Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 67#Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|99.235.25.103|10:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Stale. No response by one primary disputant. May be refiled if dispute resumes. But let me note to the filing IP editor that your mass removal of material which has been in the article for a long time has been challenged by multiple editors. Under the Consensus Policy, the burden is now on you to obtain a consensus before removing that material again. Try to get discussion started on the article talk page; if you cannot, either do not make the changes to the article or file a request for comments to attract other editors to the discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Greater Middle_East}}

Users involved

• {{User|WashingtonPrime}}
• {{User|Dawn Bard}}
• {{User|C.Fred}}

Dispute overview

Greetings. The article "Greater Middle East" is being incorrectly edited repeatedly. The offending party is generalizing the article to such an extent, that it is changing the whole context of the article. The "Greater Middle East" region was a term defined by the USA (formally in 2004) when it declared it as part of the GMEI (Greater Middle East initiative). This region was subsequently labeled as part of the BMEI by the G8 (Broader Middle East initiative). I can provide dozens of proper sources to show you what I mean by doing a search through reputable sources in the internet.

The article was consistent from 2006 (from when it was originally written) until February 2013 when the whole context of the article was generalized to the point of misrepresentation by user "Washington Prime". I tried to discuss this with the offenders in the TALK section, and in fact my arguments were ignored. I was blocked from editing Wikipedia for some number of days and I am not sure why. I presume it is because the offending user claimed that I was vandalizing this article. I seriously question the intentions of why this article is being generalized and would like to request a dispute resolution. Any person familiar with political science will know that I am right and someone may be trying to misrepresent this article by generalizing the term to irrelevance.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Provided sources for my rationale.

Tried to engage with other party in the "Talk" section.

How do you think we can help?

Someone would need to compare how both myself and the other user is representing the term "Greater Middle East" (preferably someone with a political science understanding). When contacted, I will be glad to be available.

• I've only edited the article once, to revert what looked like an unconstructive edit - an IP deleting a huge chunk of sourced content without an edit summary, when they had previously been reverted by another user for the same reason. There was a conversation going on on the talk page, as I see now, but an edit summary that pointed to the talk page might have helped the IP's edit look less like vandalism. I was, I can now see, perhaps a bit hasty in my edit, and for that I apologize, but I honestly didn't think I was getting involved in a content dispute, and I was surprised to get the dispute resolution notice. I don't really have anything to say about the content itself without researching it some more, so I will happily support whatever consensus emerges on that front, and I won't edit the page again in the meantime. Is this all OK? Someone please just let me know if you need more of a response from me; I've never participated in a dispute resolution process at Wikipedia before. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree in principle with what the requester says: these changes need discussed at the article talk page.

What got me involved was the IP's deletion of nearly 3/4 of the article. Further, the IP had deleted talk page comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Middle_East&diff=541723290&oldid=541595086][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Middle_East&diff=541723366&oldid=541723290]. Based on that, the edits appeared to be disruptive, so I reverted the changes to the article and warned the IP.

That's the extent of my involvement in the page. Again, I suggest that the IP and WashingtonPrime discuss the changes the IP wants on the talk page. I'm sure other editors will get involved, but this article is outside my area of interest, so I will likely not be one of them. —C.Fred (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. This case is not yet open, nor have I "taken" it. The participation of Dawn Bard and C.Fred is not required (though they are welcome to participate if they care to, of course). The case will not be opened, however, until we have a response from WashingtonPrime and it is to be noted that since s/he is a short term editor (February 5 - March 2, 2013) and has not edited since that time, it is entirely possible that s/he will not return to Wikipedia or will not return before this listing is closed for staleness. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

:Closing notice: Unless WashingtonPrime responds to this listing by 12:00 on 22 March 2013 (UTC), this listing will be closed as stale. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Skäpperöd|08:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Sending back to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard because no volunteer at that board has yet addressed the sourcing issues which seem to be extremely important to this case and because this noticeboard is, per its guidelines, not the place for disputes which are being discussed in other forums. If there are non-sourcing issues which remain after that discussion is complete, and those issues cannot be resolved by discussion on the article talk page, then a new filing may be made here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Lutici}}
• {{pagelinks| Pomerania during the High Middle Ages}}

Users involved

• {{User|Skäpperöd}}
• {{User| Volunteer Marek}}

Dispute overview

Volunteer Marek added information to articles and drew a map based on details from Michalek, A: [http://books.google.de/books/about/S%C5%82owianie_S%C5%82owianie_Zachodni.html?id=TnIjAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne.] These claims include:

• A campaign of Bolesław I Chrobry against Stralsund/Stralow in 1121 (which includes the claim that that place even existed by 1121) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lutici&diff=545570999&oldid=545570036][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lutici&diff=545569273&oldid=545567617][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lutici&diff=545620331&oldid=545619781][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pomerania_during_the_High_Middle_Ages&diff=545613828&oldid=545612634][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wrymouth_expedition_pomerania_lutici.png]
• A joint Danish-Polish campaign against Rügen in 1130 leading to the defeat of the local tribe who swore allegiance to the Polish duke.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pomerania_during_the_High_Middle_Ages&diff=545614184&oldid=545613828][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pomerania_during_the_High_Middle_Ages&diff=545797633&oldid=545796365][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pomerania_during_the_High_Middle_Ages&diff=545808845&oldid=545803860]

I contest the accuracy of these claims, as these are errors stemming from an overview work which can not be supported by any secondary sources. There are secondary sources confirming a campaign of Boleslaw into the Müritz area in 1121 and others confirming a Danish-Polish campaign against Wollin in 1130, which the overview work had just confused for above-named places. [http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrzej_Micha%C5%82ek Michalek has published] a series of overview books about crusades, West Slavs (where the contested details are from), South Slavs and East Slavs, so one would expect errors in detail rather than unreferenced novel theories about said details. I contest the inclusion of these errors in articles per WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

Volunteer Marek insists on keeping these claims in the resp. articles / map.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

• Talk:Lutici#Attempts at removing well sourced material
• Talk:Pomerania during the High Middle Ages#1130
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Andrzej Michalek "Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne"

How do you think we can help?

• Mediate the discussion that is running in circles for days
• Participate in solving the case(s) by commenting from a neutral, policy-based perspective

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{drn filing editor|Xfpisher|17:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Dispute resolved by parties involved. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Parker (2013 film)#The budget was 'Mid-30's', according to one of the people who made it.}}

Users involved

• {{User|Xfpisher}}
• {{User| Status}}
• {{User| Arre 9}}

Dispute overview

I found an interview in Variety where one of the studio heads central to making and financing this movie said the budget was 'Mid-30's'. I accordingly listed the budget on the article page as $35,000,000--it had previously been $30,000,000--this was based on early estimates from less well-placed sources, and specifically The Numbers. This led to an edit war, the ultimate result being that no budget information was provided on the article. I took another tack, and emailed The Numbers, Box Office Mojo, and IMDb, informing them of what the studio exec had said, and where he had said it. They all agreed the best estimate was now 35mil, and accordingly changed their budget estimates (Box Office Mojo had not previously had one) to that figure. I informed Status and Arre of this, and they insisted that this was not a 'solid' figure, and that no budget info could be provided until one emerged. Neither showed me any Wikipedia rule that says budget info can't be provided until there is a specific number from a primary source, and it became evident that if I hadn't told them I'd emailed those websites, they would have accepted any one of them as an authority. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (without any urging from me) edited in the 35mil quote, and Status promptly undid it, insisting there was no solid figure--it's entirely possible no such figure will ever appear at an accredited source. There was some mutual recrimination, and Status threatened to ban me from Wikipedia, but I've disengaged, and am now simply looking for a resolution to the dispute. Neither Status nor Arre seem to have a great deal of experience editing movie pages, and I question whether their position on this is the correct one. I don't believe most Wikipedia film articles could have any budgetary info if they are correct in this, but they will clearly not listen to me on this subject.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None.

How do you think we can help?

The main difference of opinion here is whether or not a Wikipedia article about a recent film can quote a budget estimate. It is my position that all or nearly all film budgets quoted on Wikipedia articles, and elsewhere, are in fact estimates. Box Office Mojo, IMDb, and The Numbers all agree 35 million is the best estimate at the present time. They are all using that figure, and Wikipedia routinely uses all three as sources.

Well now, I thought that this was settled a long time ago. Apparently not. Let's keep this brief (as I have to). First of all, I want to make note that for some reason, Xfpisher has been listing me as a main person in this dispute, when I actually came into it late in the game. Not sure why that is. A Variety article had quoted a producer of the film saying that the budget of the film was "mid-30 million", which Xfpisher then listed as "~35 million" in the infobox. I stated, calmly, in a dispute that was already flaming, that we should just wait for an exact number before putting anything. I thought that was pretty responsible. Xfpisher then emailed out a bunch of sources, telling them to put 35 million as the budget. Any person in their right mind would be extremely suspicious by that, as both Arre 9 and I were. So both Arre 9 and I stated that the budget should be left alone until we get another source, as those have been contaminated in our eyes. Xfpisher didn't appear to disagree with that, and only said how much he will "keep an eye on us". This dispute resolution thread is extremely unnecessary and I would hope that a volunteer doesn't pick it up. This could have been handled with a simple requests for comment on the talk page, so other film editors could way in on the sourcing of the budget.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and this: "There was some mutual recrimination, and Status threatened to ban me from Wikipedia" never happened. LOL. Unless you are referring to the standardized template message that I gave you when you were serving out personal attacks like you were a bartender serving drinks at a bar.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

::In addition, in reverting {{User|Obi-WanKenobi-2005}} I said "per talk"; which our agreement was to not list a budget. I never said anything other than that.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

:::I would also like to add that I only made ten comments to the discussion on the talk page about this (so I don't understand why I'm being cited as a primary person here), while Arre made 34 and Xfpisher made 39.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Please refrain from arguing about user conduct, this venue is for content disuptes. Also, discussion should take place in the discussion area below once all involved have presented a statement. Please do not discuss within others opening comments.}}

:::I never agreed to anything, except to give you a few weeks to think over what I'd said, and then if nothing changed, I'd do exactly what I did yesterday. I said I'd do exactly this, Status, so I really don't know why you're acting like it's some bolt from the blue. There was no agreement to leave the budget blank until a better source shows up (which for many movies it never does, and they still have estimated budgets up on Wikipedia). You and Arre agreed to that, I did not. I simply saw no point in going over the same points again and again, when you clearly were not listening, or making any substantive points in response. Btw, Arre has consistently deferred to you, and you have been conducting yourself as if you were in charge ever since you showed up on that page, so that's why I mentioned you more prominently. Arre hasn't even shown up yet, so let's give her a bit more time. Did you let her know this was going on? Xfpisher (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

::::Where did I say you agreed to anything? I said you didn't disagree, which is a fact. Arre won't be commenting here, as I shouldn't have either.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::It seemed like you were saying that the matter was resolved, and it's hard to understand how you'd think that, given that the last time we communicated, I said I would seek outside assistance to clarify whether your position was the correct one or not. I said very specifically that I was going to pursue the matter, because I don't believe you have correctly understood how budget numbers are arrived at for Wikipedia articles. And it also seems that you consider yourself to be above Wikipedia guidelines for how editors resolve differences of opinion. We all have other commitments, and it doesn't seem to me that your schedule is likely to be any more taxing than mine or Noleander's. I'm going to ask you again--will you tell me where in the guidelines it says that a movie budget can't be provided in an article unless there is a 'solid' number? Clearly Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, and the Internet Movie Database all agree that it's acceptable to put up a ballpark estimate based on a quote from a studio executive. And they are, unlike you and me, professionals at this. Where they got the quote from is immaterial--the fact remains that they decided it was good enough to base an estimate on. And now it's up to you to argue why Wikipedia should hold to a higher standard--while continuing to use all three websites as sources in all of its movie articles. If you choose not to, it would seem that you are acknowledging you don't really have an argument, just an opinion. Which I respect, but do not agree with. Xfpisher (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::Not at all. I already stated my business, and that's all I have to say. Period; end of story. You said the exact same thing about yourself.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::::I think I've made my position very clear, and backed it up with strong arguments--multiple important sources of movie data have agreed with me. You have, in my estimation, failed to make any kind of case here. You have stated an opinion, but you have not made a fact-based argument to back it up (ie, you have failed to quote specific Wikipedia guidelines and past precedents that support your position). But if you don't want to participate, obviously that is your choice, even though it would seem to clearly violate Wikipedia guidelines for communication between editors involved in a dispute. I will, of course, continue to pursue this. So I trust next time you won't say you thought the matter was resolved.Xfpisher (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::::The problem, again, is these "multiple important sources" got their information from you. I don't understand what you don't get about contaminated sources. I don't believe there's a Wikipedia guideline about users who email sources to change their information to try to win in a dispute; there should be one, however. As you see "no point in going over the same points again and again", never do I. I'm bored now. Bye.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::Here's a real problem--your primary argument for not using these three respected sources of film information as sources in this case is based on the fact that you know (because I told you) that I provided them with the information that led them to use that figure. Which verges on discussing editor conduct, as opposed to content--should you even be bringing it up? It seems irrelevant to me, since obviously many other budget quotes on these websites derive from somebody using email to inform the editors of these sites of a useful quote. It's unlikely there's going to be any other sources you'd accept in the forseeable future, and as you have indicated, there are no Wikipedia guidelines banning this. I didn't edit these pages--I simply made three different sets of people whose job it is to provide this type of information aware of a quote from a film executive in Variety that indicated the budget was around 35 million. There's obviously no guideline saying film budget quotes in articles have to be 100% exact, or there'd be no film budget quotes in any Wikipedia articles. Right now, the article is not providing a valid and useful piece of information about the film. I'm sure the budget isn't exactly 35 million, but it's close enough. If a better figure becomes available, that can be put in its place. What's the hold-up here? It says 35 million (estimated) on IMDb. It just says 35 million on Box Office Mojo and The Numbers. If these widely respected (and widely cited) sources can be so easily 'tainted' (your word), then all past citations to them on Wikipedia should be deleted as well, which would be no small task. Given the long-established precedent of using one or all of these websites as sources on Wikipedia, I think the 35 million figure should go up on this page, and be changed later if more specific information becomes available. Again, remember that this is a discussion about content. You keep making it a discussion about editor conduct. Xfpisher (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

I too thought we had reached a decision. Regardless, I'd like Xfpisher to know that Status and my experience with film articles have nothing to do with this dispute. I'm not interested in engaging further in this. Xfpisher was very vocal in his need to list the budget as 35 million when he started this (30 million was the most widely reported figure by news blogs, newspapers, etc) and had major sources not updated their budget for the film right after he bragged about telling them to, I'd have no problem here. That is my only problem—an editor contacting the sources to alter the outcome of a dispute, with all respect. This wasn't Xfpisher's track to take, if patience was involved. "mid-30s" is not precise. Right now, no other sources apart from the ones contacted by Xfpisher list the budget as 35 million (most report it as 30). Us wanting another concrete source (published before sources like Box Office Mojo, etc) which is available is completely justifiable, Arre 05:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I'd be happy to help facilitate a discussion of this issue. Let's wait for user Arre9 to post an opening comment before we get underway. --Noleander (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks for your help. Is there any way to determine whether Arre has been notified?Xfpisher (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

::Noleander, thanks again, but it seems that Arre9 doesn't want any part of this discussion, and Status has indicated a similar reluctance. So what now? Xfpisher (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

:::Let's wait one more day. There is no rush. --Noleander (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

::::Agreed. Though Status seems to have definitively refused to participate. Arre9 was the person I was dealing with originally, and she was more inclined to compromise, at least before Status turned up. I'm not actually clear on how Status originally got involved in this dispute.Xfpisher (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::That's funny coming from the one who said this: "but the fishy smell is coming from you, Arre." Well... let's see... Wikipedia is an open project that anyone can edit. Interestingly enough, I saw the discussion and took part. Are you telling me I wasn't allowed?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::I'm not sure I should even respond to that. Status, it seems remarks by both of us have been deleted for inappropriate language, so maybe you should reconsider the way you're approaching this, and I'll do the same. I was simply wondering what your interest in the article was, since you don't seem to have ever previously edited an article on a theatrical feature. "That's funny coming from you" is a great example of the kind of language neither of us should be using. Now--will you participate in this discussion, towards the end of reaching a compromise? You clearly do have the time. And for the record, I was not the one who introduced the word 'fishy' into that earlier discussion, and anybody reading that discussion would find that I was not the only one who made personal comments. All three of us were guilty in that regard. Which is why we need somebody else to help us get past that unpleasantness, and focus on the actual facts of the case. Otherwise, I'll have to try other forms of dispute resolution. Surely you could at least take the time to explain why you believe Wikipedia bans the use of estimated budget quotes. Shall we assume that you do not, in fact, have any basis for this contention at all? If you leave this discussion without producing something other than your own opinion about what 'should' be permitted, that would seem to indicate this is the case. Xfpisher (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}

I would suggest all editors involved remember to assume good faith and stop acting incivil to each other. DRN is a content dispute notice board, we do not discuss conduct here. Not only that, it's considered bad practice to argue in someone's opening statement. I collapsed the argument so that the original opening statement could be viewed easily but that has been undone by the editors involved in favour of continuing the finger pointing. Remember, this a voluntary process so if you're not willing to participate and calmly discuss the content dispute then let us know so we can close this request. I would like to see an acknowledgement of this by all parties involved without any "but he started it" or "let me just say it wasn't me that..." type comments. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:Apologies, but you can see why we needed help. I'm all for giving it another try, without the personal comments. To me, it seems like a pretty simple case--we have multiple legitimate sources saying the film's budget was 35 million (which is an estimate, and so are nearly all film budgets you see online). Status admits there's no basis in the Wikipedia guidelines for rejecting these sources because I happen to have provided them with information that led them to use this figure (as a means of trying to resolve the dispute with Status and Arre9). The administrators of these websites made the decision themselves that 35 million was a good estimate, based on a published comment from a studio executive. So I'd like Status to explain why it's necessary to wait (possibly forever) for another source that may never appear, before using the budget quote that now exists on three independent and respected websites compiling financial information about movies.Xfpisher (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

::(edit conflict)Thank you for participating. As far as I can understand itm three respected websites (IMDB, Boxoffice Mojo and The Numbers) all list $35m based off the interview which you sent them? The other party is contesting that because you provided them with the interview it's not a reliable source or are they contesting the original interview to begin with? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:::Feel free to reply to this in the section below rather than here. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's go ahead and get started on the issue. As Cabe says above: DRN is all about content issues, so discussing other editors' behavior is not permitted. It looks like user Arre9 may not be participating here, so that is not an ideal situation. But let's do the best we can. First off: I've read the talk page discussion, and it looks like there are 1 or 2 sources that suggest a figure for the film's budget. Can those sources be identified here? Name the sources and give quotes from the sources. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:The original source is an interview in Variety with a film executive (Nick Meyer of Sierra-Affinity) who was directly involved with financing the movie in question, and he said the budget was "Mid-30's". This does not necessarily mean 35 million dollars, of course----could be slightly lower or (more likely) higher, but that seemed like the best possible estimate. I emailed Box Office Mojo, The Internet Movie Database, and The Numbers, informing them of what Meyer had said, and they independently agreed this was the best estimate, and accordingly put it up on their pages for the film in question. IMDb used the word 'estimated' in their quote, the other two did not. My point was never "This is the only number that can ever be used", but rather that "This is the best available estimate given what we now know, and three independent experts on this subject have concurred, so let's bow to their expertise for the present time." I'm a bit wary at this point of trying to explain the opposing views of the other two editors, but in a nutshell, they felt that the original interview quote wasn't specific enough (ie, didn't say 35 million), and that the other sources had been 'tainted' by my having contacted them. My own feeling is that nearly all film budgets you see online (including in Wikipedia articles) are estimates based on similar quotes, and that these three impartial observers with long experience in this area had agreed that 35 million is the best translation of the term "Mid-30's". Xfpisher (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

::For that Variety source: can you provide a link here if it is online? Can you give the full quote from the source (sentences before & after)? You say the "mid 30" figure is from Nick Meyer of Sierra-Affinity ... can you supply a source identifying what his connection is with the picture (or is that fact in the Variety article)? Is there any other source (that you did not contact) besides Variety? --Noleander (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:::The Variety article was available online when I first used it as a source, but Variety's website is going through some changes, and it's not available there now, last time I checked. It's in the physical edition--the January 28-February 3 2013 issue. I have a photocopy of the article. Nick Meyer is the head of Sierra-Affinity, one of the several companies involved in producing and releasing the film. His exact quote was "I feel like we executed on what we said we were going to execute. We've got a great partner in Film District; I'm confident that they're killing it for us. We have a solid filmmaker in Taylor (Hackford) and he executed on the money. We have Jennifer (Lopez) and Jason (Statham) out promoting the movie. It's a great piece of IP, (by) Donald Westlake, one of the greatest crime novelists in the past 100 years in America. Budget is in the Mid-30's: that's pretty good, given the caliber of the movie. It wasn't easy--the financing, keeping it on the rails. We started work about three years ago. We had the script; there were a lot of different elements attached to it. We were the sales agent, and then Incentive and us became the production company. Sometimes you got to bet on yourself." So I think that clearly establishes that nobody would be in a better position to know what the film cost than Mr. Meyer, and he clearly didn't want to give an exact number (it's not actually so easy to say EXACTLY what a movie cost, even for those who financed it). This is actually unusually good information for a film's budget--you rarely get anything this informative directly from a studio executive. And now that the film in question has failed to do well at the box office, he's unlikely to want to talk it up in the future, meaning this may be the best quote we ever get. If we wait for something more specific, that may mean the article never has any budget quote at all. I only contacted the three websites I've already mentioned. I only had to contact them once apiece, and they added the 35 million quote very quickly in all three cases. I got a thank-you email from Bruce Nash, who owns and operates The Numbers--which was previously used as a source of budget information on this very article--they had an earlier pre-production quote of 30 million, which is now clearly outmoded, as he agreed was the case.Xfpisher (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

::::Okay, thanks for the quote. Question for other parties: Does anyone object to including a statement in the article's body that the the budget is in the "mid-30s"? If you object, please by very specific as to why: is the source not reliable? Is the vagueness of the value a concern? Is it the fact that there is just one source? For the moment, let's just focus on whether or not this information can be added to the article's body. We can address the InfoBox later. --Noleander (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::The article from Variety was perfectly acceptable to use in the body of the article. Saying something like "The film's budget was in the 'mid-30 million' range" would have been perfectly fine. Xfpisher added it to the infobox, using "~35 million", which was, in terms, WP:OR. The issue then became him emailing out several places telling them to change it to what he deemed the budget to be (assuming mid-30 million meant exactly 35 million), to "win" the dispute. He even appeared to be bragging about it. That was both mine and Arre's problem with it. It has nothing to do with the website itself, and Xfpisher is being dramatic saying that the website should never be used as a source. The website isn't the problem, it's that they got there from a user emailing them to win in a dispute. Simple as that.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

{{outdent}}How exactly do you think it was WP:OR? Please be specific. And remember, we're discussing content, not editor conduct. Xfpisher (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:Because no source exists that says the budget was 35 million. That's what WP:OR is. This is a dispute resolution noticeboard and in this case, your conduct is directly related to the content.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 10:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

::Okay, thanks for explaining that. I don't agree with your interpretation of that guideline, which I think we can all agree is often used inappropriately. First of all, I wasn't originally saying 35 million. I was saying AROUND 35 million (ie, using the tilde, which doesn't seem to violate any guidelines). It is around 35 million--that's what "Mid-30's" means, and in confirmation of that, we have three independent respected sources agreeing that was a good estimate to put up--Entertainment Weekly also said the budget was around 35 million, probably after reading Meyer's comments (since I never contacted them). To say I told any of them to do this is deeply misrepresenting the situation--I made a suggestion, they agreed with it--Box Office Mojo in particular will often never list a movie's budget, because they are particularly finicky about sources, so it's noteworthy that as soon as they became aware of what Meyer had said, they listed the budget as 35 million. I would be fine with indicating that 35 million is an estimate, not an exact figure (and probably most movie budget figures on Wikipedia should be considered estimates--one could argue that's implicit, whenever you put up a round number as a film's budget, since it's never EXACTLY that amount, and many budget estimates on Wikipedia and elsewhere are probably several or even many millions off--and given the complexities involved in financing and producing a major motion picture, it may not even be POSSIBLE to come up with an exact figure). Secondly, that's not original research--original research would be along the lines of me directly contacting Nick Meyer, somehow compelling him to tell me the exact budget, then using my conversation with him as a source. I don't agree that your perception of my behavior is necessary to discussing any of this, btw. I would argue that three different outside experts on financial data in the film industry interpreting "Mid-30's" as 35 million makes your or my opinion on this matter irrelevant. Wikipedia cites authorities, and they are authorities. They did not change the data on their websites to please me, or to resolve a dispute between Wikipedia editors that they didn't even know existed. They did so because they felt it would improve their respective entries on this film. And they surely must have done this many times before, in response to other emails from people who use their websites, and provided information of a similar nature, so this falls under the heading of standard practice for these sources that have been cited countless thousands of times on Wikipedia articles. And therefore what I did cannot remotely be considered original research.Xfpisher (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Writing "mid 30s" in the body is perfectly fine, and I think it would be a good move. I think it'd be fine for the budget to be listed as 35 million if a reliable third party source is provided, one dated before Xfpisher told websites to update the budget. Arre 05:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:Telling the websites to update their listings vs providing them with a reliable source and allowing them to make their own judgements on whether to update are completely different. I see no reason to discount those sources simply because Xfpisher provided them with a reliable source for updated information. Also using 'approximately 35m' and 'mid-30s' are very similar. Mid 30s would normally be considered 34, 35 and 36. I see no issue with 'mid 30s' in the body and '~35m' in the infobox. The key being the tilde meaning approximately Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:: "Mid-30s", technically, mid-30s could be anything between 30 and 40. Wikipedia is for facts not assumptions. Xfpisher may have had good intentions but sure seemed to be bragging about e-mailing sources. My observations. If you have visited the Parker article, you can see that I have added the "mid-30s" figure both in the lead and production section. Hopefully this will meet satisfactions the time being. Arre 08:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:::Arre, I'm still not sure I see how "Mid-30's" could mean anything between 30 and 40. To my knowledge, that is not how the term is used anywhere, and certainly not in the entertainment industry. The possibility of the budget being 30mil-33mil is effectively nil--if it was anything less than 34mil, Meyer would have said "low-30's"--it's a bit more likely that it could be 40mil (since film executives routinely lowball their budgets), but not much--probably no higher than 37mil. Yes, Wikipedia is for facts, and it's a fact that we never have the exact amount of money a movie cost--it's an accepted practice to list estimates, and that three important sources of budget info so readily agreed to say 35mil based on an executive saying 'Mid-30's' proves that. I don't believe I was ever bragging, and I'm sorry you saw it that way--you can see now that my interpretation of the existing data and the way I presented it in the article seems at least reasonable (though hardly beyond dispute) to a wide variety of outside observers. Still, I appreciate you making the change. Whether that edit should stand in its current form can be discussed further here.Xfpisher (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:::: I said "technically", no need to go on about it. The concern is that you emailed those sources to win a dispute; its partially obvious. You made notable points, although be careful about your conduct (saying I made our discussion on the talk page "entertaining" to you). Regards, Arre 10:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::Well, that's what we are here for--to go on about it, ie, to clarify our differences of opinion, and seek a reasonable compromise, towards which end I think we're making progress. I think we both need to be more careful about personal comments in future, but for the record, you're bringing up comments that are not part of this current discussion, and are irrelevant to content. What's relevant here is that technically "Mid-30's" means more than 33 million and less than 37 million. Under no circumstances can it be made to mean 30 million. Three independent and respected sources agree that 35 million is a reasonable interpretation of that term, in the context of a movie budget. But again, thank you for making those changes--they don't end the dispute, but they significantly advance its resolution.Xfpisher (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

It was relevant, I was addressing your statement above about not bragging. Like I said, I meant nothing of it, just "technically", no need to discuss that further. Arre 11:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:We're never going to agree about any of that, so let's focus on what we're supposed to be talking about. Let's say that no other acceptable source with a specific budget number ever arises (which is entirely possible, and indeed overwhelmingly probable). The DVD comes out on May 21st, I believe. This movie is unlikely to ever get any significant amount of ink after that, and the people who made it will not be over-eager to discuss it, now that it's conclusively bombed at the box office, all over the world (btw--what happened to the Australian release? It was supposed to open there last weekend, but apparently it didn't). Would you agree to putting up '35 million (estimated)' in the Infobox (let's say) three months from now, if no source that is both more specific and equally credible has appeared anywhere? Again, it was not my decision to list the budget that way on three websites I have no power to edit. They are not in any way involved in our dispute, or even aware of it, so their opinions have to be considered more objective than yours or mine, as well as being vastly more qualified. Your doing this would not violate any Wikipedia guideline, and would fall well within the range of normal procedure on movie articles here.Xfpisher (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

::"Would you agree to putting up '35 million (estimated)' in the Infobox (let's say) three months from now, if no source that is both more specific and equally credible has appeared anywhere?" I'd agree to that.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 13:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:::If Arre is amenable, I believe we have a deal. I'd set the date at July 1st, and leave source citation to you and/or Arre9, assuming that you use one or several of the sources cited in this present discussion. If a new source does appear which would serve to displace the 35mil (estimated) quote, we can discuss it at the Talk page for Parker. I would again stipulate that it must be an equivalently good source, ie from an insider to the film's production (studio exec, producer, director) speaking on the record. Arre may not respond for some hours, due to the time difference, so let's wait to see what she thinks. Xfpisher (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

::::That seems like a good resolution. Just to recap: There is agreement that the body of the article could - today - mention the "mid 30s" figure (probably should be accompanied by naming the source of that figure). But for the Infobox, wait a few months to see of any other sources become available - and if none arise, we use "35 (estimated)". --Noleander (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::I think it's a fine compromise, and am quite satisfied with it (assuming Arre agrees). She has already, as mentioned, put up the Mid-30's figure in the body of the article, and cited the source. She even located the article online--Variety must have finished migrating it. The original link stopped working several weeks ago. So if she agrees to updating the Infobox in about three months (if no better source with a more specific budget figure can be found), I think we're done. Really appreciate your help in this. We just needed a push in the right direction. Xfpisher (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::Okay, let's wait another day or two to see if there are any more comments - then we can close this DRN case, and further discussion can continue at the article's talk page. --Noleander (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::::I'm a bit concerned Arre hasn't responded yet. She certainly would have seen this by now, unless something major came up elsewhere. It would be good to know if she has any problems with the agreement, or any suggestions to improve it.Xfpisher (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::::Well she seems to have been active in the time since the compromise was proposed. I would suggest leaving a nudge on her talk page and, if she still doesn't respond here while remaining active elsewhere close the case Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 19:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::I already left a message on her talk page. But yeah, no reason to leave this open indefinitely. Give it another day, and then close it. And again, thank you for your time. This has been quite interesting. Hopefully I'll never be involved in anything like this again, but if the need arises, I certainly hope to avoid more pitfalls next time out. Xfpisher (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::: I did not see this until now, I was preoccupied working elsewhere. 35 million (estimated) by July 1 is fine. Arre 23:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::Just wanted to make sure you were okay with it. Thanks for participating, and for doing such a great job editing the body of the article to incorporate the Variety article. If there's any need for future discussion, it can be on the talk page for Parker, but I think we all have other matters to address now. Happy to end this on a positive note.Xfpisher (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|GreekParadise|03:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Application failed; not all major disputants agreed to participate. Consider either continuing discussion on talk page or utilizing a request for comments. — TransporterMan (TALK) 00:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Second Amendment to the United States Constitution}}

Users involved

• {{User|GreekParadise}}
• {{User| North8000}}
• {{User| Grahamboat}}
• {{User| SaltyBoatr}}
• {{User| SMP0328.}}
• {{User| ‎Kvng}}
• {{User| Celestra}}
• {{User| Miguel Escopeta}}
• {{User| Inijones}}
• {{User| Yaf}}
• {{User| J8079s}}
• {{User| Pre-1967 English student}}
• {{User| Justanonymous }}
• {{User| Gaijin42 }}

Dispute overview

There is a disagreement over which sources are reliable. I (and others) claim the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the Constitutional Accountability Center, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and several federal appellate cases from 1943 to 1995 are all reliable sources.

Every one of these sources states that the judicial decisions by federal appellate courts after the decision in the Supreme Court in Miller (1939) and before the decision of an appellate court in Emerson (2001) limited the right to keep and bear arms to militia service. To me this is an objective fact -- what the courts ruled -- and not an opinion. I'm not claiming these appellate courts are right or wrong. I just want to state what they said. (And I'm willing to summarize.)

A number of editors disagree with me. While they concede they cannot find a single source that contradicts my sources, they claim all my nine or ten sources are biased and therefore the statement I want to make cannot be in the article, even though I have proposed to quote verbatim from any of the nine sources I have proposed.

Here's the statement I want to make: "For more than sixty years following the Supreme Court decision in Miller (1939) until the DC Court of Appeals' ruling in Emerson (2001), federal appellate courts found the right to keep and bear arms to be limited to service in a militia, i.e. a collective rather than an invidual right. E.g. Cases (1943), Warin (1976) (“[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right") and Love v. Peppersack (1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right")

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on talk page for three months. Also posted on each individual editors' talk pages. Repeated at least a dozen times verbatim quotations and links from these sources. Repeatedly asked editors who disagree to provide contrary sources. They refuse, saying my sources are unreliable and they do not have to come up with a contrary source. Occasionally, there is the claim I am misreading the sources but no specific discussion of how. Also sought editor assistance. Told to go to DR

How do you think we can help?

I would like someone to declare that the above sources I have named are legitimate sources and that what they say may be quoted (verbatim or not) in the article. And if folks ever find a contrary reliable source, they are welcome to put that source in as well. I merely want to quote cases and say what they said. Those who disagree are welcome to do the same (except they will find no cases that support their point of view exist)

This is not an appropriate venue at this time. There is an active detailed discussion going on. What GreekParadise has been seeking / trying to put in is the most extreme and violates several policies, and they are defining a "dispute" as them not getting fully their way on that. Further, the question is malformed. The actual question (GP wanting to put certain statements into the lead) bears no resemblance to the question that was framed for this thread, and so this is fatally flawed from the start. North8000 (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

{{collapse top|This section is for opening comments: continue discussion on the talk page, or wait for the discussion section to be opened CarrieVS (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)}}

:The only active discussion is you telling me for three months I'm "extreme" and "violate several policies" and summarily reverting any change that reflects these sources or the actual case-law pre-Heller. But you won't say how/why. What is extreme? What violates several policies? Be specific. I have given you ten sources and quotations from them. Please explain why none of these sources are reliable to you.GreekParadise (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

This will probably be my first and last comment on this page as there has been recent and active discussion on the 2A talk page and that is where this issue should be resolved. The question is not about the reliability of sources: the issue is the way GreekParadise wants to use them to dominate the lede with “collective rights” spin in order to diminish the real meaning of 2A. It takes a whole lot more than reliable sources to change the characterization of the meaning of 2A in the lede. There has been some sentiment to include a brief collective right historical statement in the lede, but GreekParadise wants to take to a much higher POV level. The relatively few lower court decisions do not translate into a two century collective right view and pale in the light of the SCOTUS decisions which are the ultimate authority. GreekParadise has used selective editing distorting the full impact of the Miller case [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=543458770&oldid=543453925 see here] as the individual aspect was never at issue because there was never a defense presented because of a lack of money and the death of Miller. GreekParadise’s pleas for other editors to support his position smacks of canvassing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SaltyBoatr&diff=prev&oldid=542334909 see here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GreekParadise&diff=542642455&oldid=542625541 here].

In summary: GreekParadise’s sources do not justify or give any validation to include his politic spin in the lede. Please do not comment here as I have no interest in rehashing the whole saga anywhere other than the 2A talk page.Grahamboat (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that article is that a small group of politically motivated editors have dominated by "owning" that article for a number of years now. Notice that I have not mentioned any specific names. Yet when I mentioned this bias problem recently on the talk page, a number of editors took personal offense complaining of my lack of civility and claiming personal attack. (This is evidence of an awareness of guilt.)

My suggested solution is difficult. This is a systemic problem in Wikipedia. Neutrality is supposed to be balanced according to the balance seen in the reliable sources. What we are seeing here is a neutrality balance point being set by the energy level of a group of editors exerting personal politics who are 'owning' an article. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The article's Introduction should reflect the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment (Miller, Heller, and McDonald). Somewhere in the body of the article can refer to other interpretations (collective right and modified individual right). This would allow the article to show what the amendment is currently held to mean, while at the same time showing what others think it means. This can be done without making major changes to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead should follow the rest of the article. User:GreekParadise should revise Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Late_20th_century_commentary to reflect a more balanced view and we can go from there. It does feel like some editors have worked to deemphasize any material which discusses interpretation prior to 2001. I believe it is important to include such a discussion to avoid WP:RECENT and to present a WP:NPOV. -—Kvng 13:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

{{collapse top|This section is for opening comments: continue discussion on the talk page, or wait for the discussion section to be opened CarrieVS (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)}}

:I would like very much to revise the full article to present a balanced NPOV. But there's no point in taking the extensive time to craft a full history of the Second Amendment, featuring case-law both before and after 2001, when all my sources are automatically deemed unreliable without discussion as to how/why and my changes summarily reverted. I ask those that disagree with me to specifically explain, for example, why the same reporter for the New York Times that is cited in this article describing a post-2001 case becomes somehow unreliable when describing a pre-2001 case. Why can one appellate or Supreme Court case be cited and not another one? Why can the post-Heller "individual rights" view of the law be cited in the introduction and not the "collective view" that was the law for most of the twentieth century?GreekParadise (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

The dispute has not been correctly characterized. The dispute is not about the validity or non-validity of sources. Rather, it is about the undue synthesis of a now fringe viewpoint using specially-selected sources that pre-date, and/or that disagree with the landmark Supreme Court rulings in 2008 and 2010 that first incorporated the Second Amendment against the states, and that also first ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Prior to these rulings, the meaning of the Second Amendment was never clear, being the Supreme Court had never ruled on the meaning(s). A good analogy would be demanding a flat-earth description of the Earth be given equal coverage in the lede of an article describing the shape of the Earth, just because a specially-selected set of sources gleaned from the past supported such a viewpoint, and then stating that editors were not being "fair" in dismissing the dated viewpoint from being given equal prominence in the lede. The article already includes discussions of the former uncertainties regarding the historical meanings of the Second Amendment in the body of the article, in the absence of court rulings, and the consensus of editors has been not to include speculations from the past in the lede, being that the meaning is now no longer speculative, but has become established law. Unfortunately, when an editor failed to change editor consensus on this point, a dispute was filed here at the DRN, wasting everyone’s time, with the false claim of having a dispute regarding validity of sources. The sources are not in dispute, they are only dated and cherry-picked, pre-dating the definitive court rulings that clarified the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of problems in the current dispute. I would like some formal mediation as well.

The current version should be considered stable. It was first identified as "last stable version" (march 8) by North8000 at 18:15, 11 March 2013‎, backed later by myself when reverting some aggressive edits by GreekParadise, and again by SMP0328 just prior to bringing the article under full protection.

Editors have divided into roughly two camps defined by the following propositions:

1. The second amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, and always has in exactly the same way, by founder intent

2. The second amendment concerns the collective right to bear arms in relation to militia service, and has been interpreted by the supreme court to also protect an individual right to bear arms unconnected to militia service.

I have proposed several edits aimed at mitigating or balancing the two views.

3. Changing "protects" in the first sentence to "concerns" is a compromise because "concerns" includes "protects" but "protects" strongly implies view 1. above. This wording is fully or partly backed by at least two other editors.

4. I have an open comment at Inijones (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC) requesting help broaching the subject of the debate without taking sides, using a sourced statement: "In the latter part of the 20th century, some linguistic debate centered on whether the first clause of the amendment is a general statement of purpose or preamble, or whether the first clause is a dependent clause that modifies the independent clause.[8]" Some additions by other editors are preserved on the talk page.

Lastly, there seem to be arguments aimed at avoiding central issues.

For example, before the current edit, the intro was un-editable for over a year, giving undue attention to the last 5 years of case law. If the intro is going to discuss case law, it should do so in a balanced way. The Heller case did not overturn Miller. Therefore Miller is still current -- it is as just much the law of the land as Heller. If Heller belongs in the intro as current case law, so does Miller. A concise discussion of Miller provides useful context for readers. The current text is taken verbatim from the wiki on Heller as an attempt to compromise. Attempts to exclude Miller as "outdated" reflect a misunderstanding of the courts or a bias.

Inijones (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

:This is roughly twice the 2000 character limit; please could you shorten it. Removing remarks about user conduct might be a good start, as the DRN does not deal with conduct disputes. Please keep your comments focused on the content issues only. CarrieVS (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

:: Edited to be shorter. 1,997 words excluding spaces. Inijones (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

::: Inijones (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC) wording tweak after edit to shorten

The sentence GP wants to include in the lede is out WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The "Truthiness" is not an issue for this page. The sources give little or no weight to the cases in question nor to the now discarded "States right model" . This dispute is mischaracterized and is really about WP:Original Research which I will adress elsewhere. J8079s (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Further: I have approached the user at talk with no success. WP:Assume no clue. An uninvolved editor could teach the basics at User talk:GreekParadise‎

This article is an encyclopedic article about the second amendment. It is not a place to promote a pet theory or fringe interpretation. The article needs to be consistent in tone and content to the other amendment articles, not a place for a big pro con fight in the article. It is an encyclopedic article not a random dumping place for quotes.....this needs to read like a well put together article. Its a substantive entry on a very important topic. Numerous editors have explained to GreekParadise that he is cherry picking his sources. Numerous editors disagree with GreekParadise attempt at WP:SYNTH. Administrators have locked the page.. Now GreekParadise wants to waste the valuable time of a dozen editors here through this laborious process. He lost on the talk page. The facts stand for themselves. It's ok to come at it strong but when the consensus is against you, move on! I've done it. It hurts sometimes but we all live by these rules. I hope we don't wind up regurgitating all of this yet again. End this quickly please. Unless an administrator and a bunch of very hardworking editors with substantive editing histories are somehow very wrong here. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

:Just a note from the last protecting admin: the full protection was implemented because edit-warring took place, to allow editors to concentrate on a constructive discussion on the articles talk-page. It was in no way that "Administrators have locked the page to prevent GreekParadise disruptive edits, mainly from GreekParadise" (sic). Lectonar (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

:: I corrected the statement. -Justanonymous (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

{{collapse top|This section is for opening comments: continue discussion on the talk page, or wait for the discussion section to be opened CarrieVS (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)}}

:::"Pet theory," "fringe interpretation", "random dumping place for quotes" "cherry picking" and other insults don't change the fact that you can't refute my sources. Either you think the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, four federal appellate courts, and the front pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post are all inherently untrustworthy or you have to show me where I have taken quotations out of context. But you can't just reject reliable sources on the grounds that you don't like the facts contained within them.GreekParadise (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

::::respectfully, I get to express my view in a unfettered fashion in this section, you do not have permission to post in my openning remarks section. Please remove, respect my personal spaces and the process. The comments are stern but not beyond any line. Justanonymous (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

:::With regard to the statement that Greek wishes to insert, in one particular frame of reference, it is correct, but it does not present the situation in its entirety. Early courts used a measure of "how military-like" a particular firearm was in their decisions to determine if an individual was allowed to possess it or not. The more "military-like" it was, the more entitled the person was to have it. Firearms that were not, such a "sawed off (short barrel for concealment purposes) shotgun", were deemed "non-military-like", hence the 1934 NFA. We're almost starting to migrate towards a conversation about "rules of engagement" and overall military practices. But generally speaking, there is a degree of openness about full size and/or military style firearms. The Constitutional framers intended for non-governmental personnel (the people?) to be able to defend themselves from any form of government tyranny, hence arming themselves as a militia. Trying to present military-style (or any other type for that matter) firearms in one perspective or another is pointless when the issue is HOW those firearms are intended to be used by the people that possess them.

:::Here's another way to look at it. The Framers felt that the 1st Amendment was so important, that they made it #1. Next, they decided that it needed "enforcement", hence the 2nd Amendment. It has nothing to do with the kinds of guns people own just that they are able to arm themselves. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

I have several issues with Greek's attempted additions/arguments. 1) He is attempting to define the problem to his advantage. He wants to discuss only federal court cases from Miller, but before Heller. State courts? Don't count. Outside the time period? Don't count. Some other form of evidence other than a court ruling? (including state constitutions, commentary by notable legal experts etc? out. By framing the issue this way he can eliminate most of the contrary sources. 2) He is excessively relying on WP:PRIMARY sources, and interpreting them using WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Almost all of the cases (including miller) address the issue tangentially, and ambiguously. Only one actually uses the words "Collective right" none use "Militia right". 3) Lower courts are overruled by higher courts constantly; this is one of the defining features of the court system. Heller has absolutely, irrefutable, and unambiguously ruled on this matter. Further in doing so, it clarified explicitly what the earlier rulings meant, and in a way contrary to Greek's interpretation. We can absolutely discuss previous and alternate interpretations of the amendment and right in the history or controversy sections, but the primary and main descriptions of the amendment should be the most current, and most authoritative one.

The statement that is actually supported sufficiently by sources that Greek wants is so watered down and convoluted as to be worthless. It would be something like :

"In the time period after Miller, but before Emerson, Federal lower courts (but ignoring state courts, state constitutions, and lower court rulings outside that time period, and ignoring the vast amount of other commentary and evidence to the contrary ) ruled in a way that was interpreted by some scholars to support a collective rights view, but generally did not directly attempt to answer the collective/individual question. The collective viewpoint was determined to be an incorrect interpretation of both the constitution, and a misinterpretation of previous US supreme court rulings in Heller".

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the section below should be deleted for reasons I give in bold below.GreekParadise (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

::Does anyone object to my describing the 60 years between Miller and Heller in the body of the article based on the CRS, LOC, WP, NYT, Miller, lower case law, and other sources I have provided here?GreekParadise (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:::I do.

{{od}}

• Miller is ambiguous. It can be read to support both the collective and individual rights. To define its meaning is WP:OR
• McClurg, p. 139. "But when all is said and done, the only certainty about Miller is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact. For example, Professor Eugene Volokh describes Miller as 'deliciously and usefully ambiguous' in an article about using the Second Amendment as a teaching tool in constitutional law. That is probably the most accurate statement that can be made about the case
• http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_law_and_liberty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf
• Many people did interpret it to mean collective. Thats fine and we can discuss those opinions. We can also discuss that lower courts often ruled under that interpretation.
• We should similarly discuss the instances where it was interpreted to be an individual right.
• Its was authoritatively NOT a complete examination of the issue, and did not directly address the nature of the right.
• You consistently skip addressing the argument that a militia right can easily be read as an individual right, since everyone, by tradition, by statute, and by judge (including Miller) agrees that everyone (all adult males anyway) is a member of the unorganized militia. The miller decision repeatedly uses terms such as "every citizen", "all able bodied men", etc.
• Most importantly "These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense"
• Capable of. not actually involved in, not organized in, etc.
• From Presser "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."
• Cruikshank - "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. "
• Cooley, 1880 - It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.
• You are trying to cheat in your argument, by narrowly defining the evidence which is valid "Only cases after miller, but before heller". If Miller wipes out everything before it, Heller does the same to miller. If it does not, then we need to look at the entire body of law and tradition.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:I likewise object to a one-sided false history spanning 1939-2000 being synthesized into the article. The reason is that there are several cases that support an individual rights viewpoint, instead of a collective rights viewpoint, dating from between 1939 and 2000, that GreekParadise has chosen to ignore. As noted above, Miller specifically did not provide any clear "victory" for collective or individual interpretations in 1939. As has been noted previously, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990), the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment was investigated. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolved any doubt that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right, as the people in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments did not apply only to collectives of people. Without the Supreme Court providing any rulings between Miller and Heller, there was no clear interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment during this span of time. There are numerous indications, though, Verdugo-Urquirdez being just one of these, that indicate that the Supreme Court always held an individual viewpoint. Certiori is not granted by the Supreme Court until an issue is "ripe". It is just spin trying to assign this period of time to a collective rights only framework, in the absence of any direct Supreme Court rulings, and with numerous cites available that clearly show that the individual rights viewpoint was being maintained. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

::I strongly object to a one-sided false history from 1939-2000. I have given you eleven federal cases with a militia point of view, one from each circuit. There are many more in that time period. You have not given me ONE. NOT ONE, that disagrees. Verdugo was not a Second Amendment case. I dare you, defy you, challenge you, entreat you to read my sources. Miguel. READ THE CASES. The only reason you REFUSE to read them is because you know I'm right!!! Admit it. You haven't read a single case I've supplied. Not a single source. You willfully believe in a falsity. And you let your willful false beliefs trump my reliable sources. Can your vague recollections trump my reliable sources? THE ANSWER IS NO!!!! Until you read my sources, you have no right comment on them. Period. You are exactly what is wrong with wikipedia. You MUST allow reliable sources in an encyclopedia to trump your personal prejudice or you have no place in wikipedia. Read my sources. Or leave.GreekParadise (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I have read Verdugo. Have you? You should read all eleven cases I cited but I know you haven't read any of them. Have you? So I DARE you to read one I just randomly picked out, Hale from the conservative 8th Circuit. Dare you. Here it is: http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/978f2d1016.html Until you know what the hell you are talking about, you have no right to comment here. It's like complaining about someone trying to present a "one-sided false history that American once had slavery exists when you know for a fact America never had slavery." There is an objective truth outside your mind, Miguel. It exists. Review the historical record.GreekParadise (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

::The personal attacks need to stop, GreekParadise. Likewise, all your attempts to drive editors away from Wikipedia; these need to stop as well, GreekParadise. Meanwhile, There are numerous cases that support an individual rights viewpoint of the Second Amendment that were litigated between 1939 and 2000, contrary to just your cherry-picked cases and sources. Verdugo is just one, as I mentioned before, and, in it, the Supreme Court ruled that "the people" mentioned in the Second Amendment are clearly meant as individuals, consistent with the other amendments where "the people" are also mentioned, with the same meaning. Another case supportive of an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment from this same 1939 to 2000 timeframe is Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 (1950). In this case, the Supreme Court held that enemy combatants were not entitled to Fifth Amendment Due Process rights, because if that were the case, they would also be entitled to “freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, security against ‘unreasonable’ searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.” Again, the Supreme Court clearly held the Second Amendment to be protecting individual rights in this 1950 case. As I have said previously, It is wrong to synthesize and push a one-sided POV history in this Article with your cherry-picked references that all go with the collective interpretation as you insist on doing , when there are numerous cases where an individual rights, not a collective rights, argument was held by the courts in reference to the Second Amendment. Your attempt to twist actual history, in Proclaiming a sole "collective rights" set of rulings between 1939 and 2000, is counter to what the verifiable sources indicate. There was a mix of opinions evident in this period. It is the reason that the Supreme Court didn't grant cert for as long as it did, awaiting until the matter was "ripe". As for the hostile editing environment you have created, this is making it difficult for editors to discuss appropriate sources for inclusion in this article. A fundamental Wikipedia policy is to Assume Good Faith, and I don't sense that you wish to adhere to this philosophy. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And Gajin: what one person wrote about Miller is not the issue. There are people who think the earth is flat. Read the case-law. I'm not even saying these cases were right. What I am saying is they existed! Have you read them? Do you deny their existence?GreekParadise (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The cases are ambiguous and generally do not directly address the topic, and which you are using WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH to interpret. I have read several of them, as commented in an above section. There are many cases which say that "such and such a regulation is not an interference with a well regulated militia". That does not have any significance on individual vs collective rights. As stated many times, by statute, by judge (including in Miller), by tradition, by notable commentary, EVERYONE is a member of the militia. Heller did not use the words overturn, overrule, vitiate, etc which would indicate a reversal of earlier rulings. Because those earlier rulings did not directly address the question. They in fact specifically say that they did NOT overturn anything. Earlier interpretations to the contrary are historically interesting, and noteworthy, but by definition incorrect. Lower court rulings are washed away by the higher court. They have zero significance except as historical artifacts.

"None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54."

Gaijin42 (talk)

:I object for all the reasons stated above – nothing new here; just another rehash. Saying the same thing in ten thousand words hasn’t garnered any new support. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Note to noticeboard volunteer: Even though I'm the first comment listed, I did not copy and paste this section of the talk page here. Frankly, I don't know who did, but I believe it's inappropriate here. This incomplete discussion of part of the talk page should be deleted here and left to the full talk page, which includes all comments by everyone.

Note to everyone else involved: The rules of the noticeboard say to keep discussion concise and under 2000 characters per opening statement and expressly says in big red letters "this is not the article talk page." The purpose of this notice, unlike the talk page is not to determine who is right in interpreting Second Amendment law. We are here solely for the limited purpose of determining whether authoritative reliable relevant sources can be deleted by editors just because they don't like what is said in them. I contend they cannot be deleted for that reason and I have asked the noticeboard volunteer for her/his views on the subject. My belief is that if you don't like a reliable source, you find a contrary reliable source and cite both sources rather than deleting sources you don't agree with, particularly when those sources are verbatim quotes from cases or news articles.GreekParadise (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:Your interpretations of the WP:PRIMARY sources do not constitute a WP:RELIABLESOURCE particularly when that interpretation has been directly and unambiguously contradicted by the supreme court. Miller did not say way you say it does. It also does not say what various lower courts have said they thought it does. This is directly, unambiguously, without interpretation required stated in Heller. Both miller, and almost all of the lower lower court rulings are ambiguous, and do not say "collective right", or "militia right" or any other such construct, and your insistence that they do is inappropriate WP:ORIGINIALRESEARCH. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This was brought here by GreekParadise (talk in the hope that a volunteer would declare him the winner. Absent further comment from him this should be closed as resolved on talk page. J8079s (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer's Note: In light of the failure of a number of listed disputants to join in and the failure of any DRN volunteer to open the case despite that failure, I'm going to suggest that this case be closed as "stale" unless some other DRN volunteer indicates within the next 24 hours that they are interested in keeping the case open and taking it on (I'm neither). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{drn filing editor|The Stick Man|22:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Procedural close. Dispute resolved on article talk page by involved editors. No need for further DR Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)}}

(Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:List of Steins;Gate episodes}}

Users involved

• {{User|The Stick Man}}
• {{User| KirtZJ}}

Dispute overview

I had previously made an edit to the page to change the way the one character was referred to (from the given name to surname) based on how he was called in the anime itself. This edit was reverted by another user, who told me that a standard of using given names needed to be followed. I took the discussion to the talk page, where we have been arguing since.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talk page discussion, though the two of us are not having much success communicating with each other. At KirtZJ's request, Ryulong made a few comments, but for the most part no resolution is in sight.

How do you think we can help?

An outside, unbiased view from someone very familiar with how Wikipedia articles are written (down to the really minor details) would be incredibly helpful in resolving this dispute, as I have found nothing in the MoS that pertains to this sort of issue.

We have compromised and this has been resolved. KirtZJ 05:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|close}}

{{drn filing editor|MoFreedom|17:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Procedural close. It appears that that there a number of other editors who have been involved in this dispute who ought to also be made parties. Doing so manually and manually notifying them will be overly cumbersome, so MoFreedom should feel free to relist this with those other editors included. Acroterion has listed some or all of them below. However, be aware that this noticeboard will not be able to, "Allow me to post my proposed post my material." This isn't a content court that can decide whether or not to include material; Wikipedia has no such forum and all inclusion decisions are made by consensus in keeping with policy and guidelines. All we can do here is to try to help you and the other editors come to an agreement about the material in question. That discussion will likely begin with a request that MoFreedom specifically respond to the issues raised by Acroterion below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Joseph McCarthy}}
• {{pagelinks|Army–McCarthy hearings}}

Users involved

• {{User|MoFreedom}}
• {{User| Acroterion}}
• {{User|Location}}

Dispute overview

I came across some rather startling informatiion that could possibly change some people’s perceptions of McCarthy & the army hearings, & I thought (that in the interests of truth, fairness & justice) they had the right to know. So, I tried to post that information on the Joe McCarthy & Army-McCarthy hearings pages.

Here's my proposed post:

But in fact, Welch was the person that disclosed Fisher’s connections to the Communist front group (the very thing he condemned McCarthy for doing). Welch preemptively broke the story in the New York Times several weeks prior to his now famous condemnation of McCarthy on floor of the Senate Hearings. Here are the NYT headlines:

"The Army charges were signed by its new special counsel, Joseph N. Welch. Mr. Welch today [April 15] confirmed news reports that he had relieved from duty his original second assistant, Frederick G. Fisher, Jr., of his own Boston law office because of admitted previous membership in the National Lawyers Guild, which has been listed by Herbert Brownell, Jr. the Attorney General, as a Communist front organization. Mr. Welch said he had brought in another lawyer, John Kimball, Jr., from his Boston office to take Mr. Fisher's place." [5]

After McCarthy mentioned Fisher's affiliation with a Communist front group at the hearings, Welch acted as if McCarthy had just outed Fisher in public for the first time, doing some terrible, reckless, injustice to Fisher. But in truth, McCarthy merely repeated what was already in the public domain.[6]

Moreover, Fred Fisher’s career did appear to be affected by Welch’s disclosures (or McCarthy’s comments on them at the hearings), as Fisher went on to become a partner in Boston’s prestigious Hale & Dorr law firm where he organized its commercial law department. He also served as president of the Massachusetts Bar Association and as chairman of many committees of the American and Boston bar associations. He was a former trustee of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy and chairman of the Franklin N. Flaschner Foundation in Waban, Mass., while McCarthy became a national outcast.[7]

Here're my cites:

5 http://books.google.com/books?id=vz42rDYmf3wC&pg=PA568&lpg=PA568&dq=fred+fisher+m+stanton+evans&source=bl&ots=soAhm8yneO&sig=SZEn87cvcRzhQpcWo5hIQYEINUU&hl=en&ei=hnLgTIv7L8GclgeYpuDSAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

6 Blacklisted by History, page 568, by Stanton Evans (I only cited this book because it reprinted a NYT story from 1954 verbatim.

7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fisher_(lawyer)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I modified my original post in order to allay many of Acroterion's concerns. I think I believe I satisfied the other editors involved in the dispute with either my modifications or my explanations. But Acroterion won't budge, despite my efforts to alleviate his or her concerns, despite my modifications, & despite my lengthy explanations relating to his or her concerns.

How do you think we can help?

Allow me to post my proposed post my material.

Although I've taken the lead in trying to explain Wikipedia's policies on sourcing, original research, undue weight and attribution of original thought in a very extensive and repetitious discussion at Talk:Joseph McCarthy, MoFreedom has never addressed the concerns of myself and several other users that his proposed addition is tangential, designed to imply that McCarthy's chief accuser was a hypocrite, and synthesized from a single New York Times article that predates the hearings. I am also concerned that, undue weight and tangential emphasis aside, MoFreedom has shown no interest in attributing his thesis to M. Stanton Evans, whose book Blacklisted by History appears to have given MoFreedom the idea that Joseph Nye Welch's knowledge of Fred Fisher's former membership in the National Lawyers Guild is significant enough to merit a digression and analysis. There is also the issue that Evans, while a significant scholar, represents a decidedly minority view in McCarthy scholarship. I think it possible that one or two appropriately attributed sentences describing Evans' thoughts as a prominent minority viewpoint might be worked in at Army-McCarthy hearings, but it will require consensus, which does not yet exist. Other editors who have expressed similar reservations are {{user|Location}}, {{user|Qxukhgiels}}, {{user|DD2K}} and {{user|Fat&Happy}}. Acroterion (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|close}}

{{drn filing editor|Johncheverly|19:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=No recent talkpage discussion. Two of the other editors have not edited or discussed this point in months and the third one has been indefinitely blocked since 2009. Propose the edits again on the talk page (at the bottom or no one may see them). For general advice on the subject, consider Editor assistance. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:The Purpose_Driven_Life}}

Users involved

• {{User|Johncheverly}}
• {{User| JDitto}}
• {{User| Jinlye}}
• {{User|Tcaudilllg }}

Dispute overview

Need a finding. Does the MAIN article on _The Purpose Driven Life_ need to discuss criticisms of false doctrine???

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A thorough discussion on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

Please issue a definitive opinion.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|needassist}}

{{drn filing editor|Grrahnbahr|14:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Jehovah's Witnesses}}

Users involved

• {{User|Grrahnbahr}}
• {{User| BlackCab}}
• {{User| Jeffro77}}

Dispute overview

It is two connected issues I hope could be resolved here: Does the phrase "They consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan, and limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses" reflects the article's main text state: "Witnesses are taught that association with 'worldly' people presents a 'danger' to their faith, and are also advised to minimize social contact with non-members to better maintain their own standards of morality." I've suggested to change the main text into "While the Witnesses internally are advised to minimize social contact with non-members, independent scholars describes an individual practice on this area, where Jehovah's Witnesses as individuals in varying degrees do have social networks outside the denomination" (check the article's revision history for the complete change). I've added sources and quotes confirming the statement, but the statement was reverted by Jeffro, followed by the comment from BlackCab including the reason "the selective quoting from the Norwegian authors does not provide the context of their comment, and nor am I convinced you have provided their complete viewpoint". BlackCab is using one of the same sources I use, but draws the opposite conclusion. My opinion is that the source does support the statement I inserted, as my edit does not exclude the fact that some, may even most, of Jehovah's Witnesses in fact do not minimize social contact with non-members, but I find both the Holden's and Ringnes source supportive to my edit. I do also find both sources being more independent and of higher quality than some of the current present sources. Jeffro's objections seems to be of quantitative character. The sources does not support the statement with numbers, but both sources spends several pages about the detail. I am not sure wheater Jeffro still object to the change. He did though do some minor changes into the main text.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The case have been discussed at the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I got a feeling of being edited when editing this specific article. A third part look into the page could open up for a more accurate article, including presenting notable views from independent scholars.

Grrahnbahr’s objection to the wording seems to be confined to the second part of the sentence rather than the first; this is what I’ll address. The existing wording is correct as a general and succinct statement in the article’s lede of the religion’s official teaching, with which all members are required to comply. The religion’s official publications (cited in the article and quoted on the talk page) explicitly state that members must limit or avoid social interaction with non-JWs because of the “danger” of being weakened spiritually. Sociologist Andrew Holden (cited in the article) also states his own observation that members do just this. On the talk page I quote Holden’s observation based on extensive interviews that "when Witnesses engage in (leisure activities) it is nearly always in the company of other members of their congregation."

Grrahnbahr has introduced a self-translation of a selectively edited comment by two Norwegians whom he describes as independent scholars. That excerpt says there is a range of acceptance of this edict by (Norwegian?) JWs and their children, but that the “ideal” is that JWs socialise only with other JWs. The Norwegian couple, too, clearly find the very issue sufficiently notable and distinctive to discuss it.

The structure of Grrahnbahr’s suggested edit is neither editorially neutral nor true.

(a) Stating that “While the Witnesses internally are advised x, independent scholars say y” injects editorial comment that is designed to minimise the official, accepted teaching and present a contrary interpretation.

(b) JW publications rarely “advise”; the quotes from publications show they are explicit instructions to members on acceptable conduct. Those who disobey instructions are liable for disciplinary action.

(c) The Watchtower is not just “internal” instruction; 45 million copies of the magazine are distributed monthly, but there are fewer than 8 million JWs.

(d) The use of the term “independent scholars” is misleading. Holden’s study in fact showed general compliance. The two Norwegian scholars did find some variance, but to what degree and among whom, we do not know. BlackCab (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Refer to my response [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=541974460&oldid=541961252 at the article's Talk page], including references to Watch Tower Society publications indicating the official view of the organisation regarding friendships with 'worldly' people.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Carrie; I volunteer here at the DRN. This doesn't give me any special powers or authority, but I will act as a mediator and try to give an outside view.

I've looked at the article and talk page, and read everyone's comments. As far as I can see there's no disagreement about the fact that JWs are instructed to limit interaction with people outside the religion, but the dispute is about whether they actually do. We have two separate questions:

1. Does "Jehovas Witnesses do x" refer to the official position of the religion, or to the actions of its members?
2. Is that instruction generally followed, or is it ignored by enough JWs that saying that they, as a whole, follow it is untrue?

Since the second question only becomes relevant if we agree on the second interpretation for the first, I suggest we concentrate on the first one for now. CarrieVS (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

:(1) The wording "Jehovah's Witnesses believe x", "Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions" etc refer to the official doctrine, but because it is an authoritarian religion with a very high degree of uniformity and unity with no internal forum for doctrinal dissent, such terms are generally synonymous with the actual beliefs and actions of individual members. (2) This is the issue. One reliable source used in the article, the UK sociologist Andrew Holden, says that most JWs conform to the instruction about limiting outside socialisation; Grahnbarr has reproduced fragments of a publication by Norwegian authors who say, as noted above, that compliance, particularly among children, may be less strict. Without the full document I don't know who their study covers or to what extent compliance is less strict. My long experience as a JW in several countries is that members do strongly comply, but that's a personal view. BlackCab (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

::(1)I would consider the context for the specific paragraph in the article's lead part to refer to the members as individuals, as a religion can't limit "their social interaction with non-Witnesses". I agree to BlackCab when he states Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) do achieve a very high degree of uniformity and unity, thus the most of the terms are synonymous with the actual beliefs and actions of individual members. JW "limit[ing] their social interaction with non-Witnesses" is not an official doctrine, and, unlike "Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions", (it is descriptive for both the religion and the individuals, though very rare exceptions for the individuals could occur), which is at least descriptive for an official doctrine. The differences is the latter could lead to disciplinary actions, like disfellowshipping, while the one discussed here, do not have any such actions. The importance of "limit[ing] their social interaction with non-Witnesses" is though emphasized by WTBTS, but as a principle wise to follow rather than a specific doctrine that is descriptive for JW (I would say, the emphasizing of social interaction with high standards, as JW regards it, would be even more accurate, as WTBTS also warns against extensive social interaction with Witnesses in a not so good standing). It may not is considered "ideal", and may even, if disregarded to a high extend, be disqualifying for becoming an elder or pioneer, but on the latter I am not sure, and since most JW not are elders or/and pioneers, it is not really of great importance to the article. (2) As the sources I suggested (Holden and Ringnes) in the edit in the main text, describe a not consistent practice among JW, I suggest to consider the statement false or doubtful, and consider Ringnes' description as at least a notable opinion. Holden do describe both JWs following the principle, and JWs not doing so. I can't see what the issue regarding the Ringnes source is about. It is a book published through a university publishing company, and is edited and partly written by an often quoted expert about Jehovah's Witnesses and their practices. It is the preferred source for an article about JW in at least one internet-lexicon (Store Norske Leksikon). The source is new, is representing some of the most updated studies about JW (and some of the older as well), and is quoting and referencing to sources and studies from several countries. The reference is also quoted and translated. I suggest to keep BlackCab's personal experience with Jehovah's Witnesses out of this discussion. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

:::Of course it is the members rather than 'the religion' who 'limit their social interaction' (at the direction of the religion), but the article should present the official view of what members are 'supposed' to do. It would be nonsensical to provide a disclaimer for every single JW teaching that 'some members might not follow this'. Also, the degree of punishment for a particular 'deviation' does not determine how official a regulation is, but only how severe it is considered to be.

:::The claim that JWs simply emphasize "social interaction with high standards" is disproved by the statements I provided at the article's Talk page from JW literature, a couple of which I will reproduce here:

:::* The Watchtower, 15 March 2006, p. 23: "What about having close association with those who may be morally clean but who lack faith in the true God? The Scriptures tell us: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19) We come to discern that bad associations are not limited to permissive or morally debased people. Hence, we are wise to cultivate close friendships only with those who love Jehovah."

:::* The Watchtower, 15 February 1994, p. 23, "Keep Your Distance When Danger Threatens": "Some Christians have gone astray by getting too involved in business activities, by cultivating close friendships with worldly associates, or by becoming emotionally attached to someone of the opposite sex when they are not free to marry. The wise course, in each case, is to keep our distance from danger."

:::* The Watchtower, 1 March 1993, p. 9: "We also live in a world of twisted values, bankrupt morals, and false religious practices. Many among us once lived according to the system of things of this world. Others of us have to rub shoulders with worldlings day in and day out."

:::I don't think there has been a specific objection to the validity of Ringnes' study; however, it is not clear that his study has any reach beyond Scandinavia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

:::It is a straw man argument to suggest that a JW belief or practice must be reinforced by disciplinary measures to be accepted as such. Jeffro at the talk page has supplied quotations from several Watch Tower Society publications unambiguously warning JWs against socialising with non-members. It is a very clear direction to members. So here's an appropriate parallel: JWs are told they should spend as much time as they can in their proselytizing work and are given biblical reasons for doing so. There are no sanctions for failure to do so, but there are strong peer pressures to do so and the vast majority follow that direction. As a general statement then, JWs engage in regular proselytizing work. The fact that a few JWs choose not to go out doorknocking is no reason to refrain from saying that JWs engage in regular proselytizing work. Yet that is what Grrahnbahr seeks to do with the issue of socialization with outsiders. BlackCab (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

::::BlackCab: The article doesn't state "JWs engage in regular proselytizing work". The article lead section state "Jehovah's Witnesses are best known for their door-to-door preaching", which I find very accurate, without taking a stand whether JWs as individuals are actually doing so or not (one common used definition of JWs is actually active publishers (used by WTBTS in official statistics, which is used in the article), but it is not the same as they are regular). Other definitions of JWs may include those who not are regular in proselytizing work.

::::Jeffro: Ringnes' book is not based on one study only. Ringnes have studied topics closed related to Jehovah's Witnesses herself in Norway. It is referenced to her studies/works in the book, in the same way as it is referenced to a large number of other sources. Your doubts regarding Ringnes, is like not using Holden, because his book is written/based on studies from Birmingham. Scandinavia is not some kind of hidden valley far from civilization, and it is no reason to believe the very high degree of uniformity and unity when it comes to JW doctrines and JWs practices not should include Scandinavian countries, if it does include UK and Canada. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Given any rule or instruction in any organisation, there are bound to be some people who break it. That's just common sense, and we don't need to include mention of it, especially in the lead, per WP:UNDUE. If it's ignored by a substantial proportion, it would probably be worth mentioning that in the article, but as long as it's generally followed, I would say that it's still true that the group as a whole follow it. Almost any collective statement about the members of a large group is bound to be a generalisation. On the other hand, if a rule is generally ignored and/or considered acceptable to ignore (e.g. the 70mph speed limit on motorways in Britain), the statement would be untrue.

So, do these sources say that it's generally considered ok for JWs to ignore the requirement to limit social interaction with non-JWs or that most don't follow it, or just that a minority choose to break this rule? CarrieVS (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

:The sources states it is a various practice, without stating numbers. I will support with a quotation from Ringnes, to give a slight better context (I've translated a slightly larger section from the book): "The Witnesses does not act all in the same way. As individuals they also interact to smaller groups within the congregation, and perceptions among close friends, for some Witnesses may be more important than those presented in the official guidelines. There are various ways to evaluate when it comes to education and disciplining children. The children are in varying degrees freely to decide who is appropriate to associate with and who they [choose as] friends. It varies for children and adults [wheather they] have a social network outside of Jehovah's Witnesses [or not], although the ideal is that they primarily [choose among] other witnesses as friends. Those who live by the rules of the religious community will often be rewarded with privileges of service and [maintain a good] reputation. But Witnesses that relate freer to rules and do have social networks and are of higher social status in the outside society, can be in as well as good standing." (Ringnes, Jehovas vitner - en flerfaglig studie, p.97-98)

:According to the same book, a study from Belgium 1990, states that two out of three JW asked in a survey, reports that the majority of their friends are JW, and more than fifty percent of the asked said they had no friends outside the religious community. (Pål Repstad, edited by Ringnes and Sødal, p. 59-60) If weighting the numbers, it also could mean fifty percent do have one or some friends outside the community. I wouldn't use such conclusion without further notice in the article, but it is of interest to this issue. It could also be read as a third of JW do have the majority of the friends outside the community. I am not sure whether friend and object for social interaction (sorry for the expression!) could be read as same thing in this context, but I think it would be more reasonable to think of an object of social interaction to include friends, but other people as well, than the opposite.

:To the question if it's generally considered ok to break this rule (I would say considering it as a principal rather than a rule would be more accurate): By official publications ("ideal") it is regarded as unwise or unfortunate if broken, but is not regarded as a sin, and is not sanctioned in any way. For a common member of JW breaking it, it have no immediate impact. It could may be disqualifying for privileges of service if extensively broken. For occasionally violation, I think it is accurate to say it is considered ok among the witnesses, or at least for a large fraction of the witnesses, and anyway as a personal matter and a personal choice by a huge majority of the witnesses. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

::The Ringes' study says that, whilst there is some variation, "the ideal is that they primarily [choose among] other witnesses as friends." The statements already provided from the JWs' own Watchtower indicate that association with 'worldly' people is considered to constitute a 'danger to their spirituality'. Both sources agree that it is not "generally considered ok for JWs to ignore". The study from Belgium indicates that the 'personal choice' (strongly influenced by frequent statements about 'bad associations' in JW literature) of the majority is to not have friends—not even 'close friends'—with 'worldly' people. It therefore seems that to say otherwise conveys an inappropriate apologetic tone.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

::My comparison with a statement about Witnesses engaging in proselytizing work was not intended to refer to something in the article, but a general statement one might make about the religion. My point is that although some JWs do not "witness", it doesn't disprove the general statement that members of the religion do. It's not helpful that Grrahnbahr nitpicks and splits hairs. I have no objection to a short qualifier being added to the appropriate sentence in the article's "Separateness" section to note that a Scandinavian study found compliance with the direction varies (unsurprising as that is). However the current statement in the lede is a fair and accurate summary of the religion as a whole. Grrahnbahr continues to raise the issue of sanctions and disciplinary consequences and finally suggests a line that would state that it is a matter of personal choice. His language actually emphasises the religion's authoritarian and punitive nature — how many religions dictate who one may socialize with? — and is further support for reasoning that members generally do what they're told by the leadership, hence the accuracy of the opening statement. BlackCab (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

:::BlackCab: I have to point out there are no disciplinary consequences. In your opening comment, you clearly stated my suggested edit was neither editorially neutral nor true, and one of the listed reasons given was "JW publications rarely “advise”; the quotes from publications show they are explicit instructions to members on acceptable conduct. Those who disobey instructions are liable for disciplinary action." Could I/Should it be expected that I (or anybody else) read this otherways than you suggest that social contact with non-members are explicit forbidden, and a subject of disciplinary action?

:::I think it is of importance to this discussion, that I suggest to supply the article with information based on secondary sources. WP:UNDUE states: "[I]n determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." WP:PRIMARY states: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. (...) [A]ny interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." The referencing of information from Watchtower, which at least BlackCab earlier have clearly defined as a primary source, should be used with caution according to the policy. I cannot see it is an undisputed fact which is served, and BlackCab's lack of ability to separate a prinicipal without disciplinary consequences, from teachings/doctrines with possible disciplinary sanctions if broken (I say possible, because a repenting Witness will often not be an object of sanction), is a good reason to handle the quotes carefully, as a misleading or extreme interpretation of the source could be introduced. Unlike what he says ("JW publications rarely “advise”"), it is quite common with advices rather than specific instructions in a lot of cases where Watchtower describes everydays situations and choices, like the choice of friends, choice of entertainment (pornography not included), choice of education, disciplining children, and other everydays fields. Some of these fields got advices worded like the quotes Jeffro supplied, but is still considered advices, without religious sanctions for the average JW. Further, it would be misleading to use quotes from Watchtower describing an "ideal" practice, for describing JW the individuals' actually practice. It is like stating British residents do not break the 70mph speed limit on motorways in Britain, because it is illegal/not recommended (I had the understanding of the opposite to be common).

:::I appreciate Jeffro actually commenting the sources. It is true like he said, that Repstad showed to a study suggesting that a majority follows this advice/rule, based on a survey. I still think, if given any weight in this discussion, the source also shows a significant fraction (closer to 50 than 5 percent) of JWs are, at least to some extend, not complying to the advice/rule.

:::Regarding the question whether it is considered OK, Repstad commented the survey this way: "That the witnesses themselves get to decide over their specific contact pattern, could be a source of uncertainties, discussions and creative compromise solutions." (Repstad/Ringnes, p. 60) He then references to Holden and uses an example from Holdens book (Holden p. 110). I read this statement as the Witnesses are well aware about the guidance they receive through internal publications, and may meetings and conventions as well, but it is in last instance considered as a personal matter. It is anyway not easy to get this to be an "instruction to obey". Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

::::When you say that "(closer to 50 than 5 percent) of JWs are, at least to some extend, not complying to the advice/rule", is this referencing "more than fifty percent of those asked said they had no friends outside the religious community"? If so, I have a couple of issues with your interpretation:

::::* It doesn't say how many JWs have at least one friend outside the JW community, only that it's less than 50%. 0% is less than 50%. It does suggest that it's a significant proportion but doesn't explicitly say so, so we should be careful about interpreting it that way, and particularly about putting a quantitative value on it.

::::* As I understand it, the instruction is to limit social interaction with non-JWs, not avoid it entirely. I'm not convinced that having a single friend - not necessarily a close one - outside the community necessarily equals not complying. CarrieVS (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::I will support it with a quote (it is still me translating): "According to the survey from Belgium two out of three says they got hobbies, but it is in a small degree hobbies practiced [together] with others. The same survey shows two-thirds report that the majority of their friends are Jehovah's Witnesses, and more than one half says they do not have any friends outside the movement."

:::::A reasonable conclusion of the information given, is that if two third could be used to state that the majority of their friends are Jehovah's Witnesses, it would also have been used for "they do not have any friends outside the movement" if the fraction given for the latter would have been for two out of three or more. It is thus reasonable to think of a fraction between 50 and 67 percent for the statement. The source does not state whether a "I don't know/I don't want to answer"-option is removed before or after the calculation of the fractions given, if it even existed in the first place, so I do see your concerns about twisting it around, and particularly the part about putting a quantitative value on it. I wouldn't use it as a statement in the article, but the survey gives a clear indications of Ringnes statement about the issue, to include a quantity larger than a small minority, and I think of the statement as supportive in a talkpage discussion whether to include information or not. Your question does also show how difficult it would be to quantify regarding a statement like "limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses" either way, as limiting does include room for interpretation of the statement.

:::::Regarding limiting social interaction with non-JWs, I think it not is proven to be an instruction. If I could ask you to reread the quotations Jeffro supplied above, I'll provide examples for explaining how not even the statements does support so: 1) "Hence, we are wise to cultivate close friendships only with those who love Jehovah". If a friend of you says it would be wise of you not to go near the cliff, it is not an instruction of not going near the cliff. It is just a friendly advice. If your dentist tells you your teeth are in a bad condition, hence, it would be wise of you to drop drinking soda, he doesn't instruct you not to drink soda. That would be your personal choice. Unless being said in intention of threatening ("it would be wise of you to hand over the money, because something could happen to your friend"), which would be a somewhat extreme interpretation, it could not been seen as an instruction, only as an advice. If a "wise" practice could be considered "ideal"? Yes, indeed. 2) "The wise course, in each case, is to keep our distance from danger": The same as the first one. 3) This quote have no aspects looking like instructions, but it does state JW the religion's view of the society outside the movement. (I have no intentions of being instructional against the moderator. This is a way to explain what Jeffro and BlackCab consider reliable use of a primary source, is highly disputed and an object for interpretation, and to read the source correct, some knowledge about the topic is preferable.)

:::::The current version of the lead in the article about JW doesn't suggest they are instructed to limiting. It states they are limiting. I think such a claim have to be sourced, particularly now, when I've provided sources that confirm the practice within JW is not uniformity, but rather individual (I think specific of the Ringnes source). Ringnes would have no reason to describe the various practice, if it represented an insignificant fraction of JW. To your question: I do agree to your statement that a JW having a single friend outside the community, not necessarily equals not complying. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::Grrahnbahr is now dragging this discussion into a labored interpretation of percentages and the finer distinctions of advice and instruction. As a general statement about JWs, suitable for inclusion in a brief summary of JW beliefs and practices, we can say members go witnessing, attend conventions, maintain high morals, abstain from voting, do not fight in wars, do not accept blood transfusions, do not celebrate birthdays, do not believe in the Trinity and they limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses. To avoid saying the last is to neglect a characteristic that Franz, Holden and the Norwegians have observed in practice and is also a stated ideal by the leadership. It must remain, but I have proposed a qualifying statement in the body of the article as a compromise. BlackCab (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::I have now added to the lede section a quote from James Penton's Apocalypse Delayed book (University of Toronto Press, 1997 edition) that over several pages specifically addresses the issue of the society's urgings and the level of compliance. Penton wrote: "Most Witnesses tend to think of society outside their own community as decadent and corrupt ... This in turn means to Jehovah's Witnesses that they must keep themselves apart from Satan's 'doomed system of things.' Thus most tend to socialize largely, although not totally, within the Witness community ... In fact the society has gone so far as to urge Witnesses to cut all social ties with outsiders except those involving business dealings and attempts to convert them." He quotes a 1960 Watchtower that castigated JWs who "think they can allow themselves to seek association with worldly friends or relatives for entertainment", then concludes: "Still, many Witnesses have tried to obey the society's dicta on this matter and have reduced social contacts with Witnesses to a minimum ... To a large degree, many members of the Witness community are, as Raymond Franz has noted, 'hermetically sealed' from the outside world. It should be recognized that this is certainly not true of the entire community. Many refuse to break ties with old friends and relatives in spite of the society's wishes." Penton here acknowledges a level of non-compliance, but says "most" comply. Please note a further quote from Bryan Wilson on the same subject in the body of the article. BlackCab (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I rolled back BlackCabs' edit at Jehovah's Witnesses, as I suggest to get a consensus before making any changes. Grrahnbahr (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

:Assuming the translation is accurate, the assumptions about the 'two thirds' of JWs who said they have hobbies has no direct bearing on JWs who have friends outside the movement. Further, the suggestion that on third (who are not necessarily the same people as those who 'have hobbies') 'have friends who are not JWs' does not indicate those to be close friendships, and may be more 'acquaintances'. So, there are too many assumptions about the statistics in the Belgian study, and the statistics do not alter the official position of the religion anyway. JW literature often gives advice to members which members of the group understand to mean directions, and this is especially the case when it is considered that the literature is purportedly from 'God's channel'. I will now review the edits recently made to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

::I will not question whether Penton's book is a published source, but I have to ask, if sourcing Penton is of a selective character, or if BlackCab and Jeffro (I have to use and: you are of course allowed to have different opinions) think of Pentons book as a reliable source, and think of all his statements in the given chapter in the specific book is reliable? For the information, Penton is a former member of Jehovah's Witnesses, and a know critic of the movement. I have not yet checked out the other source.

::Jeffro I quoted a couple of sentences. The hobby-part do not affect the friends part, but it used two out of three, so it showed the author could have used two out of three rather than "more than the half" if it was the authors opinion/surveys result. Regarding friends/acquaintances: The Norwegian language clearly separates friend (=venn) from acquaintance (=bekjent), and the use of the word are pretty similar as in English. "They (...) limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses" does not specific states whether it is talk about friends or acquaintances. I got friends, and I got a huge higher number of acquaintances. This does not mean I am commonly practicing social interaction with every single of my friends (for practical reasons only), and it doesn't mean I never or seldom do practicing social interaction with any of my acquaintances. I do even spend more time doing social interaction with some of my acquaintances than some of my friends. Further, I would not consider a friend not being my acquaintance, and opposite, all my acquaintances are not friends of me.

::For the notice: Jeffro did roll back my revert. One of the things I hoped to achieve here, is to open up for more sources from independent scholars. This is what I mean by being edited. The source I've added (Ringnes), was swiftly removed, and replaced with a source from a critic of the movement. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

:::Penton's book remains one of the most thorough examinations of the religion. It was published by a reputable publisher and is cited by many academics, who take into account his former affiliation with the religion yet accept it as accurate and well-researched. Those academics are not swayed by the WTS denigration of Penton as an apostate. Penton's comments about social interaction are not written as a criticism, but as an observation, and I have pointed out that he acknowledges some do not comply despite the WTS pressure. I deleted the Ringnes reference because of my objection to the skewed and inaccurate edit for which you used it as a source. I explained this clearly at the time on the talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=541961252&oldid=539666960] So let's return to the central issue. We now have a reliable source explicitly stating that most Witnesses limit their social interaction with non-members. I have twice suggested adding your Norwegian source in the body of the article to support a statement that some do not limit their association with non-members. You initiated this discussion as a dispute. I am offering a compromise. How long will this continue? BlackCab (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

::::This will go on until the volunteer (in this case Carrie) says a consensus could be reached. I am not necessarily convinced a simple majority is enough for a generalization. Ringnes did not say "for the most" or similar, and Repstad could only show to a simple majority, and only for friends, not acquaintances. I would though wait for a complementary statement from the volunteer. I do object to the use of Penton for a general description of Jehovah's Witnesses and their practice, because he's view of the witnesses is representing a fringe view. He is a history professor, and his view have to be considered in a light of him being that, and a former member of JW. He does also state at p. 283: "So, because Jehovah's Witnesses generally do not work well together in the secular world - at least in developed nations - they are forced and sometimes elect to lead much of their lives outside the close confines of 'theocratic society'". Penton do also in the same chapter present a radical view of Jehovah's Witnesses, and especially JW in positions, as racial intolerant, and goes far in introducing suggestions of JW as anti-Semitists, a view with no broad support among current and independent researchers of JW. He describes JW with "simpler" jobs as simple-minded. What kind of serious researcher do that? The context in the chapter does also show he lends to sources mainly from the sixties and earlier, and could not be read as a reliable source for describing the current practice of JW. Some of his claims and conclusions are actually more ridiculous than factual. I do though not object any use of Penton, but it have to be clearly stated that he is a former witness, and his opinions represent the view of a former witness, and I do though not see any reason not to limit quotation from this work, in the main article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::I'm not certain what you mean by "until [I say] consensus could be reached." This discussion will go on either until we find a solution you can all live with (not necessarily what you all think is ideal) or until you all got fed up and decline to participate, or until it becomes obvious that we aren't getting anywhere and I close the case as 'failed'.

:::::I'm sure we'd all rather achieve the first option, so, about that compromise:

:::::Keep the statement that "JWs limit social interaction...", but add a piece in the body of the article qualifying that statement.

:::::That seems reasonable to me: the quoted parts of the Ringnes source seem to me to support the fact that this instruction is generally followed, quite apart from any other sources - not having a single friend outside the community sounds like limited social interaction to me. But it also suggests (though as I've already mentioned, doesn't say explicitly so that we would have to be very careful about exactly what we said using it as a source) that the proportion of JWs who don't follow it and/or who interpret it in a relatively relaxed way is more than a tiny minority and so it would be reasonable to include a mention of it.

:::::Is there anyone who can't live with that? CarrieVS (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::Grrahnbahr claims above that I reverted his edit about Rignes. However, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=prev&oldid=545128650 my edit] simply restored citations Grrahnbahr deleted. There was no citation present for Rignes' study before or after I reverted his change.

::::::The "two out of three" you (Grrahnbahr) quote is about JWs who have hobbies, and has no bearing at all on how many JWs have non-JW friends. That correlation is your assumption only.

::::::I have never read Penton's book, but given the number of other works that cite it, I see little reason to doubt its suitability as a reliable source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::The body of the article already states: Witnesses are taught that association with "worldly" people presents a "danger" to their faith, and are also advised to minimize social contact with non-members to better maintain their own standards of morality. This would seem to be an accurate representation of Grrahnbahr's main concern that whilst JWs are told (in quite clear terms) that they 'shouldn't' have 'worldly' friends, it is still within the realm of 'advice'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::::I do have a suggestion for change for the lead section. I find the statement "and a majority of them limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses" or similar to be more accurate, whatever sources are used. It is a compromise for me, as a full removal as untrue/unverified is given up, but it accepts the Ringnes statement as a verification about various practice.

:::::::Regarding Penton, not every one of his claims in his books are gossip, but statements which not are, are very often verifiable using other sources. A lot of his claims, like the examples I listed above, all from one single chapters, are pure fringes, and are not supported by a range of independent scholars. To cherrypick from Penton is an art I would refrain from. He is to some extend commonly sourced, but not undisputed, he is commonly referred to as a former member of Jehovah's Witnesses and a critic of the movement, and is representing an extreme and biased view of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Ringnes book have not sourced him at all (it is though referencing to other former members of Jehovah's Witnesses), and Penton represents a notable opinion in some cases, as a critic of Jehovah's Witnesses. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::::The suggestion that Penton is fringe, extreme and biased is laughable and unsustainable and typical of the long-established JW campaign of denigration of ex-members. I am prepared to alter the sentence in the lede to read: "They consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan, and most limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses." BlackCab (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::The suggested wording for the lead leaves the impression that 'most' JWs simply choose to limit their association with non-Witnesses entirely of their own volition, and not as a direct response to the quite strong 'advice' that is frequently given about 'bad association', as already indicated from JW literature. The fact that a minority of JWs happen to (I would say, quite rightly) temper the more restrictive official stance is not of sufficient weight to include in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::The section of the lede in which it appears contains several sentences listing what they do do: They reject; they do not observe; they consider themselves to be, etc, which are all accepted as generalised statements about members' beliefs and actions. That would be followed by a sentence that states that "they consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan" (equally a generalised statement) and that "most limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses". The last statement is simple and absolutely true, sourced to Penton as a RS, and does not raise the issue of personal choice. The body of the article expands on this and it is there that the article states that Witnesses are told by their leaders of the "dangers" of socialising with non-members with to their faith. This is also where the article says they are told ("advised" is the rather delicate term) to minimize social contact with non-members. BlackCab (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::If the lead is to say that most limit their interaction with non-members, the statement in the body should more clearly indicate that members are told rather than just 'advised'. This would be a better balance regarding the implied degree of 'choice' in both statements. Apart from that, I'm okay with the suggested change.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::I don't see what difference "most" do compared to "a majority", other than suggesting a larger majority than the sources combined may suggest. I do for sure think of "various practice" or similar not being a huge majority (reflected in the Ringnes source). I do agree to a statement in the lead, needs to be a reflection of what the main text states. Regarding advised and told; the primary sources Jeffro did quote earlier in this discussion, used wording as "wise to do" so and so (se my explanation above regarding Jeffro's quotes from Watchtower). It is nothing suggesting an order in these quotes. I have to look for exact quotes to support my next suggestion, but it reasonable that both Ringnes and Holden would have made a comment about it if it was violating an official teaching (Holden do also mention examples with "mixed" couples, where one was JW and the other not, where he made a point out of one of the parts commonly became a JW after they married). Regarding the reason/use of the wording like thus: the wording in the sources combined is not absolute regarding excluding the possibility for JW to choose friends within the movement of other reasons than of a result of influence from JW teachings or vice versa (as I quoted from Penton above: "So, because Jehovah's Witnesses generally do not work well together in the secular world - at least in developed nations - they are forced and sometimes elect to lead much of their lives outside the close confines of 'theocratic society'"). It is also mentioned the influence the meetings have regarding making plans for common activities, elements that is close related to social activities included.

::::::::::::Regarding Pentons reliability: I just pointed out several issues about it. To suggest he's not biased, when known for being a former member and a known critic of JW, is falling on its own unreasonableness. I won't scope on it here, as he's statement about this topic actually is pretty much the same as found among independent scholars, like Holden and Ringnes.

::::::::::::I would like a commentary from CarrieVS as well about the use of "most" vs. "majority of". I can't see why most indicate that members are told rather than just 'advised', but if is so, I would like to see the source telling JW are told to, as I would connect told as implicit indicating use of force or consequences if not followed. Ringnes clearly states that not following this advice, have no consequences (not significant, at least), as JW with social connections outside the movement are described as in a good standing. Thus I find "advice" more according to the source. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::"A majority of" suggests some statistical precision, when there is none. "Most" is accurate, succinct and based on a RS (Penton). "Various practice" is a meaningless term in this context and adds no value to the lede. JWs are most certainly told by the WTS that they should avoid such friendships. Penton uses the word "dicta", the plural of dictum, a formal utterance or pronouncement. An example of such a dictum is the July 1 1972 WT cited at the talk page: "Other than such necessary association, true Christians will avoid keeping company or making friendships with those who do not share their love for Jehovah God." BlackCab (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

We should not quote the watchtower saying "true Christians" as it give undue weight to the perception that the watchtower publishers are true Christians. We need to point out that the borg only speak to other to proselyte and do not have any true friendships inside or outside of the organization. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds ok to me. Can we live with BlackCab's suggestion above? CarrieVS (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:Jeffro's suggestion above re the wording in the body of the article is fine by me. The examples he gives go beyond "advice". BlackCab (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

::Sorry I didn't see this one. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:::Grrahnbahr, who initiated this dispute, has not responded here, but has begun a new thread back at the talk page where he appears to be again suggesting the article adopt a defensive tone dismissing the statements of reliable sources. He has not agreed with anyone; I think this dispute discussion may have run its course. BlackCab (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

::::I didn't respond for two days because of an urgent situation outside Wikipedia. In the article's talkpage I asked for suggestions regarding solving this case, because I got the impression the consensus was to change the lead by a smaller change to make it more accurate, and to include Ringnes statement in the article text, as it offered a more adjusted view of the JW practice in this matter. According to the answer given on the talk page, it is obvious who doesn't care about consensus. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::A very disingenuous answer. You raised the issue here. A proposal was suggested here. With the help of a moderator, two editors have agreed to the wording here. You have retreated to the talk page to suggest new wording entirely. What a waste of time this has been. BlackCab (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::I do disagree. There are no consensus for exact wording within the article's text, but since you've agreed to include a statement regarding Ringnes' quote/view, a suggestion for wording would be the next step for a solution. Saying here it is ok to include a reference to Ringnes's statement, and then, when it comes to actually including it in the article, says "NO!", is at least confusing. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The current proposal:

• In the lead section, we say "[Jehova's Witnesses] consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan" and that "most limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses." (In answer to Grrahnbahr's question, I agree with 'most' rather than 'a majority of'.)
• In the body of the article, we state that members are told to limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses, along with a sentence or two about how consistently this instruction is followed. Wording not yet agreed upon.

I'm a little confused by some of the recent discussion. Reading it all, it looks to me like everyone is more-or-less happy with this, but you speak as if you were still at odds. I would like you all to state simply, with no more than one sentence of explanation, whether or not you agree in principle. The exact wording in the body of the article can be discussed afterwards. CarrieVS (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro 77: agree. See previous comments regarding balance of wording in the lead and body; also, Grrahnbahr's 'disagreement' below does not address the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

BlackCab: agree - lead section per proposal, body section can cite Ringnes without substantially altering present statement. BlackCab (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, the advise comes from an allegedly theocratic (and certainly totalitarian) source and so can be considered something not to be disagreed with Syxxpackid420 (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Grrahnbahr: disagree - I agree to the suggestion for lead section, but I disagree to the use of told to and instruction, as it could/should be regarded as advises rather than instructions. - Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

:That's a good starting point at least.

:Grrahnbahr, the ball is in your court: you're the only one holding that position, so it's up to you to provide a really good policy- and source-based argument to convince others to agree with you. Could you summarise your argument for why this 'instruction' is advice only, making sure to address the points that have already been made against that view. CarrieVS (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

::I would like to use quotes from Andrew Holden and from dr Pål Repstad. Please note that all sources I am referencing to, are strong secondary sources, is not written by former or current members of the movement (unlike quoting Watchtower or Penton), and thus is less likely to be biased by the writers personal experience. Holden states (p. 111): "I have searched long and hard for evidence of uniformity in the Witnesses' perceptions of Watch Tower transgression where official teachings are vague and have come to the conclusion that this is a nettle they do not like to grasp. But one thing that is clear is that the tolerance levels of devotees vary, as does their frequency of contact with outsiders. Although some voluntary contact with the outside world is permissible, the Witnesses are advised to err on the side of caution when forming friendships with those who do not share their beliefs." (Note the teaching is described as vague, the practice is variable, voluntary contact with the outside world is at least to some extend permissible, and the word advised is used.) Repstad states (me translating, p. 59-60): "How much contact it may be with people and media outside the movement, is to some extent left to the individual member.(...) That the Witnesses get to decide over thei[r own] specific contact pattern, could give [a] rise to uncertainty, discussions and creative intermediate solutions." (Note that they are to decide their own contact pattern, and I find this not to be in accordance with words as told and instructed.) Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be noted these people are cyborgs who will only pretend to be your friend to preach to you Syxxpackid420 (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

:Grrahnbahr's arguments avoid the central issue. He again refers to the degree of acceptance by members, which is irrelevant in this immediate discussion. It's a simple question: Does the Watch Tower Society tell members they should limit their social interaction with outsiders, or is it casual advice? The talk page contains numerous, repeated examples of direct instructions to members on how they should behave in this area. Penton uses the word "dicta" (p.280); Holden uses the word "advise" (p.111) and "discourages" (p.103), but also points out that the WTS makes clear to members that any who transgress its prescriptive boundaries "gamble with eternal life" (p.174) and are "failing to surrender to the will of Jehovah" (p.70). Hence he says there are "tacit rules by which devotees must abide in every social context." (p.109). There is nothing inherently offensive in the statement that the WTS tells its members how they should act in this manner, but "tells" is far more accurate than is suggested by "advise". BlackCab (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

::I tend to agree with BlackCab here.

::*First, if some people ignore an instruction, that doesn't stop it being an instruction. For analogy, if a parent tells their child to clean their bedroom and the child refuses, does that mean the parent was only advising the child?

::*Second, I don't think the fact that an instruction is vague or open to interpretation necessarily stops it being an instruction. For instance, some of Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:, can be difficult to interpret and different editors may disagree about how they should be followed. Does that mean we are only advised to follow policy?

::*Third, as I read them, the quotes Grrahnbahr gave above actually support the 'told' argument. "Some voluntary contact with the outside world is permissible" implies that more contact is forbidden, not merely advised against. "Witnesses are advised to err on the side of caution" looks to me to refer to additional advice about how to follow the instruction - I read it as saying that Witnesses are told to limit social interaction with non-Witnesses, which doesn't require them to avoid it entirely, but they are advised to err on the side of caution with regard to how much such interaction is allowable within that rule.

::I don't see anything that contradicts the statement that Witnesses are told/instructed to limit social interaction with non-Witnesses. CarrieVS (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

:::I do want to twist this around. For the first I cannot see it being an instruction, is proven by being supported by a majority of reliable references. And the statement from Repstad is contradicting the statement the Witnesses are instructed to limit social interaction with non-Witnesses ("That the Witnesses get to decide over thei[r own] specific contact pattern"). The question is rather if Penton's statement do have more referencing value than Holden and Repstad. The analogy you mentioned, does not suit in here, because, Jeffro was earlier quoting several passages from the WT, where the use of expressions like "it would be wise" were used. This does not at all suit in with an analogy about a parent instructing their child (is "it would be wise (or maybe nice) of you to clean up your room" being instructions?). The "it would be wise not to walk near the cliff"-analogy shows it is fully reasonable to use an analogy where giving an advise (with purpose to warn) is the core. It is described as danger rather than sinful or wrongdoing, because it is considered as behave who could lead to sinful or wrongdoing acts.

:::Holden actually uses "instructed" within the same chapter as I was quoting from: "The Governing Body's teaching regarding contact with those being disfellowshipped are unambiguous. Disfellowshipped members, through free to continue to attend meetings, are to be shunned by the rest of the congregation. Other members are instructed to avoid such individuals who are now considered to be in a state of unworthiness." (p.107, emphasized by me) Thus when Holden gives the statement about some voluntary contact, implicit some voluntary contact being not permissible, it looks fairly correct. Holden describes this particular teaching as unambiguous (as opposite to vague), and uses the word instructed, a word he is completely leaving out when it comes to general contact between JW and non-JW. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

::::We seem to be going in circles now. The wording of the Watchtower, quoted on the talk page, goes beyond casual advice. Grrahnbahr initiated a dispute resolution process over wording he disagreed with. No one has agreed with his interpretation or supported his suggested wording. He still doesn't accept the contrary (majority) viewpoint. We may have reached an impasse and I don't know know what else he expects to happen now. BlackCab (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::The proposal of the lead have changed, so stating "no one has agreed with his interpretation or supported his suggested wording" is not fair. The Watchtower quotes are from the dispute resolution page, and the sources are still being discussed. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::I don't think it's hopeless yet.

::::::I think the problem is the distinction between advising someone to do something, and telling them to do it, but giving advice on how it should be done. Grrahnbahr, is that difference clear to you? (To return to the parent-child analogy: the parent might tell the child to clean their room, and then suggest that they start by picking up their toys, and then sweep the floor. The second part is advice, but that doesn't stop the first being an instruction.) CarrieVS (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::::My objection against using instruction, is not only because of POV, which really is a minor problem here, but also because I think it is inaccurate. It is worded like they being ordered to, when several independent sources states the are able/can choose in this matter, unlike t.ex. spending time with a disfellowshipped, as quoted from Holden, which is not described as an advise, but an instruction. I've noticed CarrieVS leaving out instruction/instructed. I find some distinction between telling and advising. It is some distinction, between telling and instructing, and it is merely distinction between being told to do and instructed to. A more neutral expression may solve it, like "WTS official guidance warns against" (I know the wording is hopeless, but may gives an idea). Regarding your analogy: JW are told to stay separated from the World, they are advised to minimize social contact with non-members/warned against cultivating close friendships with non-members, not because it is explicit forbidden, but because it is considered as putting themselves within spiritual danger and makes it harder to stay separated from the world. It would be inaccurate to state it like an instruction, when it got the character of warning or advice. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::::You seem intent on using advising as a soft euphemism for the more accurate instruction. Several statements from Watch Tower Society publications have already been provided that indicate that avoiding association with "worldlings" (their word) is not merely 'casual advice' as you want the article to imply. Is the following advice or an instruction? (Note also the repeated technique of saying "we must" instead of "you must". This is a well known age-old technique of influencing people while assuming a less accusative tone.)

::::::::*The Watchtower, 15 April 1993, page 16: Limit your association to spiritually minded Christians who really love Jehovah.

::::::::*Our Kingdom Ministry, September 2009, page 7 [Instructions for a pre-rehersed 'demonstration']: Interview one or two young publishers who have returned to school and who realize the need to limit association with unbelieving classmates.

::::::::*The Watchtower, 15 October 2012, page 30: Living “in the last days,” we are surrounded by people who are “disloyal,” people “having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power.” (2 Tim. 3:1-5) As much as possible, we must avoid such bad association.

::::::::*The Watchtower, 15 February 1994, page 24: We must also be on guard against extended association with worldly people. Perhaps it is a neighbor, a school friend, a workmate, or a business associate. We may reason, ‘He respects the Witnesses, he leads a clean life, and we do talk about the truth occasionally.’ Yet, the experience of others proves that in time we may even find ourselves preferring such worldly company to that of a spiritual brother or sister. What are some of the dangers of such a friendship?

::::::::*The Watchtower, 15 January 2004, page 28: The trouble that “brought ostracism” upon Jacob started because Dinah made friends with people who did not love Jehovah. We must choose our associates wisely.

::::::::*The Watchtower, 15 July 1997, page 18: Of course, we must also guard against bad associations. We can be cordial with neighbors, workmates, and fellow students. But if we are really walking wisely, we will avoid getting too close to those not pursuing Christian virtue.

::::::::*The Watchtower, 1 November 1997, page 25: Although Epicureanism disappeared in the fourth century C.E., there are those today who adopt a similar now-is-all-we-have viewpoint. These people place little or no faith in God’s promise of life eternal. Yet, some of them have relatively high standards of conduct. A Christian might be tempted to form a close relationship with such ones, perhaps reasoning that their decent qualities justify friendship. However, though not considering ourselves superior, we must bear in mind that all “bad associations”—including those whose influence is more subtle—“spoil useful habits.”

::::::::It's fairly obvious that the 'counsel' to 'avoid' 'bad associates' (i.e. non-Witnesses) is considered instruction rather than merely 'advice'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

{{DR case status|failed}}

{{drn filing editor|Ymblanter|09:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Failure to participate by key disputant Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Jozef van Wissem}}
• {{pagelinks|Talk: Jozef van Wissem}}

Users involved

• {{User|Ymblanter}}
• {{User|WhatamIdoing}}
• {{User|Jozefvanwissem}}
• {{User|Mangoe}}
• {{User|Galassi}}
• {{User|Qworty}}
• {{User|123.224.114.61}} etc.

Dispute overview

The subject of the article, Jozef van Wissem, claims that the info is outdated. Indeed, the sources are at best from 2009, but he does not have any reliable sources to prove this. In particular, the point is what collaborations does Jozef van Wissem presently have. An IP editor opposes and insists that the info should be in the article, in particular, the Josef van Wissem collaborates with a certain musician (Jozef van Wissem claims he does not, there is a source from 2009 saying he was). A discussion was held at the talk page, leading to the compromise version that the collaboration should be mentioned as the past one and not in the lede. The IP editor disagrees, reverts all the changes in the article (went well over 10 reverts) and uses circular reasoning.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

1. Talk page discussion
2. COI noticeboard [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=543964531&oldid=543895262]
3. Edit warring was announced at ANI, with no consequences

How do you think we can help?

It needs to be determined whether the version which the IP editor reverts indeed has consensus, or, if not, to help to formulate a better one. May be somebody would have fun engaging with the IP editor in their circular reasoning, but as far as I am concerned this does not have to be a necessary part of the dispute resolution.

Our unregistered friend from Tokyo (the IP changes, but it's all the same person) is having difficulty with the concept of WP:Consensus. He (or she) would very, very, very much like to have the name of one particular, short-lived, non-notable, and definitely defunct (since 2009) musical duo to be named in the second sentence of the introduction. He would also like to have all past collaborators listed as if they were current collaborators (including, I note in passing, two past collaborators from Tokyo).

Everyone else who has expressed an opinion—and between the article's talk page and the unregistered editor's complaint at COIN about the BLP subject daring to correct material errors, multiple editors have expressed an opinion on this—thinks that the name of the defunct duo is not important enough to mention in the lead. However, the unregistered editor is edit warring to keep it in, and most recently to keep much more relevant details, like the fact that the musician's most widely known piece is the musical score for a video game, out.

After long discussions at the talk page, I doubt that further discussion is going to be useful. I think we're going to have to deal with this at WP:ANEW. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see how I can contribute to this. I looked into it early on when there seemed to be some stubbornness about possibly outdated information, but this now seems to have turned into a dispute about the prominence of the information which I really have no sound opinion about. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Although the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page before resorting to DRN, Ymblanter never joined the discussion on the talk page.

For the record, the point is not who Jozef van Wissem has presently or currently collaborated with, but "the notable activities, positions, or roles the person held" and "why the person is significant" (WP:OPENPARA). Additionally, since I think Jozefvanwissem's edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jozef_van_Wissem&diff=prev&oldid=544058455 1] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jozef_van_Wissem&diff=prev&oldid=544605864 2] has caused disruption to Wikipedia, we discuss whether Jozefvanwissem, the user who claimed to be the subject of the article, is here to build an encyclopedia. 123.224.114.61 (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, this is not just "content dispute", and I don't think we can discuss this issue without commenting on Jozefvanwissem's editing beahvior. 123.224.94.138 (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I volunteer here at DRN. This doesn't mean I hold any special powers but I will try mediate a discussion. It's worth having a read over the rules we have here for DRN specifically the one about focusing on content and not conduct. Once all involved users have posted their opening statements we can move on with the discussion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

: Please note that the IP editor added more users than there were really involved. Thanks for taking the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

::They are certainly the users involved in this issue. 123.224.94.138 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

:::Ymblanter, could you confirm who you feel are the involved editors? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

:::: In my opinion those whom I originally listed: myself, {{u|WhatamIdoing}}, {{u|Jozefvanwissem}}, and the IP editor. The three of us made statements, and I would not expect that Jozefvanwissem would make a statement since he has difficulties fully understanding our policies (he is clearly a single-purpose COI editor), but I assume his position is crystal cleat from the discussion on the talk page of the article and on his own talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::I've removed the indef sock of Jozefvanwissem and the highly suspected other who hasn't edited since january from the participants. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}

Considering the list of participants is perhaps questionable I'm going to go ahead and start discussion despite not all listed participants presenting an opening statement. I feel if we wait for them all we are unlikely to ever start. If anyone has an issue with this please feel free to raise it.

Now, it seems to me that there is two sides to this dispute, one taken by the IP editor and the other by everyone else. The IP continues to cite that wikipedia is not a !vote, which is true, but likewise the IP editor should take a read over the words at WP:STONEWALL, WP:NOTUNANIMOUS and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Insisting that consensus hasn't been reached despite being the only proponent of point of view (and using narrowly interpreted views of policies) is considered gaming the system.

Since a lot of the talk of the talk page is conduct based and back-n-forth I would like a 100 word summary of both views in this dispute presented below. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

:100 words:

:Should the name of one short-lived, non-notable, defunct musical act be in the lead, or is it good enough to mention the name of the other person in that musical act?

:In other words, should it say "Past collaborators included Alice, Bob, Chris, Daisy and Ed" or should it say "Past collaborators included Alice, Bob, Chris, who was part of the Chris-and-Subject Show, Daisy and Ed"?

:Everyone else seems to favor putting the name of the act in the body of the article, but the IP keeps removing it from the body and inserting it into the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

:100 words

: JvW had many collaborations over his career, and he claims only two are current. The collaborations are not fully documented by RS, and many sources are outdated. The suggestion of our side is to put the two current collaborations in the lede, and list others as past, indicating the source year ("in 2009"); also to write that JvW is known for writing a tune to a vide game. The IP's suggestion is to list his favorite collaboration in the lede since there is a 2009 source claiming it. They also remove any mentioning of the video game.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your replies. I'm mainly waiting to hear from the IP editor now as they seem to hold an opposing opinion Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 23:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not involved with this dispute but I have seen it arise on some talk pages and discussion boards. I thought it would be easily resolved by blocking a range of IPs in Tokyo, or locking the biography article against IP editing. I do not consider the IP's case to be valid; there is no need to list a non-notable duo in the lead section, nor is there a need to list past collaborators who did not collaborate on a notable project. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Our IP Tokyo friend continues reverting bud did not find time to make a statement here, so I assume they are not interested in making any statement, only in reverting the article to their version.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

:*Yes, it seems that the page has been protected for autoconfirmed editors only for now. If the IP isn't willing to discuss then there isn't much point in this DRN as he is the only person holding that position. Unless they post here with a convincing effort to discuss amicably within 24 hours I will be closing this discussion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

:::Yes, I have semiprotected the page in the (admittedly small) hope to get the IP to the talk-page or here...Lectonar (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|220.244.41.132|23:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=No evidence that these two editors have interacted at all on the talk page or edit history. Amadscientist (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|GW 501516}}

Users involved

• {{User|null}}
• {{User| }}

Dispute overview

The other editor appears to bias the information that is not based on available evidence. I have cited peer-reviewed evidence from the academic literature to support a stance, but these seemed to have been deleted each time to bias the reader.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

pending

How do you think we can help?

Open discussion and providing validated evidence to support the biased view

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Martinvl|07:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Withdrawn by requesting editor. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists}}

Users involved

• {{User|Martinvl}}
• {{User| Jeni}}
• {{User| Ritchie333}}
• {{User| Rschen7754}}
• {{User| Imzadi1979}}
• {{User| Scott5114}}
• {{User| Floydian}}
• {{User| Fredddie}}
• {{User| The Rambling Man}}
• {{User| Gareth Griffith-Jones}}
• {{User| Trillig}}
• {{User| Baldy Bill}}
• {{User| Wilbysuffolk}}
• {{User| Pigsonthewing}}

Dispute overview

The page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists catalogues the columns that should appear in a Road Junction List (for example Interstate 10 in California#Exit list and M25 motorway#Junctions). A dispute between editors split roughly along UK/US lines has been simmering for a number of years regarding the differences in style of these two road junction lists with the US editors arguing for more standardisation across all of Wikipedia and UK editors arguing that regional differences make such standardisation impracticable.

{{Warning|If this filing is about editors, the case will be closed and formal arbitration suggested. Do not discuss editor behavior, conduct or national views. DR/N is for content disputes. Please stick to content issues.}}

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The current round of discussion was triggerd by Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#RJLUK set of templates!the UKRJL template proposal. The discissions are here and here.

How do you think we can help?

Are the UK editors being unreasonable in declining to add "location" columns to their RJLs or are the US editors failing to take the UK situation into account? A parallel ongoing discussion on the use of miles or kilometres is outside the scope of this DRN.

I decline to participate in a process with an ill-formed question that falls outside of the stated remit of the process. I also decline to participate in a process that censors appropriate comments in what I'd say is a violation of WP:TPOC. Imzadi 1979 → 19:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the locus of the dispute is that a minority of editors are failing to recognize a consensus that has formed, a consensus contrary to their wishes. (Some of the named editors are not even disagreeing on the same thing here; this dispute resolution request is conflating a recent dispute about location columns with an older dispute about coordinates.) As such, I feel that this case is beyond the venue's remit and should be closed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I decline to participate as well. –Fredddie™ 12:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not have any faith in this process, as such I will not be participating. Thank you for the invitation. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I decline to participate as I don't think the question has been framed in such a way that the issue can be resolved through this DR. Trillig (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have not, until now, been involved in the most recent discussions; even though I am named in them.

As a UK resident, I favour the use - for all roads, globally - of a column for junction locations, though the use of a county name or other specified identifier should not be mandated. It should be possible to include coordinates, using {{tl|Coord}}, in that column, if no specific coordinates column (which would be preferable) is provided; and acceptable (but not required) for that to be a cell's only content.

I remain opposed to any initiative to remove or hide (such as behind an icon, or non-unique text) coordinates; or to preclude their inclusion.

I note that the use of KML files form some roads does not supplant the need for or usefulness of coordinates, displayed in the article, for specific features. Editors who find coordinates aesthetically troubling are able and welcome to suppress their display through their User-CSS file.

I also note that the MoS is meant to be descriptive not prescriptive

I further note that this has been a very contentious issue, and remind everyone that projects do not and should not own articles and templates, nor their contents. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

[Meta observation: this page is too long, and watch-listing will result in lots of irrelevant notifications,. For the convenience of those asked to participate, there should be a sub-page for each case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)]

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I am not, and will not be, taking this listing. To the contrary, I am of the opinion that this request should be closed for the following reasons:

• As currently framed — asking whether we believe editors are being reasonable — this is a conduct, not a content, dispute.
• I'm not at all sure we ought to become involved in disputes involving policy or guideline formation. Those disputes should, in my opinion, ordinarily be resolved through RFC, since the interests of the community as a whole are involved.
• Rschen7754 is a major participant in this dispute. Unless he can either be persuaded to change his mind about participating here or be persuaded to commit to walk away from the dispute altogether, then any resolution here will probably be futile.

I'm not absolutely certain about any of those reasons (if I was, I would have simply closed this listing) and would like the other members of the DRN community to either weigh in here or, alternatively, simply second me by closing the listing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

:I asked the OP about the fact that it did seem to be about conduct and behavior. I have not yet recieved a reply, but it is still early. I can only say that if a major participant in such a lengthy list of involed editors is reluctant to continue over their current concerns, having them participate may not result in any headway either. I am reluctant to say that we will not take a case over an MOS dispute, but agree that an RFC could be attempted first for content. If this is just about conduct I do suggest closing and suggest Arbitration as the next logical course.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

::After reading the response to this DRN, I am willing to accept the view that the DRN will not resolve the dispute. Martinvl (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

:::I echo Martinvl's comment. Trillig (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

:::+1. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}