Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 108

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

→

Archive 115

Talk:Pope Joan

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 189.8.107.196 on 17:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Pope Joan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 189.8.107.196 (talk · contribs) Farsight001 (talk · contribs) Cuchullain (talk · contribs) 191.222.109.81 (talk · contribs) Kansas_Bear (talk · contribs) 177.76.41.164 (talk · contribs) Scolaire (talk · contribs) Wetman (talk · contribs) Ian.thomson (talk · contribs) Thomask0 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The fact that one Catholic pope in the Dark Ages would have been a woman in disguise (commonly referred to as Pope Joan) has always been a controversial one - but this article's non-neutral POV makes it seem like no such controversy exists, and gives the Catholic Church's current official position as a true, undispustable fact. It's a fact that it was widely believed for centuries, including by catholics, that the female Pope had existed - a statue depicting her, labeled Pope Joan, has been displayed among other Pope statues in the Italy's Siena Cathedral until 1700 (when the then Pope ordered its removal); she is depicted in works of art, theatre and literature from all around Europe, and even though the Vatican has finally stated that she was only a fictitious legend, she continues to this day to attract the interest of millions around the world, including authors like Peter Stanford and Donna W. Cross who deffend she might have existed. As controversial a topic as it is, the article on it should of course reflect that - but, as can be seen throughout all the article's history, it's been noted for years, by many different users, that its full content reflects purely the Catholic Church's POV and was anything but neutral. However, an active team of engaged editors has through the article's history always been very quick to counter-edit any such edits, threatening the dissonant voices with bans and until now preventing even a broader discussion regarding the neutrality of the article from taking place. A neutral article needs at least mentioning who deffends her,what they argue, even if one then counterbalances each of them with supposed explanations and concludes that there's not sufficient proof that she ever existed (what is NOT at all the same thing as saying that there's sufficient proof that she did NOT exist). People have tried doing so/making the article neutral for years, but each of their editions has always been reverted without real discussion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Ongoing debate in the appropriate Talk page. The discussion, however, is going in circles and nowhere, since the users who have for years edited out all mentions that do not follow 100% the Catholic Church's POV will simply discredit every single source that contradicts them as being not even worthy of having their existences acknowledged. How do you think we can help? It'd be helpful if simply more people were to read the topic, read the Talk page and then comment on whether they find the current text neutral. The topic itself offends some people's personal convictions, and it happens that these are almost the only people who care about the topic enough as to write on it and discuss it and they end up tiring away the less engaged casual passers-by. Simply having more neutral outsiders read, comment and rewrite the text in a neutral POV should solve the issue. Summary of dispute by Farsight001 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Cuchullain Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 189.8.107.196's summary shows that much of this dispute is behavioral, not content-based. The accusations that there's a conspiracy of editors enforcing the "the Catholic Church's POV" and quashing all discussions are totally baseless and out of line. Whatever neutrality concerns exist in the article just get clouded over by the anon's edit warring, comments about contributors, and battleground behavior. The anon elides the fact that their complaints largely focus on the lead section, and that the rest of the article is in a poor state. Rather than fix the body, they've initiated an edit war over the intro. None of the article's problems will be resolved this way, or any way beside rewriting the body with the best available sources. This has caused considerable confusion. Below, 177.76.41.164 writes that editors are "deliberately omitting" certain facts, such as details about Siena Cathedral's bust of Joan. There's been some dispute over how this material (which I added) is handled in the intro, but despite 177.x's claims, the details are already in the article body. Again, what the article needs is an overhaul in the body. I tried to rewrite the intro using standard academic works on Pope Joan. These sources speak to a consensus among scholars that Pope Joan is a myth. There are a few writers who still claim she was real, but they're basically a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. As I said on talk, Diana Cross is a fiction writer, and Peter Stanford isn't a historian, he's a journalist. More to the point, Stanford's book on Joan has been harshly received by historians.[1][2] It can't be used to override cited claims from respected sources. As a final point, Scolaire says that some folks want to keep out all mention of Stanford and Cross. This isn't true. It's perfectly fine to include them in the article body (with the necessary explanation to how they're viewed by the experts). Adding them to the introduction, however, is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Again, what we need is better treatment of the article body.--Cúchullain t/c 22:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 191.222.109.81 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Kansas_Bear Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 177.76.41.164 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The page could indeed be rewritten in a more neutral way. I don't know much about the topic itself, but as others have said, when you dedicate some time going through the page's edits history you end up finding out a lot of valid and pertinent and documented data that indeed was removed from the article for no given reason, and all said edits are indeed always favoring a position that the story is complete bogus. I myself quite think it is actually bogus, but rather than allowing me to reach that conclusion after giving me all the history of the issue and even the conspiracy theories, the page indeed shoves into the reader's face not gently at all what the editors/writers' point of view is, deliberately omitting even interesting facts regarding the story which, even if not proving the conspiratiotists' theories, isn't well regarded by the Vatican (like the fact that there was a precise date when a Pope declared Pope Joan not to have existed; and the fact that it was only after that and at the Pope's request that Joan's bust was removed from the papal busts collection at the Catholic Cathedral of Siena; also, there aren't mentions or images to the numerous images of a female figure in full papal style, Papal tiara included, to this day displayed even in the Vatican, which, even if having different explanations, are indeed one of the arguments used by the conspirationists. Simply put, the OP does seem to have sort of a valid point when saying that the page's edits history does reveal engaged activism / permanent watch by a group of users who seem to be way more interested in deffending the current official position of the Church than in having a good Wikipedia article. And finally, the fact that the opponent editors managed to get the OP banned from Wikipedia for no reason other than reverting unwelcome edits (well referenced and pertinent edits the OP had made in other sections of the article that were not directly related to the disputed topic were deleted without justification by his opponents among the edit war) kind of adds weight to his/her accusations of censorship... 177.76.41.164 (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Scolaire One side wants to state as fact that there is an ongoing controversy over the existence of Pope Joan, citing Peter Stanford and Donna Cross. I don't see any ongoing controversy in the real world, and those two authors are not suitable sources for that claim, because they are not academic historians. However, the other side does not want those authors' views to be considered at all, which I think is going to the other extreme. It was a revelation to me, on reading the reverted, but sourced, edits, to find that there are people notable enough to be published who say they believe in the legend at least to some extent. Therefore I think it is worth a brief mention. This is consistent with WP:DUE. It would also, without making it appear that there is a lively academic debate going on, at least answer the people who say that the minority point of view is being censored, or that the article is written solely from a Catholic Church POV. I am not arguing that she existed, only that is worth mentioning that a couple of people do. Scolaire (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Wetman Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Ian.thomson (Previously uninvolved non-volunteer observer): "The fact that," "widely believed," and borderline accusations of Catholic censorship... A completely non-neutral summary that argues against WP:GEVAL. I'm seeing one side cite a number of academic sources, and the other citing tabloids. Please snow close this. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Moved at TransporterMan's request, as I've started responding at the talk page. I stand by my observation that one side is citing academia, while the other is citing tabloids, conspiracy theories, and innuendo of Catholic censorship. I can only find one user involved who identifies as Catholic, who is not listed here because that involvement is only one post that sticks to the policies and guidelines. If anything, the legendary side is mostly users who would be sympathetic to the idea of Pope Joan but realize that it's fantasy. While I agree that that a few non-historians insist that Joan existed (which would be a few sentences later in the article, dismissed as WP:FRINGE -- Oh, wait, the article already does that), that's different from downplaying (if not whitewashing) the clearly cited academic consensus and the addition of badly sourced revisionist claims to the lede. As with other fringe authors, I do not mind including Stanford if properly labelled as a non-historian and presented alongside any counter-arguments directed at his work. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I will point out that 177.16.62.71 geolocates to the same location as 189.8.107.196, who was far from uninvolved. 177.76.41.164 (who filed this request) geolocates to the same location as 179.148.187.148, and these two addresses are just down the road from the first two. I do not believe we have more than two individuals posting from all four IPs. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 177.16.62.71 (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC) (Previously uninvolved non-volunteer observers): I am Catholic and I'm currently graduating in History - which makes me specially appaled by the arguments in the original Talk Page that Peter Stanford's opinion should not even be considered and that it is okay to say that ALL historian agree on something even if Stanford does not. He is a Historian, he is a religious historian, he is indeed a Catholic historian, and it is also true that he is the only person who has even been called an "expert on Pope Joan" in the world, and he is indeed currently the only person so recognised by the search results in Google. So that means I believe Joan existed? No, not at all. I am 100% convinced that Stanford, as well as Cross, do not even believe that themselves, and only play along. Why? Because conspiracy theories sell, that's why, and they're both millionaires nowadays, only because of pretending to believe that there was once a real female pope. But that does not, absolutely, mean that these two authors do not exist; or that their opinions can be concealed, or disregarded, or even given little to no proeminence in the Pope Joan wikipedia page. Please, Pope Joan *is* a conspiracy theory story. Even if Stanford was not a serious Catholic editor and scholar and historian, even if he was just a crazy dude who decided to say that Pope Joan was real, as long as he's successfully published a worldwide bestseller with his theory, and become one of the most famous "experts" on the topic, it is obvious that his opinions and claims should be given appropriate space and credit. Wikipedia does *not* prejudice against conspiracy theories. The World Trade Center article brings in it text and references to the conspiracy theories according to which the US itself exploded the towers. It is a repugnant theory, one that literally disgusts me and millions of other even to be read, but it is there - and, you know what? It ought to be. That's what Wikipedia is about. It gives people information, and allows people to make their own conclusions with all the opinions given, and all the conspiracy theories, and all the interesting trivia and photos and art (which have all been in my opinion incorrectly cut off the Pape Joan page by fellow editors who, like me, seem to agree that most people who "like" the story of Pope Joan, do so only because it "hurts" the image of the Church; but actively editing out the various sculptures and art depicting a female figure wearing the papal tiara, which is what has been done for years, is hurtful to the story of our Church itself. Pope Joan was believed for a long time by the Church itself, and there is nothing wrong with acknowledging it; we also thought for centuries that the Sun orbited the Earth, and, hey, we were wrong, that is okay, information was scarce before the internet - that does't mean we ought to just pretend it never happened...) Even the Jesus page here in Wikipedia admits that it is not a 100.000000% consensus that He ever existed. So how can the Pope Joan deniers intend to be so arrogant? Shortly put, and even if I am 100% sure that the "story" of Pope Joan is pure conspiracy theory, I will have to agree that while reading this article I actually thought for a minute that I was reading the Catholic boards I normally access, rather than Wikipedia. Having spent the past hours of my day reading into every edition that has ever been made to the page (and all the reverts made by the same handful of pals), I would actually go as far as saying that the page needs urgent rewriting - and that it needs be done by a large group of uninvolved, preferrably from different backgrounds, group of users. And I would suggest that the users here involved, including those who have been "protecting" the page from all "external" interference for years, completely refrained from this whole process, in everyone's (and specially the page's) best interests. 177.16.62.71 (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Talk:Pope Joan discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. (Another previously uninvolved non-volunteer observation): I gave the article a *quick* lookover, so take this with as much salt as you like. At the surface it seems balanced and gives the general message that Pope Joan is fictional but that there was a time when it was believed otherwise. However, a second pass with more attention left me with the slight smell of failure of WP:NPOV (in the direction of a vague desire to shove the "legend" in the face of any passing Catholics). There's a fair sprinkle of what I think is weaseling e.g. "..said to have reigned...", "Most versions of her story...", "The one most commonly cited...", " It has been speculated ..." and so on. And there are multiple assertions with no RS offered whatsoever. Little snippets of colloquial speech also raise a grin: "during the pontificate of 'Pope Agnes ... [the Church] got on quite well." (emphasis mine). I don't like that "legendary" in the first sentence. Judging by the rest of the article, it looks like the adjective being sought after is supposed to say that the stories are false, but "legendary" does not necessarily convey that. "Mythical" would be no better. Perhaps the simple "fictional" would work? Finally, I'd also like to see some sources for the first part of the lead's penultimate sentence: "The legend was universally accepted as true until the 16th century, when a widespread debate among Catholic and Protestant writers called the story into question; various writers noted the implausibly long gap between Joan's supposed lifetime and her first appearance in texts". It's not clear that the two sources already provided are covering not just the assertion that the story is no longer accepted, but also the assertion that it once was "universally accepted". Thomask0 (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC) All parties have been notified as of 13:30 UST 25 January 2015 — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC) There's a problem there, because the filing editor has just been blocked for 72 hours. Scolaire (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC) No longe a problem: all users mentioned by the OP who had not yet posted in here have just received personalised messages by me, in their own personal pages, very directly and succintly telling them they have been included as parts to this discussion, with pertinent link provided. Xox177.76.41.164 (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict) I've formally notified all parties. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Volunteer's notes 2: I'm still not taking this or opening it for discussion, but some comments are in order: @ the previously uninvolved non-volunteer observers: Thank you for your comments, which are entirely welcome here, but if there is any possibility whatsoever that you're going to continue in this discussion here at DRN or at the article talk page, please list yourselves as parties, create an initial summary section for yourself, and move your comments there. @ the IP editors listed as parties and the IP editor who made an entry in Cuchullain's summary section, above : If you are a user with an account and just accidentally edited without logging in, please remove the IP listing from the user list, substitute your username if it's not already listed, and only edit in this discussion while logged in. If, on the other hand, if you're an IP-only editor, please consider creating an account and doing the same. It's really confusing to the volunteers when a number of IP editors are involved in the discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) First statement by volunteer moderator I am willing to try to get this dispute moving. First, I don't have any special authority to resolve this case, or any particular knowledge about the issues. My role is to help the editors in this case work together to get resolution. I will insist that all editors be concise and civil. Focus on content, not on contributors. I will start off by asking each of you what you think should be changed to improve the article. Be specific and concise. After I have initial responses, I will formulate more questions to try to clarify the issues further. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Also, if you are editing from an IP address, please be aware that your IP address may change and that may make it more difficult to take part in this discussion. I advise any IP editors to create an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC) First statement by User:189.8.107.196 First statement by User:Farsight001 First statement by User:Cuchullain Comment on content, not contributors The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Not wanting to get into behavior issues again here, I'm not sure what level of dispute really remains here now that the IPs have all stopped editing after the sockpuppet investigation. But as far as that goes, I'll reiterate that I think it's perfectly fine, and necessary, to cover the writers who think Joan was real in the article (actually this goes a bit beyond Stanford and Cross, but not all that much more). This should be covered in a much better fashion than it presently is, but that goes for the entire article. Again, I don't think it's productive to focus too much energy on the introduction when there's so much work to be done on the article body. Especially if it's just to accommodate what's realistically a fringe viewpoint.--Cúchullain t/c 15:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC) First statement by User:191.222.109.81 First statement by User:Kansas_Bear First statement by User:177.76.41.164 First statement by User:Scolaire This bit about Peter Stanford has found a permanent place in the article – after a few reverts – and that is fair, I think. I think it would also be fair to mention the historical novelist Donna Woolfolk Cross in the same section, as she spent seven years researching her subject (something that no historian nowadays is likely to do), and she is quoted by NBC as saying, "I would say it's the weight of evidence – over 500 chronicle accounts of her existence." Those two writers, who we all agree are in the minority, and go against modern scolarly consensus, could still usefully get a half-sentence in the lead. On the talk page I suggested that the last sentence of the lead might be re-written. Current: Pope Joan is now widely accepted to be fictional, though the legend remains influential in art, literature, drama, and film. [Rustici, 2006] Proposed: Pope Joan is now widely accepted to be fictional. Nonetheless, the legend remains influential in art, literature, drama, and film, [Rustici, 2006] and a small number of 21st-century writers have expressed the belief that the legend is at least partially true. WP:GEVAL would not apply here, since there is nothing like equal weight being given to the minority view. WP:DUE says, "Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view." I think this proposal makes it crystal clear, and therefore is consistent with policy. Scolaire (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Edited 12:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC) First statement by User:Wetman First statement by User:Ian.thomson Comment on content, not contributors The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I acknowledge and otherwise respect the request to not comment on editors, but I must point out that since evidence of sockpuppetry was raised (even an SPI filed), the IP editors (including the one who filed this request) have ultimately ceased editing. It is also odd that none of the addresses were active at the same time and that once an address ceased activity it failed to come back, both of which would have eventually happened had they been operated by distinct persons. Instead "new" anons regularly showed up announcing that they were absolutely different people. I merely bring this up to question whether we need to actually go through full dispute resolution, as it was filed by the IP sockpuppeteer under false pretenses (if not bad faith), and I'm left with the impression that everyone else here is capable of honest and reasonable discussion on the talk page. The article currently presents the subject as a legend with limited support among select amateur historians, as does our article on the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. I mention this article because it is a strong parallel: while amateur historians can be included their views should not be presented as being more respected by academia than they really are, nor should we create artificial balance between amateur historians and professional scholars. The sources cited to support a historical existence of Joan are not by professional academics. The article could stand to include more coverage of why people believe Pope Joan existed, but this should be counterbalanced with rebuttals from mainstream scholarship. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC) First statement by User:Thomask0 Second statement by volunteer moderator I am dropping the unregistered editors. Here are my questions for the registered editors. Is there any specific change that you want made to the lede of the article, in particular as to whether she existed? Are there any specific changes that you want made to the body of the article? Also, can we remove the NPOV tag from the article? Also, do we still think that dispute resolution is necessary? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Second statement by User:Farsight001 Second statement by User:Cuchullain 1. Again, I don't want to do anything major with the lead until the article body is improved drastically. I think it currently summarizes most of the key points adequately. Scolaire, I don't think more space should be given to the handful of writers who believe Joan existed, considering we're not covering more important points. We don't get into modern scholarly and feminist takes on the legend, or much about the historical Protestant-vs.-Catholic debates; all of those things are much more significant to the legend than the handful of 20th-century writers who argue Joan was a real person. 2. Yes, I want to make all manner of changes to the article body. The article's low quality is really the issue here. I'll volunteer to rewrite the section on pop culture treatments based on the sources (Thomas F.X. Noble's survey "Why Pope Joan?" is a good one for that regard) and perhaps on scholarly and feminist appraisals 3. No, I have no problem removing the tag. 4. No, I don't think DR is necessary any longer, as I said in the above (now collapsed section). Unless certain problems return, I think we can handle the issues with normal discussion. --Cúchullain t/c 03:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Second statement by User:Kansas_Bear Second statement by User:Scolaire I want to make a specific change to the lead, as set out in my first statement. I do not want the lead to say that she existed; in that respect it's fine as it is. I want an edit to the body of the article, again as set out in my first statement, to present the views of Donna Woolfolk Cross. Cuchullain says that it is fine to cover not only her but one or two others, and Ian.thomson also says that these people can be covered as long as it is balanced, so I don't think there's any disagreement there. I have no problem with removing the tag. The issue is being addressed. Cuchullain says that he "doesn't think it's productive to focus too much energy on the introduction when there's so much work to be done on the article body", but I would turn that around and ask, would it harm the article to include in the lead an innocuous half-sentence such as I have proposed, while work goes on on the article body? If the other editors agree that it would not do any harm, then the dispute resolution can be closed; if not, I'd need to see policy-based reasons why not. Scolaire (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Cuchullain, I'm talking about adding twenty words to a lead of just over 300 words. That's not an inordinate amount of space. No other edit to the lead has been proposed, so I'm not proposing to add it at the expense of something else. Naturally, when the article has been improved, the lead will need to be re-written; that does not mean that a small piece of verifiable content that I and others find useful should not be added in the meantime. I am opposed to stopping DR as long as this impasse continues. Scolaire (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Second statement by User:Wetman Second statement by User:Ian.thomson Second statement by User:Thomask0 Third statement by volunteer moderator It has been three days since I last requested comments, and I have comments from two out of seven editors who commented. I am about to declare the dispute resolution to have failed, but will provide one more chance for either of the two replying editors, or any of the five editors who sat out the last round, to reply with 24 hours. One editor thinks that dispute resolution can be closed; one thinks that it can be continued. I can't continue it without some collaboration. Cuchullain thinks that the article body needs to be improved drastically, which is a difficult objective for what is supposed to be a quick light-weight dispute procedure. Can a summary of sections of the article needing work be identified? Scolaire wants to make a change in the lede. Does Cuchullain agree? Regardless of whether we can continue dispute resolution or whether it fails, the next step would appear to be one or more Requests for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Third statement by User:Farsight001 Third statement by User:Cuchullain I've commented enough here on what should be done with the article body, and I'll work on that over at the article. As for the proposed change to the lead, my opinion stands that singling out the view that Joan was a real person in the lead gives WP:UNDUE weight to what is basically a fringe viewpoint held largely by a small handful of 20th-century pop writers. I base this on my reading of the sources: there are numerous other viewpoints that are more significant than this, but aren't included in the lead. For instance, in Thomas F.X. noble's survey "Why Pope Joan," he devotes about 4 pages (10 paragraphs) to 20th century viewpoints on Joan, which he divides into three major, overlapping trends: academic approaches, feminist approaches, and pop culture/artistic approaches. We don't say anything at all about the first two in the lead, let alone get into individual points. Noble devotes about 2 pages to academic approaches by historians, literary theorists and postmodern critics, who have "effectively refuted any such possibility" that Joan was historical, but consider her story valuable for what it says about the eras in which it's been popular. Then he has a long paragraph on feminist interpretations and art about Joan. Finally, he devotes two paragraphs to Joan in fiction, theater, and film (as said in our intro). He mentions Stanford and Cross in one of these latter paragraphs. Their viewpoint is pretty idiosyncratic and not particularly significant in the scheme of things. In my opinion, elevating it into the lead while leaving out more significant and important viewpoints would be a classic case of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Cross et al are already covered under "art, literature, drama, and film" in the lead; IMHO it's better to leave the specifics for the article body.--Cúchullain t/c 21:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Third statement by User:Kansas_Bear Third statement by User:Scolaire As far as I can see there is unanimity among the three remaining editors as to the body of the article: Cuchullain says it should be drastically re-worked, and that the re-worked version would fairly present the views of all who say she existed; I am in whole-hearted agreement with that (my previous statement focused only on the matter at hand, that did not mean I thought the rest was fine); and Ian.thomson says he's not bothered. As to the lead, I have proposed a small addition that does not say she existed, does not give undue weight, does not clutter up the lead, and does not displace or otherwise affect any other content. All I am asking is a policy-based reason why that should not be done now (and re-visited during or after the re-write if desired). If nobody can produce one here, there is no reason to think anybody will be able to produce one in a talk page discussion or in an RfC. Why waste time? Either it is reasonable or it can be shown here and now why it is not. Scolaire (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC) PS: If the NPOV tag can be removed, surely page protection can be removed as well? There has been no activity by unregistered users on the talk page or anywhere else. Scolaire (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC) PPS: When I talk about "my proposal" I do not mean "my exact wording". Any edit that briefly alluded to the existence of a minority viewpoint would be fine. I can practically guarantee that if Cuchullain were to propose an alternative wording I would be perfectly happy with it. Scolaire (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Third statement by User:Wetman Third statement by User:Ian.thomson To be honest, my involvement was ultimately to counter problematic influences that are no longer present. Not that I mind disagreement, new editors, or IP involvement, but there were certain behaviors I felt needed to be balanced off so that people who actually should be working on the article get a chance to do so. Not concerned about how the article turns up in the fine hands of those remaining, and I hope that they can come to some sort of agreement (though I'm more inclined to think that it could be done on the talk page). One side says the article's fine, the other side says it needs and overhaul. If I wanted to be involved, I'd probably suggest that Cuchullain (just happens to be him, but it could be anyone) suggest on the talk page the exact, minimal changes (listed neatly so we can say that one sucks and the other's awesome) that he thinks need to be made; and that everyone else try and figure out whatever's the least amount of work for them to be cool with each change (and whatever alternatives as close to a middle ground they're good with if they can't support a change). Obviously, we not only cannot say that Joan existed, but must say that she did not -- however, we can say that some (non-academic) persons do think she existed, explain why, and provide explanations from mainstream sources why they're wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Third statement by User:Thomask0 Fourth statement by volunteer moderator I am willing to keep this discussion open for another day or two. I will comment that I find the statements that the lede should not say that she existed to be talking tediously into the void, because no one still in dispute resolution is saying that. The only questions about the lede are details, and perhaps exactly what to say in Wikipedia's voice about her existence. As to her existence, the possibilities are to say: (1) that she did not exist; (2) that no serious modern scholar believes that she existed; (3) that no serious modern scholar believes that she existed, but that a few modern authors have proposed that she existed; (4) that serious modern scholarship is very skeptical of claims for her existence, but that a few modern authors have proposed that she existed. None of those are statements that she existed. I personally (and maybe, as moderator, I should not take a view) that that statement 1 is too strong in WP's voice, and that statement 2 is better. The only other issue about the lede is whether to add anything else about non-mainstream claims. What do the remaining participants think (without beating the dead horse)? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC) I see that the remaining authors are willing to work on the article body. If we have the lede either resolved or down to two or three choices, then we can either close dispute resolution, or publish an RFC, or both. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by User:Farsight001 Fourth statement by User:Cuchullain I'd support your option 2. Option 1 is too strong, 4 is too weak, and both 3 and 4 add a line that, I've argued, adds undue weight to a minority viewpoint. I don't think anything else from minority viewpoints needs to be added, especially since there are well-established viewpoints that aren't covered. Most of it's already covered by the line "the legend remains influential in art, literature, drama, and film."--Cúchullain t/c 01:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by User:Kansas_Bear Fourth statement by User:Scolaire Firstly, I'm assuming, as (2) does not say "leave the lead as it is", that some edit to the lead is proposed. Secondly, the only real difference between it and (3) and (4) is that it does not have a comma followed by a "but". I think that (2) would be satisfied by saying, for instance, "Apart from a few non-academic, popular writers, no modern authority believes that she existed." The phrasing "most modern scholars", like the current "is now widely accepted", begs the question of "who are the exceptions?" This answers the question before it arises. I accept that a "but" might have the effect of giving them more weight than they should have, but I think "apart from" is sufficiently dismissive. Scolaire (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by User:Wetman Fourth statement by User:Ian.thomson Fourth statement by User:Thomask0 Fifth statement by volunteer moderator The current lede says: "The story was widely believed for centuries, but modern scholars regard it as fictional." Is that satisfactory? I would like to remove the tag. Is there agreement to remove the tag? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Do we need an RFC on the lede? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Can we close dispute resolution as resolved (with respect to those who took part)? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Apart from a few non-academic, popular writers, no modern authority believes that she existed." Is that all right? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Can the tag be removed? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC) The minor viewpoint that Joan was real has not been in the lede since dispute resolution began, and stating that it should not be in the lede is not necessary. Any such statements are restating what is already agreed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Fifth statement by User:Cuchullain Yes, please remove the tag. For the fifth time, I don't think the minor viewpoint that Joan was real belongs in the lead. It's simply not a significant viewpoint in relation to other viewpoints on Pope Joan, including some not included in the lead at all. Stanford isn't even the only person who's written a "non-academic, popular" history of Pope Joan, though he's one of the few who argued that she existed (and his work was heavily criticized by scholars). Perhaps we can change the line from: "...though the legend remains influential in art, literature, drama, and film." to "...though the legend remains influential in art, fiction, popular history works, drama, and film." This gets in the line about the type of work Standford does without giving undue weight to his idiosyncratic views.--Cúchullain t/c 01:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon, I was responding to Scolaire's comments. I agree with leaving the lead as is or with the proposed changes I mentioned in previous statements. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 14:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Fifth statement by User:Scolaire No, no and no. I made a proposal which has been completely ignored. Scolaire (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC) FTR, "fictional" appears twice in the lead. The first sentence, "The story was widely believed for centuries, but modern scholars regard it as fictional", is not the one that was disputed, though, now that you have drawn attention to it, I would query the necessity of saying the same thing twice in a short lead. The sentence under discussion was the last sentence: "Pope Joan is now widely accepted to be fictional, though the legend remains influential in art, literature, drama, and film." I think that replacing that with "Apart from a few non-academic, popular writers, no modern authority believes that she existed, though the legend remains influential in art, literature, drama, and film" is better than the current "widely accepted" or the previously proposed "most modern scholars" because it indicates who the exceptions are, without giving them prominence. This addresses Cuchullain's concerns, while at the same time ensuring that editors in the future will not be able to say that the article is being "censored" to remove all trace of non-mainstream thought. I am agreeable to the removal of the tag. If the other remaining editors can agree with the above then yes, the DR can be closed as resolved. Scolaire (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "The legend remains influential in art, fiction, popular history works, drama, and film" does not ackowledge that there are some people of some standing (not in academia, but of standing nonetheless) who express belief in the existence of Pope Joan. Iron Man remains influential in art, drama and film, but that does not mean that the writers and film-makers believe he is real. "Apart from a few non-academic, popular writers" makes an indirect but unambiguous reference to people like Stanford and Cross, while at the same time minimising them. I cannot cut it down further, except by removing either "non-academic" or "popular". If Cuchullain is unwilling to accept even this minimal phrase, which in no way mars the article, then you may as well just go ahead and close the DR as failed. Scolaire (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Fifth statement by User:Ian.thomson Fifth statement by User:Thomask0 Sixth statement by volunteer moderator I will be going on vacation on Thursday and won't be able to continue this case. Are the two remaining parties, and anyone else who earlier participated, willing to let me close it as resolved, or do I need the coordinator to ask for a new moderator? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC) I will say that the two remaining parties have been reasonable and appear to be able to work things out, to the extent needed, on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Sixth statement by User:Scolaire It cannot be closed as resolved, since the parties are not one bit closer than we were at the outset. Nothing has been "worked out" on the talk page, and I have now posted there to make that abundantly clear. I hereby formally withdraw, so you may close the case as failed. Scolaire (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Sixth statement by User:Cuchullain I don't have anything more to add here. Thanks, Robert.--Cúchullain t/c 18:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Sixth statement by User:Ian.thomson Don't keep it open on my account. My stated purpose was merely to balance out/chase off a certain influence that is no longer present. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Sixth statement by User:Thomask0 The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:To the Youth in Europe and North America#Paul Craig Roberts

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Anders Feder on 18:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:To the Youth in Europe and North America#Paul Craig Roberts (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Anders Feder (talk · contribs) Mhhossein (talk · contribs) Dispute overview If a media campaign by Iranian ayatollah Khamenei is the subject matter, is the economist Paul Craig Roberts "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"? Have you tried to resolve this previously? This is the first step. How do you think we can help? Help resolve whether Paul Craig Roberts is a reliable source in the context given. Summary of dispute by Mhhossein Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:To the Youth in Europe and North America#Paul Craig Roberts discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 24 hour closing notice: It would appear that this particular dispute has been resolved at the article talk page by finding what is asserted to be a reliable secondary source for the quotation. Unless someone objects, this request will be closed as resolved or moot after 21:00 UTC on 17 February. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Vyasa

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Arjunkrishna90 on 11:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Vyasa (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Arjunkrishna90 (talk · contribs) Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) Abecedare (talk · contribs) Bladesmulti (talk · contribs) Imc (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The problem is regarding the page named "Vyasa". The page "Vyasa" currently existing in the Wikipedia is used to indicate an individual,an author who wrote many books in Hinduism. He is famously known as the author of Hindu epic The Mahabharata. I recently made an edit after notifying an error on this page regarding the name Vyasa. In actual "Vyasa" is a "position" given to an individual for a brief period of time as per Hindu beliefs. There has been and there will be new individuals holding the position of "Vyasa" according to Hindu scriptures. I provided references to three different books to support my claim. Several other users over the years in 2006,2007,2008 also notified these errors and wrote on the "TALK" page. But these "TALKS" and edits made by users are reverted by certain "particular" users.When i made these edits ,pointing out the mistakes "the same particular users" reverted my edits also.So as usual we had a long discussion on "Vyasa TALK" page and nothing seems to be changing. What i am pointing out is that "Vyasa" is a position awarded to an individual for a period of time. The name of the individual who currently holds the "Vyasa" position is Krishna Dvaipāyana. We can also call him as Krishna Dvaipāyana Vyasa also.But we should also add information about the individuals who handled the Vyasa position earlier and individuals who will hold these positions in the future.When i made edits to add these, certain users are not accepting it.They are arguing that the page Vyasa should only be referred to the author of Mahabharata. They continuously call him as Vyasa , infact his name is Krishna Dvaipāyana or we can also call him as Krishna Dvaipāyana Vyasa when talking about his contributions.But is it right to talk only about the works of an individual person who currently hold the position "Vyasa" in " that " page ? .What i want is to add about past individuals who hold the position "Vyasa" and their details. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Only discussion on Talk page of article "Vyasa" How do you think we can help? 1.In the "Vyasa" page on wikipedia,add a few sentences about "Vyasa" position,tell that Vyasa is just a "position for a brief period of time given to an individual" and denote every time " Krishna Dvypaina Vyasa " when talking about the "author of Mahabharata" & talking about current Vyasa position holder OR 2.Change the title of the "Vyasa" page to "Krishna Dvaipāyana Vyasa",to discuss about person who wrote Mahabratha,and start a new article named "Vyasa" to denote about "Vyasa position" Summary of dispute by Redtigerxyz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Abecedare Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Bladesmulti Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. You can open a page move request on the talk page of Vyasa if you want title change. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Hope we are not having any article disputes anymore, as you have made a Vyasa (title), it looks pleasant. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Imc Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Vyasa discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not alone suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Edit Conflict --I'm inclined to close this case preemptively as the consensus on the talk page is clear and the filing party appears to be forum shopping. The filing party has a limited number of edits on WP and may need to take some time to learn the WP guidelines for reliable secondary sources. The entire situation has been explained to the filing party more than once including this recent post [3] on the talk page. The filing party has referenced prior talk page discussions but has provided no links to those discussions. They have provided some references to translations of the Vedic scripture, called Purana, but the Puranas which are in Sanskrit are subject to English translation and interpretation. Furthermore the filing party seems to have their own interpretation of the resulting English translation which is a violation of WP:OR. Despite multiple requests from editors on the talk page the filing party has not provided any secondary sources (such as books by modern scholars) to substantiate their claims. Lastly, the editors on the talk page have agreed that some mention of the various usages of the term Vyasa can be mentioned in the article but it should not be featured in the lead which is what the filing party seems to want. I'll wait a few days, but my recommendation is to close this case and refer it back to the talk page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC) In addition one of the talk page editors has proposed that the filing party create a new article called Vyasa (title) and use secondary sources to define and describe alternate usages of the term in more detail. To my eye the editors on the talk page have been very patient and collaborative but the filing party has not yet had the time (or inclination) to read and integrate WP guidelines into their WP work.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC) As discussed in Vyasa talk page (Talk:Vyasa ) I have created a new page Vyasa_(title).But feel that the existing page Vyasa should be renamed to "Krishna Dvaipāyana Vyasa", inorder to mention about the author of Mahabharata and his contribution.The new page Vyasa_(title) should be the general platform for indicating all Vyasas ever existed. Dear Keithbob, you have said "Despite multiple requests from editors on the talk page the filing party has not provided any secondary sources (such as books by modern scholars) to substantiate their claims".but i already gave 3 book references on vyasa talk page - Talk:Vyasa and once again i gave the 3 book reference here for consideration 1. Vishnu Purana J.L Shastri. The Vishnu Purana: A System of Hindu Mythology and Tradition (Translated from the Original Sanskrit),Hardcover – 31 Dec 2010,Sri Satguru Publications,ISBN: 8170309166 2. Siva Purana J.L Shastri. The Siva Purana Full Volume ,Hardback Edition 2008,Motilal Banarsidass Publication ,ISBN-13: 9788120803398 ISBN: 8120803396 3. Kurma Purana Shanti Lal Nagar, Kurma Purana (Sanskrit Text with English Translation),Hardcover (Edition:2011),Parimal Publications,ISBN 9788171103263 These are the 2 option which i feel can help to solve the issue, 1.In the "Vyasa" page on wikipedia (Vyasa),add a few sentences about "Vyasa position",tell that Vyasa is just a "position for a brief period of time given to an individual" and denote every time " Krishna Dvypaina Vyasa " when talking about the "author of Mahabharata" & talking about current Vyasa position holder. OR 2.Change the title of the Vyasa page to "Krishna Dvaipāyana Vyasa",to discuss about person who wrote Mahabharata,and start a new article named to denote about "Vyasa position"(Which i already did -Vyasa_(title)). Again, I already created a new page Vyasa_(title) and its up to the consensus of the users to discuss and make a decision. Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Arjunkrishna90 your new page is a good idea. I have created a redirect for Krishna Dvaipāyana Vyasa. Once your new page is developed and stable (no edits by any editor for few weeks) you may link it in the Vyasa page in proper context. In Wikipedia we depend on other sources and it is in fact true that many articles refer to the writer by just that title "Vyasa" so it is used. It is not about finer accuracy but a term that is more commonly used/understood by people and used in different sources. You may mention about the title in cotext in due space but please don't rush to it and don't edit everything to your likeness "right now". Other editors are also acting in good faith and have their right to have discussion regarding the content, after all, they have also contributed to it before you! --AmritasyaPutraT 07:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Ok,After few weeks i will add necessary changes in Vyasa page and give a link to the page Vyasa_(title). I will In the Vyasa page,add a few sentences about "Vyasa position",note that Vyasa is just a "position for a brief period of time given to an individual" to denote the difference between current Vyasa - Krishna Dvaipāyana to older Vyasa postion holders.I believe our issues are solved and will conclude this discussion. Thanks!! Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sugar (Maroon 5 song)

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Chasewc91 on 23:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Sugar (Maroon 5 song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Chasewc91 (talk · contribs) Gloss (talk · contribs) Tomica (talk · contribs) Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs) Calvin999 (talk · contribs) HĐ (talk · contribs) Arre 9 (talk · contribs) Wikimandia (talk · contribs) Magiciandude (talk · contribs) Status (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A discussion on whether to merge Sugar (music video) into Sugar (Maroon 5 song) has so far not been particularly productive, with several supporters and several opposers, and no agreement on a compromise. I was the one who proposed the merge, as I don't think the size of the song article warrants a split - the music video article is sizable, but I feel it could easily be trimmed down and contained in the main article. I see it as an unnecessary WP:CFORK. Several other users support this stance. Still, others think that the music video article is large enough and the topic is notable enough. Most song articles, however, do not have separate music video articles, even with significant media coverage. Have you tried to resolve this previously? N/A How do you think we can help? Providing guidance and insight to either or both sides of the dispute, and helping involved parties reach the best solution. Summary of dispute by Gloss Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I do agree with Chase. This is a content fork. All of the information can easily be merged into the song's article without leaving anything important out. The video hasn't been out for anywhere near long enough to be considered for a standalone article, in my opinion. There isn't an overwhelming amount of information on the song's main article either to suggest a split was needed. Bigger issue here seems to be that there is a conflict between some of these editors based on past discussions and arguments. Two editors seem to believe Chase is only trying to merge the articles to wipe out the work put in by one of them. Hopefully anyone on the outside looking in can help by looking at the articles and not at the silly arguments between these editors. Gloss 23:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Tomica Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As a creator and main editor of the article, I support its staying. I also have to agree with the comment by Calvin999, the article has interest from users being viewed 11,000+ times during a half month. The article is long, yeah, that's the reason has it separate article, it's not the first video article, I don't see a problem with it. I see that the user wants to kill already a dead dog, and I find this "dispute" nomination senseless. The article can purely stand on its own, and does not to be deleted or trimmed, cause the information in it are notable and pretty interesting for the user(s). Summary of dispute by Petergriffin9901 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Calvin999 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I vote to Keep the separate article and I oppose the merge. To be honest, there is a lot of valuable information here. Too much for the song article and would make it far too big. I wouldn't mind seeing this stay. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, guys. Promote information, don't reduce it. This article has had more than 11,600 views in the past 30 days, so I think we can safely say that it is notable enough to stay as a lot of people are looking at it. I think it is completely pointless to have posted this on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Half of the people support the move, half do not. It means the RM should have been closed as no consensus. Instead, everyone will now have to repeate whatever they have said before, here. This is a waste of time. It's demonstrative of an editor showing off like a child because one is not getting ones way.  — ₳aron 10:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by HĐ Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I vote to Merge because: apart from having surpassed 100 million views on YouTube, the music video for "Sugar" has not achieved anything notable comparing to Michael Jackson's Thriller and We Found Love, both are Grammy Award- and MTV Video Music Awards-winning visuals. Moreover, the content of this article shares the very same content with Sugar (Maroon 5 song). HĐ (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Arre 9 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Wikimandia Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The song and video are popular together. It is not something akin to "Gangnam Style (music video)" or Michael Jackson's Thriller. If you look at the categories for MTV and Grammy video awards, ONLY "We Found Love" by Rihanna has a separate article for the video. And many of these videos were popular, had themes, celebs etc. Finally, this article is not neutrally written and is needlessly overdetailed (part of the claim for it to be its own article). The entire synopsis is written twice. Look at the "Aftermath" section (WHY is it even titled "Aftermath"? Obviously someone has decided the release of the video is the cultural event of the century) and its glowing terms ("...16 million views on YouTube. With the feat," "...helped the song to soar at number one"). There are no rules about music videos not being allowed to have their own articles; well, maybe there should be a basic guideline. Otherwise you're going to end up with groupies of certain bands creating articles about videos that should just be with the original song. Summary of dispute by Magiciandude Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Status Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Sugar (Maroon 5 song) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer comment: I'm not opening this case but wanted to ask User:Chasewc91 if all the parties have been notified on their talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC) 24 hour closing notice: I just looked at the talk page and I see that there was already an orderly merge discussion and iVote. I don't see the point of rehashing that discussion here. Some might even call it forum shopping, which everyone knows we don't do. What I suggest to the filing party is that you list the merge discussion at WP:ANRFC (requests for closure) and a random, experienced editor or Admin will review the merge discussion and give a judgement as to what the consensus of the discussion was. It may be that the merge discussion yielded no consensus in which case things stay the same and no merge is made. Unless there are objections from other DRN volunteers I'm going to close this case tomorrow.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC) @Chasewc91: Pinging Chase so he sees this comment. Gloss 17:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC) My apologies for the error; I'm not super familiar with many of the dispute resolution processes. I will allow the talk page discussion to go on for a few more weeks before bringing it to ANRFC. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC) That's OK, WP is a maze of guidelines and procedures. I'm sure it was an innocent error. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Anwar Ibrahim#Hidden sex tape allegation

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Banedon on 09:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Anwar Ibrahim#Hidden sex tape allegation (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Banedon (talk · contribs) Johnuniq (talk · contribs) Mkativerata (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There was a section dealing with an allegation that Anwar was filmed in a sex tape. User Mkativerata removed the section, calling it 'rubbish'. After a couple of reverts of each others' edits he started a section on the talk page where he explained that he thinks it violates WP:BLPGOSSIP. He also created a section on the BLP noticeboard. I disputed that the section violates WP:BLPGOSSIP, which led to another editor Johnuniq calling the allegations 'nonsense', and not offering anything more than that. I tried citing WP:PUBLICFIGURE but neither editor seems to be interested in discussion, instead just dismissing me (with some rather condescending remarks too; see the talk page). Since I'm hitting a brick wall and no other editor seems to be interested, I'm bringing it to dispute resolution. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Mkativerata created a section on the BLP noticeboard, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Anwar_Ibrahim, but there's been no input there either. How do you think we can help? Decide whether the section should be included or not. If not, I'd like to know exactly which Wikipedia policy is being violated, and why. I'd also like an explanation of why WP:PUBLICFIGURE doesn't apply, and some assurance that there is a consensus to remove the section. Summary of dispute by Johnuniq Material discussing a "hidden sex tape" (permalink) is not acceptable. What do you think the result would be if someone claimed the person in that video was actually Barack Obama? Would the section then be added to his article? Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Mkativerata Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Well they say "please keep it brief". A public figure - indeed, any human being, should not have their Wikipedia page tarnished with allegations, albeit reported in the media, that they are a figure featured in a "hidden sex tape". The man has a family, for crying out loud. It is defamatory, prejudicial, unproven, and irrelevant to the subject's biography. This Wall Street Journal article comprehensively and impartially describes the political climate in which this video came to light and shows why we should be exercising so much care. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Talk:Anwar Ibrahim#Hidden sex tape allegation discussion Dear Banedon, Johnuniq and Mkativerata, Welcome to DRN. This case is now open for discussion. Please keep in mind we are here to discuss the content of the WP article only. Please do not reference other editors, their behaviors or their actions -- past, present or future. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC) WP is based on reliable sources. Please list the sources (with URLs) that report on the topic of the "sex tapes". We will then discuss them one by one in light of WP guidelines and policies.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC) There are many sources and instead of listing them I'll link the last version of the article which had the removed text. The sources in question are #60 to #67. Mkativerata showed another source above. It's my opinion that if Barack Obama were alleged to be fornicating with someone, then like with everyone else it should not be mentioned unless it is covered in multiple reliable sources over a short period of time. This is the case here. The allegations may be unproven, but still: they were covered in multiple reliable sources, including the country's main newspapers, over a short period of time. I don't see how the political climate is important, given how the sources are third-party and many are not controlled by the Malaysian government. In the same way Michael Jackson's page should have a section on the child abuse allegations made against him (even though he was acquitted), as should Dominique Strauss Kahn's page on the allegations that he raped a hotel maid. Curiously WP:PUBLICFIGURE even gives an example that's almost exactly the same as what's happening in this case. If the section is not to be included, I'd like to know why this policy does not apply. Banedon (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC) The WP:PUBLICFIGURE examples are discussing cases where reliable sources describe plausible allegations of some significance. In the case here, no source lends any credibility to the allegations at all, and I have not seen any source that does more than report a resemblance. Media outlets have to report the news-of-the-day, but an encylopedic article does not record every piece of mud. This kind of issue has been hammered out a hundred times at WP:BLPN, always with the same result—transitory gossip is not recorded; if the topic (a claim of sexual impropriety) is sufficiently important, write an article about it as done for Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. The solution is to wait six months and then consider what reliable sources are saying about the incident, see WP:NOTNEWS. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC) My understanding is that this dispute concerns this edit which removed sourced content from the article. Is that correct?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Yes, that's correct. Banedon (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Discussion of WP guidelines OK, it seems no one is challenging the secondary sources, of which there are several, that appear to be from reputable publications beginning in 2011. In that case let's look at the guidelines cited by the participants so far. WP:Censor says: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so." WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." The concern seems to be that the content on the sex tapes is "mud" and "transitory gossip"'. Could someone please specify what part of WP:GOSSIP applies to this issue in this BLP?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC) WP:BLPGOSSIP says: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." In this case, it has nowhere near been proven - and none of the reliable sources even suggest - that the material is "true" (ie that Anwar is the man in the tape). Nor, of course, is this matter relevant to his biography. The "truth" and "relevance" requirements are critical. Because of them we get to make editorial judgements to filter smear that gets reported in reliable sources and say "this isn't right for Wikipedia". As an aside, I'm not sure why you are quoting WP:CENSOR and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. In the former case, applying BLP policies to protect living persons is never a matter of censorship. In the latter case, it has not been demonstrated that this material is "noteworthy" or "relevant", so the asserted policy does not apply. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC) OK let's look at the points in the BLPGOSSIP sentence you've quoted: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable" -- There are multiple sources and so far I don't see anyone disputing this point "whether the material is being presented as true" -- Yes, the deleted content reported facts from those reliable sources "and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" -- I would answer yes to this also. The controversy surrounding Anwars alleged appearance in a sex tape has appeared in multiple reliable sources including the New York Times. Therefore, the information is notable and relevant and I see no basis in WP policy for the wholesale removal of that reliably sourced content. If you would like to discuss the wording or weight given to those sources then that is OK. But to remove it completely based on one's personal views of what is morally right or wrong, or in good taste, violates WP:CENSOR.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC) I unequivocally reject this view as a farcical and incompetent misapplication of BLP protections. It is, mercifully, in no way binding. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC) I agree with Keithbob's analysis for why the section does not violate BPLGOSSIP. I'll add that requiring some sources to actually claim that Anwar is the person appearing in the videos is a very high standard, because responsible journalists do not report as facts things they have not verified. Therefore it is to be expected that reliable sources will only report the allegations as allegations (Wikipedia has the same policy), and that is what has happened. To remove the section outright is essentially the same as making the claim that Anwar is not the person in the video, and is a leap too far for comfort. The controversy around Obama's birth certificate is excluded from his article not because of BLPGOSSIP, but because of WP:FRINGE. Furthermore even false allegations should be included if they are significant enough (again see Michael Jackson's and Dominique Strauss Kahn's pages), and that the allegations were reported in multiple reliable sources in a short period of time should be significance enough. If compromise is clearly not possible, I'll have to request mediation. Banedon (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC) You can't mediate on fundamental principles. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC) I am also concerned about agreeing to submit this to the Mediation Committee. My experience at this forum makes me worried about whether Mediation Committee members have adequate experience and competence in applying core Wikipedia policies. Some of them, I'm sure from just looking at the list, are very good. But some have very little content experience. Some have been comprehensively skewered at RfA yet made it onto MedCom, through a much easier appointment process. One day, I hope, we will have an Editorial Board to make binding content decisions. Appointees will go through an RfA-like rigorous vetting process to ensure high standards. I'm far from convinced that MedCom is a worthwhile substitute in the meantime. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC) @Keithbob: Thanks for volunteering at DRN, but you have no idea of how BLP is applied in practice—a fundamental principle is that not everything that can be sourced is suitable for inclusion in an article. Linking NOTCENSORED is absurd—please find out a little bit about that before using it in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Sorry Johnuniq but you are again saying things that have no basis in policy or fact. I have edited and developed more than 100 BLPs and written three from scratch that passed GA reveiws.see here and the projects tab here I'm the 27th most active person in the 7 yr history of the BLP noticeboard with 374 edits over 5 years. [4]. I'm also one of the most experienced and active volunteers at DRN and I'm a member of the Mediation Committee. (Don't worry I'll recuse if this case goes to mediation). If the participants would like to discuss appropriate wording and weight for the section in question I'm happy to moderate that kind of a discussion but as a DRN moderator I cannot remain silent while participants disregard core principles and guidelines and remove valid sourced content that meets the requirements of WP:BLP. If you wish to have further corroboration or participation from the community I would suggest an RfC on the talk page rather than mediation. But that is up to all of you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Well, I posted a RfC. Thanks for your time, Keithbob, and for the suggestion. Banedon (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC) You are welcome. Good luck!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AA (band) #Members

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 184.153.132.54 on 18:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute AA (band)#Members  Users involved Dr.K. (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A certain user has been engaged in an edit warring by continuously changing the page to a more sloppy, non-user friendly version that replaces the convenient member's table with a sloppy list. This user refuses to use the talk page to settle the dispute and instead has been engaging in an edit war and accusing the other party of using "socks", which is untrue as the user in question (myself) travels quite frequently so my IP naturally changes. This user is not considering the functionality of the page especially for users with disabilities who will have a much easier time referring to a table than a sloppy list. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have attempted to use the Talk page but this user refuses to have a discussion, instead opting to threaten me with a non-relevant "edit warring" policy that does not pertain to me. How do you think we can help? Require this user to use the Talk page as it was meant for instead of resorting to hostile and non-productive edit warring and threatening. Summary of dispute by Dr.K. Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Bjelleklang Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Just a quick note; this is related to an edit-war where the IP submitting this case has been pushing a BLP-violation (although a minor one) into the article. Dr.K (and others) have reverted citing the lack of sources, and as a result the IP has been blocked for 48 hours and the article semi-protected. Bjelleklang - talk 20:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC) AA (band) #Members discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Amalek

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 92slim on 17:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Amalek#Armenians as Amalekites - bias in favour of Holocaust deniers (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 92slim (talk · contribs) Zero0000 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An user (Zero0000) reverted my edit without any reason or good faith. He blatantly refuses to discuss the subject in question and even characterised my edit as having "no improvement" without willing to discuss first in the talk page, and ridiculing the description provided about this same subject, which is a fairly sensitive topic that needs addressing. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Yes, I have asked him about it on the talk page How do you think we can help? Providing a balanced view of the topic seeing as this user doesn't respond to any plea for aid on the subject Summary of dispute by Zero0000 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Amalek#Armenians as_Amalekites_-_bias_in_favour_of_Holocaust_deniers discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American Sniper (film)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by David A on 08:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. DRN volunteer summary: Create a place for discussion. Go to the Talk Page (also known as the discussion page) of the TARGET ARTICLE (the one you want to merge to) and create a section (eg: "Merger proposal") to discuss the merger. If there's already a discussion on the talk page regarding the merger, you can omit this step. Whether the discussion is new or old, make sure the discussion section names all articles involved and links to them. The section name can be anything that includes the word merge (for example ==Merger proposal==). Put one of the merger tags at the top of the articles you wish to be merged. The templates {{Merge from}} and {{Merge to}}, or {{merge}} are the most common ones. Remember to make sure that the Discuss link in each tag points to the section you've created in step 1 (this is to prevent having two separate discussions on different talk pages). If the proposed merge is controversial or potentially difficult to carry out, follow the directions under #Requests for merge assistance and feedback to add it to the list. --Mark Miller (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:American Sniper_(film)  Users involved David A (talk · contribs) MONGO (talk · contribs) DHeyward (talk · contribs) Erik (talk · contribs) Nbauman (talk · contribs) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk · contribs) Gothicfilm (talk · contribs) Silver seren (talk · contribs) Dispute overview After putting it to a vote, the official Wikipedia consensus was for the separate, i.m.h.o. excessive, Controversies page of American Sniper to be merged into the connected section of the main page. However, there have been various problems with getting anywhere. MONGO has made numerous, what I find to be crude partisan comments on the talk page. However, I don’t really have much of a problem with MONGO, as he has been willing to compromise, and put forth reasons for why certain articles should be removed. What I have far more of a problem with is that the user DHeyward decided to censor virtually everything wholesale, in fragrant violation of the official Wikipedia decision, and all the work that I put in to summarise the critical articles into one sentence each, with no compromise or Talk page discussion whatsoever. Even the New York Times has written about the controversy in articles, and The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said that the release of the movie coincided with increased threats against Arabs and Muslims, and critics of the movie have received lots of death threats, so I definitely think that the controversy is very notable. I initially compressed several of the more relevant article summaries from the controversies page into the version seen here, but after compromising to shorten it down considerably, and cut out more articles that the user MONGO objected to, it eventually ended up as the versions seen here. Due to the problems with the page, it has been temporarily locked. In the meantime, I would greatly appreciate an intervention to decide how we should proceed. Thank you very much for any help. I take offense at the allegation below regarding that I am somehow "lying". My genuine impression is that DHeyward's behaviour seems to be part of a pattern: [5] [6][7][8] [9] [10][11][12] In addition, he has compared the critics of the movie with the Ku Klux Klan, which I interpreted as very partisan. Also, here is what I compressed into this, with the positive defence of the movie afforded more room than the negative criticism. That is not unreasonable one-track POV-pushing. I simply think that the controversy is notable, and the critics made several good points, that deserve to be heard. I do however also think that IjonTichi went too far in the other direction with the massive separate page. It is sufficient with a small summary section as far as I am concerned. In addition, I have been on Wikipedia for over 9 years. Editing this article has been far from my only focus during all of that time, but I admittedly tend to get fixated on one or a few things at a time. Also, just so I am not accused of "lying" again, here are a few Talk editing differences from MONGO that I found partisan: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] In response to MONGO regarding the purpose of this, the page will stop being edit locked in a while. What then? Will it immediately be emptied from anything negative whatsoever, regardless of the significance? I think that we need to find a middle ground, and I think that I have gone to extremes to do so. But that compromise must go both ways. David A (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Yes, by repeatedly cutting away controversial articles, greatly shortening down the article summaries, making sure that the defense of the movie has been granted more article space than the negative criticism to be as fair to both sides as possible, discussion in the Talk page, and by advertising for help at Wikiproject Film. I also made a mistake in advertising for intervention to make a decision regarding the section at the Administrators' noticeboard, but then discovered this one, which seems much more suited to what I had in mind. How do you think we can help? By rendering impartial NPOV, well-informed, decisions regarding how best to proceed. As has been repeatedly brought up in the Talk page, It would also be very helpful if somebodies would be willing to help merge together the summaries into a more coherent, easily digested flow. Summary of dispute by MONGO The article is currently protected in David A's version so I have no idea what this serves. I wouldn't mind seeing more of the attack pieces pretending to be movie reviews removed. I am opposed to a standalone coatrack article because David A, who obviously opposes the movie and has been obsessed with promoting a negative overview, and this Ijon character will only use it as a parking place for every bombastic source they can conjure up with no intention to keep any any of that in perspective. In that light I assume zero good faith that these POV pushers have any interest in working in a neutral manner on this subject.--MONGO 14:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC) David A wishes to use this low quality source to back up the claim that Muslims and or anyone has experienced credible death threats since the realease of the movie...the "death threats" are all from blog postings or Twitter feeds. Weak sourcing of bombastic claims and using them in an encyclopedia is unacceptable.--MONGO 14:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC) David A. has been a textbook example of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing and while I commend him on being civil, he's still here solely with an agenda which is to advocate and push almost exclusively one POV. While he has been making some effort to compromise, he still seems to be turning a deaf ear to various policies and guidelines such as NPOV and the undue weight clause as well as Wikipedia:Criticism.--MONGO 14:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC) @TransporterMan: The consensus should be to follow guidelines and interweave high quality sources both pro and con into a "reception" section in accordance with Wikipedia:Criticism. However, the POV fork was voted for merge and the Ijon and David A. seem to think that means all the material gets placed in the article. Also, at least five other commentators at the article talk page were not informed.--MONGO 15:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC) @Silverseren, this noticeboard isn't about barring people from an article. It exists to discuss content disputes and while one can point out problems in the way a person may be a POV pusher, this venue has no ability to bar anyone from editing.--MONGO 23:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DHeyward The depiction of my edits as "censordhip" is a blatant lie. I removed the large number of puffery words that introduced rather bland comments. I removed wholly unrelated segments that have nothing to do with the movie (i.e. the announcement of "Chris Kyle Day" in Texas is a movie controversy? Really??). I removed dubious claims such as the one about threats to Arabs and Muslims coinciding with the movie - also coinciding with the movies and threats were the Paris attacks, ISIL executions of Americans and a number of other things. It's dubious to assign threats to a movie release. I condensed commentary unrelated to film. I also removed quotefarms in places where it could be condensed with a paraphrase all in accordance with MOS, including positive ones from the film director, Eastwood). This diff[29] is what the initiator calls censorship. Read each version (not in diff for, but prose) and see which one is better. The only other addition I would make is move it into the critical response area. It seems the OP wants a massively long criticism section, regardless of content or due weight. He has already claimed his only purpose here at WP is to make sure that happened. --DHeyward (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC) @Erik: I reject your characterization of "animosity" or "opining." It is neither. All the reliable sources reported a press release by ADC and never in the sources voice (i.e. the Guardian doesn't claim there is an increase in threats). ADC remarked that it was the largest spike in threats since the ground zero mosque. Our article does not mention ADC in the the ground zero mosque article. Nor are threats presented in the ADC article. Nor did ADC release anything about attributing increasing threats to ISIL beheadings or the Charlie Hebdo attacks. They are a political organization that picks and chooses what to say (and a terrorist organization according to some sources). It is editorial discretion as to whether we cover press releases. In this case, it is not significant enough to list it in the controversy section. None of the reliable sources use their own voice to state that there are any threats related to the movie. Whence, there is no opining, it's a culling of very unreliable and dubious sources making serious claims without any evidence. There is nothing signicant being removed in my edit. --DHeyward (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC) @Erik, your source for the reposnse is the "Style Blog"? really? Everyone condemns anti-arab rhetoric so the vanilla response from Warner Bros. isn't related. Want to see some really hateful speech towards Iraqi's? Go read anything said by the King of Jordan in the last week. There is nothing in the ADC press release that isnot completely swamped by positive coverage. A movie inspiring threats against arabs is so far off the table as to be a fringe viewpoint especially with current events of Charlie Hebdo and ISIL beheadings. We're lucky the King of Jordan didn't tweet all his threats or this whole thing would have exploded. It's nonsense. --DHeyward (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Also note that the ADC coverage was a one day news flash with no sustaining power or followup. ADC issues another press release blaming American Sniper for the shooting in North Carolina just this week. Zero coverage. The shooter was an avowed atheist and police believe the shooting of three Muslims was over a parking issue. --DHeyward (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC) @SilverSeren: Once again, your comments containg hyperbole without substance. I have no opinion on the film as I have not seen it. I don't know what politics you are attributing to me. I DO know that "Chris Kyle Day" in Texas has nothing to do with the film, whence I removed it from the "Controversy" section. I DO know that attributing threats of violence against arabs being attributed to the film is a fringe viewpoint not very widely held considering we've have the Charlie Hebdo attacks and ISIL beheadings and it would be difficult to isolate "film" created anger vs. reality created anger (King of Jordan is probably the most threatening statement in since the film was released). Either way, it's WP:FRINGE. I also know that widely held views, and even minority but prominent views do not need appeals to authority by name and title dropping. We, for example, don't list every Oscar committee voter that endorsed the file for Best Picture or any other awards since saying it was nominated for an Oscar is widespread. We could list every person and their title that held that view, but Appeals to Authority for viewpoints are fallacious arguments. It's a technique used to get fringe viewpoints inserted into articles and when the names and titles are removed, the remaining argument shouldn't sound like a fringe view. In this case, it does and it's clear that unless there is more widespread opinions, the ones removed are fringe. --DHeyward (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC) I'd also like to offer an alternative narration of event. The original article had the criticisms. Some editors wanted controversies to dominate the article even though it was unrelated to the movie (i.e. "Chris Kyle Day" in Texas is a "controversy" related to the film, Noam Chomsky weighs in on his opinion of Kyle but says he hasn't seen the film, etc, etc). When those off-topic items were rejected, they forked off the controversies article that included every bit of negative hyperbole, whether true or not and whether it was undue weight or not and whether it was related to the film or not. Controversies were even added about what the film did not cover from a political POV rather than a cinematic on. The consensus was to kill the POV fork and merge whatever legitimate criticism existed back into the main article (which already contained a fair amount of criticism). It was not a license or referendum to ignore the initial rejection of such material or a mandate that all material in the content fork should be added. If this were the case, POV warriors would always fork off an article and then use the inevitable "merge" result to force POV back into the main article. Relying on a "merge" consensus as a hammer to force a POV that is not neutral and weighted inappropriately by coverage in reliable sources goes against the core principles of Wikipedia. --DHeyward (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Erik To provide further context, for American Sniper (film) controversies, the conclusion of the AfD was to merge the sub-article back to American Sniper (film). The consensus was that the sub-article was a POV fork that resulted from a dispute about covering the debate on the main article. I do think that a sub-article is feasible based on the level of detail, but the beginnings of that sub-article need to come together at American Sniper (film)#Controversies itself and be properly balanced there before it can be split off solely based on the level of detail. What has happened here between editors has been political opining and accusations of POV-pushing. I feel like such stances preempt any real content-building. I think there ought to be a plan, such as listing all sources giving high-level assessments of the debate, determining the specific topics of that debate (Chris Kyle, Iraq War, Middle Easterners, sniper as an occupation, veteran support, etc) and then put together the specific material that falls under each topic. A high-level assessment can be used as a filter to determine that specific material. But there has been too much animosity all around for this to happen. As I suggested in an WP:ANI thread, an improved "Controversies" section (preferably renamed) could be developed on a draft page and imported when the consensus is that it is appropriately detailed and balanced. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC) The above summaries reflect the animosity that has taken place, which is why there is no sense of collaboration. The political opining is also visible. This shows the removal of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's statement because of the editor's own interpretation, despite the statement having been reported by numerous news outlets (I am seeing BBC News, The Guardian, CNN, Haaretz, to name a few). Even if one disagrees with the statement, it has weight by the extent of the reporting. This kind of thing makes me concerned that editors all around are projecting their biases on the presentation of content rather than following the sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC) I've started a draft at Talk:American Sniper (film)/Commentary. Judging from the coverage provided by The Guardian and The Washington Post, I'm hard-pressed to believe that it is appropriate to exclude anything about the committee's statement, including responses, from the Wikipedia article. DHeyward is opining against WP:DUE in saying this, "They are a political organization that picks and chooses what to say (and a terrorist organization according to some sources). It is editorial discretion as to whether we cover press releases." If the press release was by itself, I would agree with it, but since the committee's statement and related responses have been reported by multiple reliable sources, we would be remiss not to include that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Nbauman Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I don't know if DHeyward's edit [30] is censorship, but (1) he doesn't explain the reasons for the cuts and (2) they do violate Wikipedia's neutrality. This is a "Criticism" section being edited by somebody who disagrees with the criticism, has defended the film against that criticism, and is making the criticism weaker. It's as if you were being defended in court by a lawyer who believed you were guilty and was trying to get you convicted. For example, he changes "Matt Taibbi, of Rolling Stone Magazine" to "One critic". Matt Taibbi and Rolling Stone are notable, and by deleting their names, the significance of the criticism is weaker. He similarly deletes other names. Instead of named critics that the reader can identify, these are anonymous critics. A major source of the credibility of American Sniper is that it is based on a character who was an actual sniper and a war hero. The Criticism section cited other military men who were just as credible as Kyle, disagreed with him, and accused him of lying. For example, Kyle said that he regarded the Iraqi civilians as "savages," but another sniper disagreed and accused Kyle of ignorance and bigotry. These are legitimate criticisms, which DHeyward deleted. DHeyward and others insisted that the Criticism section was too long. We offered him a standard Wikipedia response to that complaint, by making a separate sub-article. DHeyward and others complained about the sub-article, and they finally won a consensus that it be deleted and merged with the original article. Now we're merging it in the original article, and he doesn't accept that either. I believe that we should have kept the sub-article until we reached consensus on the merge into the Controversies section in the original article. I still believe that. We should re-create the sub-article again until we reach consensus. But DHeyward's edits violate WP:NPOV, are disruptive, and make it impossible for us to write a Criticism section which will satisfy WP:NPOV, which requires a fair statement of the criticism of the movie, since it has been criticized extensively. I would like the fans of the film to let us summarize the criticisms of the film without interference. The rest of the article is yours, as it were; this section belongs to the critics. --Nbauman (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by IjonTichyIjonTichy Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I think everyone that has participated so far in this discussion (MONGO, DHeyward, David A, Nbauman, Silver seren and Erik) have expressed valid concerns and perspectives. Let's try to find a compromise. How about if we try to build the content based on Erik's suggestions? And may I recommend to change the name of the section in the article from 'Controversies' to e.g. 'Commentary' or perhaps 'Responses.' How does that sound? IjonTichy (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC) @Silver seren: In my view the section (whatever we decide to call it) could include both negative and positive commentary. For example, an analysis where the author says something like (for example, I'm just making this up quickly) "I did not like the fact the film objectified Iraqis" (followed by the author's reasoning) "but I think the film is mostly an anti-war film and I disagree with the commentators who feel the film is pro-war propaganda" (followed by the author's logic/ rationale for thinking the film is more anti-war than pro-war). Sorry for the crude way I've put this, I don't have the time to edit this to improve it, I'm extremely busy in real life. Maybe right now many of the political/ historical/ social commentary may be negative, but there is no reason why in the next few weeks we should not see articles (or book chapters etc) finding some strong positives in the sea of negativity. Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC) I've added (in an older section on the film article talk page) sources in criticism of the film and one source in support of the movie. As I said before, I think everyone's concerns and perspectives are valid and have merit. May I suggest we lay down some ground rules. May I respectfully ask that users entirely refrain from labeling other users' work as 'POV pushing' or 'coatrack' or similar attack labels. This labeling tends to put the recipient in a hostile, aggressive mood, it destroys users' enjoyment of editing the encyclopedia, and significantly reduces people's motivation to find a compromise with everybody's perspectives or positions. Attacking a user's work feels like a personal attack, even if admins don't necessarily consider it sanctionable offense. And attacking others' work with labels such as 'POV' is not acceptable here at the DRN. Attaching negative labels to a user's work tends to significantly curtail the recipient's creativity and work productivity. Let's foster a friendly, hospitable, supportive work environment where we trust each other and where we encourage each and every user who may be motivated to contribute to building a first draft. Let's place our trust in each other, especially in our 'opponents' and let's build each other's confidence and enthusiasm. The final consensus version would possibly, or even probably, look very different from the first (or second or third) rough draft(s), so may I advise for patience and calm, let's all please try to be less emotional about this and more cool and gentle and supportive of each other, especially those with whom we may otherwise disagree. I hope that users don't take this as a personal attack, I'm not saying any specific person here is more emotional rather than a logical person, I believe every user here is simultaneously both an emotional and a logical/ rational person, I believe emotions are very important and have a powerful role to play in debates, and I myself tend to get too emotional sometimes. I hope nobody thinks I'm picking on them or that I'm implying they are a roadblock to compromise, that's not my intention at all, everything I said applies to all users equally. Please let's trust each other fully without reservations, and let's all try to be supportive of each other's efforts without any criticism of each other's work for a while. After we have a first rough draft, then we should (politely) criticize the draft (not the people who wrote it) to try to reach consensus. May I respectfully suggest that users read the WP article on Brainstorming. Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Gothicfilm Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Silver seren Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This should probably be at ANI, yeah. Anyways, I think MONGO and DHeyward's POV statements and actions in the article speak for themselves. They clearly have very POV stances on the article subject and want to minimize criticism of the subject as much as possible. DHeyward has been doing that primarily by POV editing that purposefully is made to make the sources seem useless, changing their names to things like "A critic" and "Another critic", as without their actual names, it reduces their legitimacy to readers. MONGO, on the other hand, has been just making a number of negative comments toward the sources, several of which are likely BLP violations toward them. I think both of them should be barred from being involved in the article any further. SilverserenC 18:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC) @IjonTichyIjonTichy:: I feel like the section title needs to acknowledge that it is negative commentary regarding the film. Since that's what it is. It is separate from critical reception, as it isn't commentary related to the film in regards to its merits as a film, but separate negative commentary due to other issues with the film. SilverserenC 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC) @IjonTichyIjonTichy: Actually, after looking at Erik's mockup section here, i'm fine with calling the section Commentary or something similar, so long as use those something close to those subsection names, which are descriptive of what they are discussing. Though, @Erik: in the second section, I think if you're going to say "Craig Morgan criticized Michael Moore and Seth Rogen's negative assessments of the film", you should first include some sort of quote or paraphrase of what Moore and Rogen said. Otherwise, it's just confusing. SilverserenC 01:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC) @DHeyward: With every comment you make, you're just further expressing your POV stance on the subject matter. You're kinda making my point for me. SilverserenC 22:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC) American Sniper (film) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just noting to all DRN volunteers that: It appears to me that all listed parties have been adequately notified and that there has been adequate discussion on the talk page, and that I have some reservation, based on what has been said above, that this may actually be a conduct case masked by a content request. If there was a recent and clear consensus here and one or more editors continue to edit the article in a way which does not conform to that consensus, then that's disruptive editing which ought to be taken to ANI, not dealt with here. On the other hand, if it was no consensus, or a weak consensus, or a consensus (of any strength) which has now been abandoned by the editors who formed it, then this is a content case which can be handled here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC) There is a content dispute at the core, possibly with a frosting of bad behavior. Could you try to address the content issue, and we will see if the behavior issue calms naturally. If it doesn't, I will bring this to arbitration because ANI discussion already descended into an unactionable mass of accusations and counter accusations. Hopefully the parties will prefer to sort their editorial disagreements and stop feuding. Jehochman Talk 06:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Volunteer's Note 2: I'm still neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion, but wish now to make two admonishments: First, terminate all discussion until a volunteer takes this case. Until then all discussion should take place on the article talk page. If this case is accepted, you'll have a chance then to respond to one another's opening statements. Second, realize that if this case is accepted then user conduct will not be any part of the discussions here and, indeed, discussions of one anothers' biases, editing practices or habits, conflicts of interest, incivility, or anything else which is about another user will not be allowed here. If you're here to raise or discuss those kinds of things, you need to know that's not going to happen. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Aloha! I'm Mark Miller, a volunteer here at DRN. I may be willing to mediate this request if all parties agree to it. At the core of the dispute is an AFD discussion. I should note that while an AFD can suggest merging as a result of the deletion discussion, it is not actually an official "consensus to merge". That must be done at the target page where a proper template is to be placed on the article to advertise the merge request. Closing admin do not implement a merge after AFD for this reason. I also request editors participating familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policy/guidelines/procedures and criteria for neutral editing, "controversies", BLPs and the merging process.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Before I officially open this case I am going to check a number of things in review of the dispute. If there is proper reasoning to simply close this request and suggest a different venue, I may well do that per the concerns and suggestions of other DRN volunteers. I am not convinced either way yet, so give me some time and I will review this request in full.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Opening discussion for mediation Thank you to the participants for their patience. I have reviewed the article, the history, the talk page (still need to read through it in more detail) and familiarized myself with the concepts of the film, the current trial that is an ongoing, current event, and scanned through the above openings. The issue is not as complicated as I had first thought and this basically comes down to, not whether to include the content (although a consensus discussion could take place if need be on the talk page), but how and where to place it. A few of the issues appear to me as a bystander, to be that this article, about a film, is getting somewhat of a standard treatment by political sides and those feeling there is a "controversy" and placing content based on that. This began because an article was deleted and the content was suggested to be included or merged in this article. Let me remind editors that this is actually a film article. A copyrighted work in current release. The article should be broad in scope, include relevant positive, negative and neutral content based on the reliable source and the prevalence of the information. This is not a BLP or biography of the subject, so some content, not directly concerning the film may need to go elsewhere. Not much, but the article should not become a coat rack. My view is simple. The bulk should remain and the section header simply removed because there is truly nothing in the section that is a "controversy" and almost everything else is pure reaction to the film that is critical and is part of the "critical response" section. If this is reasonable to everyone we can close this. If not, we can discuss other options towards how to include the content and if there is something needing to be removed or if it should all be left out. Remember, the AFD only decided to delete the article and suggest merging the content. That is not a guarantee it will be. Another option could be to close this DRN and open a talkpage merge discussion with the proper tag to the article. Let me know. --Mark Miller (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Looks like interest in this venue may have diminished. I will place a 48 hr notice to close as stale. If no one responds in that time I will close and recommend this be kicked back to the talk page for a merge discussion with the proper template and listing at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.