can't just take it to AN/I. See the problem? B^e——C_ritical 18:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::Look, I am an editor that has grown and learned immensely in the 5 years I have been editing. Trust me...things get through. But you are not correct in stating anyone has attempted to correct me on this issue or the policies within. We have been discussing the issue and you seem to be ignoring much and interpreting things in very novel ways. This is done throughout the encyclopedia, but the main point is what is accepted for improvement of the article for a better rating towards Good Article status. I have reviewed and contributed to good articles. I am using these policies and guidelines as set by criteria for assesment of articles. What are you using? I use examples of Good Articles to judge and feature articles when I can to strive towards the interpretations of policy as set by precedence.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::Actually, I do believe you when you say you haven't noticed people trying to correct you on this. I don't think it's malice in any way. B^e——C_ritical 19:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Drive by comment: After reading the contested text and the source (I scanned the rest but ...!) I think the sourcing is not good enough for presenting the statement as factual. It is, at its heart, a reporters view of the situation. I suggest changing the source, or adding something more academic such as [http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html this one] (which is linked to in the cited article), or, better still, something from a peer reviewed journal. --regentspark (comment) 20:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the very thing I have been saying. It's all above in the discussion. I have no idea what the editor is claiming. They have been refusing to budge until we got to DR. The staistical information is as with any statistical information. It's a case by case thing and that is part of the discussion. How and when to use the statistics. But the claim in the original prose was weak and did need stronger sourcing.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• That would be a good solution, except opponent editors also reject sources for these statements that don't explicitly say OWS makes use of the statistics mentioned. Otherwise this would've been solved a long time ago. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:11, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
• Then I don't see the problem. The connection is well sourced and the the statements are well sourced. Are they arguing that the occupy movement must itself make the connection? --regentspark (comment) 20:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, that's my understanding (for example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=488771893&oldid=488771729]). No sources that don't explicitly say this are being accepted to back up this statement, nor other statements like it. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:34, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

:::::I agree that we should be able to use primary sources which our secondary sources point to. But this is the question I asked above. You seem to be saying we can use the primary sources such as the CBO report, if your secondary sources say that the statistics in the primary sources are related to the complaints of OWS. If this is the consensus, it is easy to source everything. But opponents object to doing this. Remember there are multiple secondary sources for the statement, like the LA Times one above. We are not just discussing this one source. B^e——C_ritical 20:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::The comment at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=488771893&oldid=488771729] doesn't seem right to me. If reliable sources comment on the linkage between OWS and income equality, and provide stats to back up those statements, and provide sources to back up the stats, then we're in the clear. It would be a problem if either (a) we added the statistics to show income inequality, or (b) we made the link between income inequality and OWS but neither seems to be the issue here. That the statistics were not made as part of the protest and therefore cannot be included is an invalid argument. We present material from secondary sources and not what the primary source says (unless it is repeated/recognized/elaborated on by a secondary source). --regentspark (comment) 20:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::I didn't say "That the statistics were not made as part of the protest and therefore cannot be included". I said "They were not made as part of the protest. They exist seperate from the protests and the detail needs to be in direct context to reliable secondary sources". Part of this argument is being made by an editor in this DR that statistical information needs to be used to show "income inequality". He asks right here on this page. User:RegentsPark could you discuss the use of the original source which is an editorial and sourcing POV claims from the source and not just the information? Do we use opinion to state fact?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::While they do exist separate from the protests, and I note that the paper cited in the Forbes article predates the occupy movement, they are being linked with OWS by the secondary source. Are you saying that the editorial itself is an opinion piece and therefore material from it should not be presented as fact? I'm not sure if that's a valid objection either (if that's what you're saying) because the Forbes piece does verifiably cite the statistics. I could explain further but I'm, as yet, unclear as to what your specific objection is. --regentspark (comment) 22:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::Not exactly. I note in the discussion that there is an undisputable fact that need not be referenced...that OWS has a concern with income inequality. The Forbes piece is being interpreted by a non economics professional using what I see as POV verbage that was repeated in the claim in the article. If we wish to use the the verbage we must attribute it as opionion and possibly quote the author, although I believe Becritical has made the comment that we can use our own words, so it may be possible to just use the prose without a direct quote but still attributing to the opinion if the contentious terms remain. As I said, Forbes as a source is reliable but we still have to distinguish the "Personal finance" section from straight news and be open to the fact that the source page does state the author as an English professor who was a lawyer but has no known economic background, not a expert on the subject. An "editorial" is an opinion peice. I actually believe she was discussing a publication from OWS originally and an argument another author was making. I suggested a rewrite above that closely resembles the statement I disputed with more neutral wording and using a reference becritical supplied.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::I don't believe it's POV verbiage, as explained in detail above (look for the bold). It's a straight rendition of facts. Further, we have many sources which put these particular facts all together as an explanation of what OWS is upset about. It's therefore a statement of fact, not merely something attributed to one opinion piece. B^e——C_ritical 23:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::::Yes, I know. I responded and disagreed. Look for the post below yours.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Specificly the way you combined the term wealthy with upperclass. It's actually redundant. And the term was wealth in the source as in money not wealthy as in "the rich". Upperclass alone as defined in America is a much more broad interpretation, but while it does mean the 1 % it also means anyone above the oother class. Since the majority of the US is at a certain level many are in the upper class above the poor who would see middle class as an upperclass. Contentious in that it is a very broad term. The term isn't even in the source. It refers to "concentrated wealth at the top". Your version has point of view not expressed in the source. --Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::::::With "impoverishment" the author gave you an encyclopedic choice with "Flat income", but you took her POV term to use.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::"Economic stagnation" is not in the source. You are extrapolating and using a POV term. If you look you will see the term has different defintions. It need not be used at all. It's over stating the information. Just say "Flat growth" that is from the source and is not a copyright issue to use. But this is all still the interpretation of primary source information in an editorial and per policy needs to be attributed and a quote would be best...or just use a better source and write something more neutral as I suggested.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Okay, how many sources would you need to state something as fact? "Stagnation" is in the other source. Whatever the merits of your arguments above, can you tell me what problems you find with [http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/31/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120101 this source] for example? B^e——C_ritical 00:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} The text is fairly clear and is well sourced. Economic stagnation is another term for flat incomes so that's not a problem and is the term that best describes the statistics. Plus we have the source above provided by bcritical. I'm not sure of impoverishment though. It doesn't have the same meaning as stagnation and is not necessarily supported by the income statistics. --regentspark (comment) 00:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

:Well to be fair, the text is "Income inequality in the United States, with a wealthy upper class accruing large profits and economic stagnation or impoverishment for the rest of the population, has increased greatly since the 1960s." It's backed up by the Guardian source, which says about 1/7th of the population live below the poverty line which I assume is the same as impoverishment. So that's two sources for that term right there, with the Guardian providing it as a technical definition [http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/nov/16/occupy-protests-data-video Guardian source is here]. B^e——C_ritical 01:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::I disagree that Economic stagnation is another term for flat incomes. Flat incomes relate to individual financial income and economic stagnation is measured in terms of the GDP growth. It's minucia....but then we are talking microeconomics. I dispute the use of another term when there is an acceptable one from the source but , this all hinges on this being attributed as opinion as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::"Flat incomes" would be a perfectly good way of putting it. And just to repost for RegentsPark, [http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/income-inequality-america?page=1Income here is another source] for the stats, why I say we're talking about hard cold fact here. B^e——C_ritical 02:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::{{quotation|"Income inequality in the United States, with wealth accruing at the top and flat incomes for the rest of the population, has increased sharply in the last thirty years according to Deborah Mutnick, senior editor of Forbes Magazine."}}

::::::::::Would work for me. But, if there is a better source (RS that is not an opinion piece) to use without an attribution we would need different prose (probably). But a fact only needs one RS to be claimed, but just because there are other sources that make similar claims doesn't mean you use the opinion without attribution and then cite the sources that seem to agree, you cite the primary source being referenced then cite the source that is of the higher quality RS from a straight news story or peer reviewed journal that makes the claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::So do you consider the LA Times source sufficient for a fact claim without attribution? B^e——C_ritical 04:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::::In a way.... As I stated above the article can be used to state certain facts as it mentions them, but they are not precisely the same but similar. So here is a quote similar to the Forbes one: "The year just past was one in which the stagnation of income and wealth for the great majority of Americans continued— indeed, bit so deep that it helped fuel the Occupy movement taking as its constituency the "99%," those left behind by the continued gravitation of economic bounty toward the top 1% of U.S. taxpayers." And another: "...(where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement) Those four goals have been undermined since the 1970s by the unequal distribution of the wealth created largely by the American worker's boundless gains in productivity." Hey look...that's part of GDP...can you say "economic stagnation? If you like that phrase here is an RS that uses it. And one more: "There isn't any question that income inequality has increased over the last three decades". Now since what we are proposing so far is completely dropping the opinion piece for the LA Times piece, we need to slightly re-write the prose. How about this:

::::::::::::{{quotation|"Income inequality has increased over the last three decades with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of the wealth undermining the goals of working people."{{cite news |title= Presidential campaign needs to get real on salvaging middle class|author= ael Hiltzik|url= http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/31/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120101|newspaper= Los Angeles Times|date= December 31, 2011|accessdate=25 April 2012}}}}

::::::::::::Would that work? If so It's even formatted to go.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you, that's precisely what I've (we've?) been trying to get across. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:53, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

::::::::Is this the consensus then? It certainly makes giving factual statements much easier. I myself have a strict interpretation of policy, so accepted that we could not use the primary sources like the CBO report, even though our secondary sources make it clear that they explain what OWS is concerned about. If we can use those sources, then we have easy sourcing for factual claims. Anyone else? B^e——C_ritical 21:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In looking at this I see two issue and only one real dispute. The issue with using statistical information is a seperate one and if I have not made myself clear in all the prose and the link I left to the policy etc., then I will state outright, that it is a case by case matter and dependent on context and what statistics and how and where they are used. It is a complicated issue and not cut and dry for a single consensus to any and all use. As for the prose and reference dispute, the admin above did indeed suggest better sourcing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

{{quotation|"Income inequality has increased over the last three decades with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of the wealth undermining the goals of working people."{{cite news |title= Presidential campaign needs to get real on salvaging middle class|author= ael Hiltzik|url= http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/31/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120101|newspaper= Los Angeles Times|date= December 31, 2011|accessdate=25 April 2012}}}}

Give me a while I want to integrate the full section and sources here. Looking good (: B^e——C_ritical 13:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

:At the minimum, I suggest changing 'working people' to 'most Americans'. --regentspark (comment) 13:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

::Agreed. I think the prose is original enough to use that.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

:::I have made that change to the agreed on prose with wikilinks above as cited in a compromise for my dispute. I feel this is resolved and leave it up to DR/N facilitator as to whether a seperate DR/N should be opened to address Becriticals use of multiple refernces for multiple claims and use of statistical data or if we should simply continue here. I asssumed there was something else with statistics but I didn't assume he meant ALL of the material. If that is his dispute I would recommend a seperate filing. While I saw this as two issues I saw only one dispute from what the original discussion was involving and that was over information another editor reverted. HOWEVER I also gave a window to more discussion here by stupidly thinking this was going to actually be done on a case by case basis...but that can be done here as well. I would rather do it little by little on the talk page where at least one other editor has shown interest in engaging there, but if DR/N is determised to leave this open I will continue here and ask the other editor to join this discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

----

What do you think of this version?

During the 1990s, economists began to release studies which showed the increasing income inequality in the United States. Although these were cited by liberals and Democrats, this information did not fully penetrate the public sphere till it was used as one of the ideas behind the OWS movement. OWS protests were particularly concerned with wealth and income inequality, in addition to greed and the corrupting power of banks and multinational corporations.[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/income/income_inequality/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier Income Inequality] The New York Times March 22, 2012 Inequality in wealth and income has increased over the last three decades with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of the wealth undermining the goals of most Americans."{{cite news |title= Presidential campaign needs to get real on salvaging middle class|author= ael Hiltzik|url= http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/31/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120101|newspaper= Los Angeles Times|date= December 31, 2011|accessdate=25 April 2012}}

A 2010 poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans across the political spectrum, including the wealthiest, want more equitable distribution of wealth.[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20120052-503544.html?tag=mncol;lst;1 Occupy Wall Street: More popular than you think] By Brian Montopoli October 13, 2011 "the vast majority [of Americans] seem to share the protesters' sense that the economic deck is stacked" According to news editor Simon Rogers writing for The Guardian Data Blog, Americans, including 90% of Republicans, believe that the top 20% of Americans should own as much as 40% of the wealth of the nation, and that the poorest 120 million Americans should own about 10% of the wealth of the nation. However, in reality the top 20% of people in the Unites States own 85% of the wealth, the 120 million poorest own .3% (about 1/333rd or one third of one percent), and the richest 1% own about 33%.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/nov/16/occupy-protests-data-video Occupy protestors say it is 99% v 1%. Are they right?] The Guardian Data Blog, by Simon Rogers, Wednesday 16 November [http://taxprof.typepad.com/files/129tn0251.pdf United in Our Delusion] By David Cay Johnston October 11, 2010, as cited by The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/nov/16/occupy-protests-data-video Data Blog] According to 2007 statistics, financial inequality (total net worth minus the value of one's home"Financial wealth" is defined by economists as [http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html "total net worth minus the value of one's home,"] including investments and other liquid assets.) is greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2011/11/01/occupy-wall-street-and-the-rhetoric-of-equality/ Occupy Wall Street And The Rhetoric of Equality] Forbes November 1, 2011 by Deborah L. Jacobs

However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—an Update to 2007] by Edward N. Wolff, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, March 2010[http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Wealth, Income, and Power] by G. William Domhoff of the UC-Santa Barbara Sociology Department Tax rates paid by the wealthy are less than those paid by Americans making $100,000 to $200,000 per year: incomes of $100,000 to $200,000 are taxed at an effective rate of 25%, but the wealthy, whose income comes mostly from investments, pay less than 20%. Since 1979, federal taxation has become less progressive, shifting away from progressive income taxes and toward payroll taxes. In the United States, about 15% of households are "food insecure," meaning that they have difficulty buying enough food. About 50 million Americans have no health insurance and at least 42 million —about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line. Executive pay in the largest US companies has quadrupled since the 1970s, but the average non-supervisory employee is paid 10% less.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/cozy-relationships-and-peer-benchmarking-send-ceos-pay-soaring/2011/09/22/gIQAgq8NJL_story.html Cozy relationships and ‘peer benchmarking’ send CEOs’ pay soaring] The Washington Post with Bloomberg, special report on Breakaway Wealth, By Peter Whoriskey, October 3, 2011[http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ratcheting-up-pay-with-peer-comparison/2011/10/03/gIQAKT1FJL_graphic.html Ratcheting up pay with peer comparison] The Washington Post with Bloomberg, October 3, 2011.[http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_income/index.htm Who are the 1 percent?], CNN, October 29, 2011[http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3309 "Tax Data Show Richest 1 Percent Took a Hit in 2008, But Income Remained Highly Concentrated at the Top."] [http://www.cbpp.org Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]. Accessed October 2011.

B^e——C_ritical 03:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

:Technical comment. It is not the case that the wealthy pay less taxes than those who make $100,000 to $200,000. Rather, they pay (in general) at a lower rate. --regentspark (comment) 13:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

::Corrected. B^e——C_ritical 21:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk|close=1}}

::This isn't exactly a case by case discussion but now asks to gain consensus on a whole bunch of stuff. I suggest taking this portion back to talk page as my actual dispute has been resolved at this time. I don't dispute that the CBO information cannot be used in some form as detailed on the talkpage (and here) and feel if you wish to dispute the actual exclusion of the above material it should be made as a seperate DR/N. Or we can continue to discuss each case there and not take up sapce on what I see as a resovled dispute. The issue of statistics individually is a different issue. I will participate if you wish to return with your own DR over statistical data but I feel sure that it is better to discuss this on the talk page and see and resolution to this filing.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

:::No, the dispute is not resolved. There hasn't been any agreement. Seemingly, you see it as resolved because you edited the article and put in your preferred version without discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=488752407&oldid=488744875] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=489019337&oldid=489012940] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=489433290&oldid=489419308], along with User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous . But the removal of most of the section is what we're mainly talking about here, not just one sentence. No need for a separate section. Can you give feedback on the above? B^e——C_ritical 22:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

::::But if you don't want to engage more here, I don't think another thread here will do anything. What do you think about formal mediation? B^e——C_ritical 22:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::I will leave this up to the DR/N facilitators to decide if the intitial dispute I brought: "A question has arisen in regards to how to use references to support a claim. (with a quote of the text) It is disputed that this can be used as fact and is believed it should be attributed as opinion and not used to claim a straight fact." has been resolved.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::Well, if that was the only problem with the section, then let's restore the former section, or the one above, with your lead sentence. Then we can discuss further edits, such as the draft above on the talk page. But I don't think that's what you want to do. I was under the impression that we were here to get a draft of the section written, since much of the section has been blanked or changed without consensus. Seems silly just to work on one sentence. On the other hand if you're saying to just insert the text above in the article and you don't have a problem with it, then that's fine... we don't need to be here. B^e——C_ritical 01:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why use it as fact? Just explain that its an opinion of the author. Like, "according to John Doe" or "writes John Doe" or "in staff writer John Doe's opinion". As long as its phrased so that the opinion is clearly that of the author, not Wikipedia than its fine, though a balance should be maintained. — GabeMc (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

:That is, in fact how the section is right now with a good portion that was from the older version, but is now attributed correctly as opinion to it's source the Guardian UK. It seems that the other editor wishes to use a number of sources that turn out to be opinion including the Guardian, that he had made sure to ask me directly about some time ago and then linked me to the consensus discussion on the issue of the Guardian as a RS. He still used the reference against his own recomendations to me. He has stated that the author means nothing and only the source itself does and believes that we need not distinquish between expertise of the authors themselves in such opinion. The editor wishes Income inequality as the first main section of the article and wishes for us as editors to proclaim that the CBO report is undisputed fact, and that all mention of it be done without having to reference the information to a secondary, published source.

:The section was edited a number of times by a number of editors, as has the entire article, but this section has been a question of a number of editors for some time and the issue never really went away. I removed the information, began a detailed explanation of my actions per policy for and gave examples of how to use facts from relliable sources that have direct context to the report, but it appears the other editor is more interested in getting the statistical information included without proper context or secondary referencing for claims. Is the CBO Report undistputed fact? Can its statistical information be used in the artticle in prose without secondary, published referense? I actually think if the other editor wants to encompass all disputes than we should make this the mother of all Occupy DR/Ns. This should be the one where we hash it all out from top to bottom, including the criticism section and how that relates to assessment, the Security and Crime section, the timeline section that was deleted and the split between pages. We can post at every project that the page is under and post something Signpost and the Wiki project Council and the Village Pump. Perhaps we need to take a straw poll and gauge the overall community temperture for a full community wide "Occupy" discussion? There are a lot of different ways we can handle this, not just If not....Becritical...just start with one claim and one refernce and we can deal with it that way...or go back to the talk page and just discuss this. We are only here because you wanted to be here. My dispute is resolved unless you would like to renege on your part. I see no reason for me to renege on mine. I am willing to discuss one case with you further here as I stated clearly "case by case" if this is not satisfactory you have every right to lodge or file and action to any part of the dispute process. We can take it from there sir. Tank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

::Both versions including the above use appropriate attribution. That is not much of an an issue. If you don't want to discuss any problems you see with the former section, which was removed in a disruptive manner, or with the draft above, I'll ask for formal mediation. I don't just start from a version which is the result of disruptive editing and act as if that is correct: if you do that, then it only encourages disruption, which is bad both for any editors who try not to be disruptive and aggressive, like me, and for Wikipedia as a whole- not to mention the content of the page. As I've said before, there are sufficient sources to state things as fact in some cases. But that is not the main issue. In fact, I'm not sure what the issues were/are which caused the section to be blanked and edit warred into its current state. B^e——C_ritical 17:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

:::What I percieve, is that you have posted a chunk of an article with several claims and references that were boldly removed with proper summarizing of the policy and guideline, immediately discussed on the talk page...yet are not offering any reasoning, explanation, argument, justification or defense to include and are relying on me to contiunue to denounce the material over and over. I then see you accuse others of the very thing you, yourself are doing...not discussing. Ultimatums like: "If you don't... I'll...?" are too controling for my tastes. Your behavior seems to be very inclined towards directing editors behavior to suit a very narrow interpretation of conduct guidelines and in some cases just essays. This is becoming disruptive in my opinion. Good luck. I'm done. My dispute is resolved. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

::::I'm asking if you see a problem with it. If you don't then I'll use it in the article. As to how you and AKA removed the former material and inserted your preferred version over the reverts and objections of myself and Equaz, and over the policy explanations of how you were wrong by other editors as well, that was disruption. If you want to dismiss our concerns here, and refuse to continue the discussion, then please do not revert at the article. B^e——C_ritical 19:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::I am asking that you show good faith in the discussion and please explain your position for inclusion. As part of being bold I summarized my action, created a section on the talkpage and explained in full my edit. You have yet to do so. You have argued against policy and guideline but not actually discussed why the claims you are making should be included and I do mean EACH claim and EACH reference.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::There are no problems with the above draft. That is my position. If you disagree, let's hear why. I can't respond to nothing. B^e——C_ritical 06:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::There are problems with the above draft. That is my position. I have disgreed. You have heard it. Is there some reasoning you have that this is acceptable for inclusion?--Amadscientist (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::Stonewalling and not giving reasons for your assertions just means we have to have a mediator. B^e——C_ritical 18:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

We need a different approach. I won't call for closing of the DR when there is still a dispute, regardless that the compromise of my original dispute seems to be working. I won't use "My version" versus "Their version". That is not a discussion as much as it is requesting a vote between versions that differ greatly. I am however, going to be straight forward here as I am in this dispute.

We know that income inequality is an issue for OWS. It does not require citation as it is considered undisputed fact. How this fact is applied is a matter of consensus. But...there are other issues. What about greed, corruption and the undue influence of corporations on government? Why do we have an entire section with a header entitled "Income inequality"? and not a section with headers entitled with the other issues? IS income inequality so important to the subject that it is due weight to include a seperate section entitled "Income Inequality" and no other sections relating in the same manner each issue with due weight? If we use only a single header, shouldn't that header be more neutral to the subjects of issues and simply use the header "Issues". But then there is the fact that it is a protest and they have goals. It is reasonable to suggest that issues are a part of the protest goals. Why not a section entitled "Issues and Goals"?

I see a section entitled as "Income inequality" and being devoted to the subject alone to be wandering into original research. As far as your version. I have stated you should be bold and add it a little at a time and see what happens. You could always add all of it and see what happens, but then you must be able to allow other editors involved to edit it, question it and remove it if they follow proper procedure. Removal of content is acceptable even as stated by essay, WP:BRD. Having content removed is not a disruption. It happens all the time. You, yourself have removed content. Is there a compromise you might consider? Perhaps drafting out a merging of some content into an issues section along with some additonal content cited to RS about the other issues and the protestor goals?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

:What? Why did you blank the section then instead of editing collaboratively? Why didn't you change the section title? The section title has been changed multiple times because of people's objections to the lack of agreement between the content and the title. At one point, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=487794058&oldid=487793850 this was a section title], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=487776941&oldid=487776835 inserted by me] also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=487871857&oldid=487795371 this], and content could have been merged into that catchall section. But was that done? No, the section was blanked instead. Why would you blank content because you don't like a section title? The above is the third or 4th time I have rewritten the section to please objections which I consider mostly baseless, and which are aggressively or disruptively asserted on the article. I don't trust the process at the article anymore, and feel that only mediation has any chance of gaining a definite enough consensus that future disruptive editing can be resisted. B^e——C_ritical 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

:::Yes, on April 16 you did indeed add a similar title to the header as I had suggested on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street/Archive_28#Perhaps_.22Goals.22_should_be_.22Issues_and_goals.22... April 10] and got no reaction or discussion from you.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

::And blanking a section is not "bold" its disruptive. (olive (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC))

It does seem to me that the terms of the dispute are shifting. We started with a dispute over the wording of a sentence in the text. That dispute seems to have been resolved. Now, the entire section is being disputed? --regentspark (comment) 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

:::Blanking of content is another way of stating "removal of content" and should always be accompanied with a full explanation in the edit summary (which was done) and a discussion with a more detailed explanation of the edits (which was done) but, in and of itself, is a bold edit and alone is not disruptive. Bold editing is encouraged where articles have stalled or discussion only methods of collaboration are not working. But yes, I believe the terms have shifted, but the editor who began the DR/N (me) is being asked to dispute the entirety of a section. I have not disputed a section in this DR, but believe the other editor diputes my removal of content and the discussion that followed.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

:::No. Blanking content does not only equal removal of content. It strips an article, and in this case a highly contentious article. Sadly, such actions disrespect other editors working on an article, and I consider both stripping an article and that kind of aggressive stepping over other editors to be disruptive especially given the reason. We can of course agree to disagree.(olive (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC))

:::::I suppose you can agree to what you feel is true, but I go by what the Five pillars of Wikipedia: "all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed" and what WP:BOLD states, which is: "Don't get upset if your bold edits get deleted" and "It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further" as well as ""For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity." from Francis Bacon.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

::::regentspark, I actually thought that a DR/N started after the blanking of a section was about getting the section unblanked. My mistake. I'm always willing to discuss whatever needs to be discussed. I do not recall any real explanation for blanking the section; rather, it seemed MadSci thought it was a kind of punishment for not having discussed to his satisfaction [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Income_inequality] "I feel it is best to remove this section again as the last revert failed to discuss in detail what their reasoning was for returning the information." This seems to me another misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works: detailed explanations in the absence of specific objections are not required. Is there any reason not to request mediation? I've been pretty busy or I would have. B^e——C_ritical 01:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

::::::I assume [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=488747230&oldid=488744875 this] is the blanking in question? The section is there in the article now and we've been discussing one sentence from it. Could the two sides (briefly, please!) clarify what the dispute is regarding this section? No need to explain things at length as yet. Let's just get a handle on the problem first. --regentspark (comment) 01:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

::::::::No idea. Can't get him to say. And no [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=490215505#Income_inequality this is the section now] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=488899300#Income_inequality this is the section before it was blanked]. B^e——C_ritical 03:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, that is the diff of the edit I made that removed the material with the summary: "OR with no direct support from references for context". That was the original content removed and I edited a good portion back in attributed properly as opinion of the Guardian UK as Becrititcal and I discussed when I tried to address this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOccupy_Wall_Street&diff=486697154&oldid=486691641 here], where Becritical states that the general consensus of the community is to use the Gaurdian as an opinion.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOccupy_Wall_Street&diff=486760891&oldid=486758236]. We were collaborating and we made some agreements but they never transpired and even attributing of the Guardian as opinion seemed to also disolve as important to the other editor. I decided to be bold and make an edit that I believed was within the consensus that Becritical and I had agreed on. I then began another discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOccupy_Wall_Street&diff=488747095&oldid=488746210 here]. (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, on reading your diffs I'm not sure I see what your issues are. Generally, in the diffs, you express the concern that highlighting income inequality as the main issue underlying OWS is not directly supported by reliable sources and therefore either the entire section should be removed or 'income inequality' be moved into a broadly titled 'main issues' section where other issues are also discussed. Is that a fair assessment? --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

:"[C]oncern that highlighting income inequality as the main issue underlying OWS is not directly supported by reliable sources" is one concern yes, but not the basis of the entire section being removed. Not quite a fair assemsment only in that, it assumes these are all the arguments I used or concerns i had when i did make the edit that removed content. These are simply some concerns and ways to move the article and section past JUST highlighting ONE portion, which I do not see any source as stating as fact. I have concerns that the highlighting with use of a section gives greater importance to all the information within and makes it a more important issue to collaborate on and discuss if it is the ONLY section dealing with protester concerns. But my main dispute with the content I removed at that point was simply that the other editor was clearly going against his own previous arguments and collaborative effort with me in what I percieved was a punitive removal of content by the editor in the past in an aggressive manner while attributing such behavior to others. (Not to bring a conduct problem here, just mentioning as part of what I percieved)--Amadscientist (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

::I admit I'm foxed and cannot really see a dispute here. You're saying you blanked the page as a sort of reaction to the behavior of another editor. Not a good idea but let's just put your reaction as well as the behavior that caused that reaction aside and move on from there. I suggest that if highlighting one issue is your principal concern, then perhaps the way out is that you seek sources for other issues and bring them to the attention of editors on the talk page. If there are multiple, equally important, issues, and if the issues as well as their importance are well sourced, then there is no reason why income inequality cannot be included as a subsection of a broader section. As a general rule, proposing specific means of moving forward makes dispute resolution much easier than does expressing general dissatisfaction with content or behavior. --regentspark (comment) 20:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

:::For my part I have to admit I held back from discussion feeling a bit manipulated, so it is less about their actual behavior and more about my perception...but then I don't have the dispute about adding content to the section...the other editor does. So far the stall in discussion seems his wanting to have an up or down vote on his version and my wanting to talk about all of the changes as needed. The long term dispute is about the section as Income ineqiality and the inclusion of the material in it. But the short term dipute of content or section header is my argument in collaborating on this section. The section title has gone back and forth as part of the long term dispute of what context to use information and references, statistics and the like. The immediate dispute of the other editor was part of a long term discussion I think needs to continue on the talk page. But, to clarify it was not my reaction to his behavior or any perception I had of his conduct, (that's flying at me a lot too) that inspired me to make the edit, it was the breaching of the agreements and settled consensus he was arguing in the discussion that was in the form of opinion content not attributed to the source he began to place in the section. I didn't understand why he was adding information with references against the very things he was seeking me to agree with (use of the Gaurdian references as attriputed opinion only). The removal of content or "blanking" itself was part of a bold edit to discuss the specific issues I had with content and references at that time.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

::::I don't pretend to understand all of that, but historically, this editor has not been specific enough in his objections to allow them to be addressed, has made up his own policy, has edited aggressively and has generally made progress difficult. But no need to discuss it here further, I'm planning to ask for mediation. B^e——C_ritical 22:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::I agree mediation is the best next step. Let's call this one closed and done with. --regentspark (comment) 23:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

::::::Agreed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}