Latest comment: 12 years ago50 comments6 people in discussion
See comments and recommendations by Hasteur at 00:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC), though I would add that an RFC might provide a more final outcome. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:18, 13 April 2012 (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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Regarding the relevance of a sepreate sub-section of text about a particular book that has been inserted into a general article page about a particular motorcycle. The talk page discussion has reached an impasse regarding the relevance/non-relevance of this book material to the motorbike and also, therefore, the relevance/non-relevance of sources for such.
The original deletion of the book material was reinserted by a user who has 35 out of the article's 50 edits, so there may be an issue of 'ownership' here regarding 'outsider' edits.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes (notices given by DRN clerk)
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=BMW R1100GS}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Discussion on the talk page of the article.
How do you think we can help?
Can we get some form of consensus on what consitutes relevance and trivia? For example, the added text regarding the book may be relevant to an article about the book, but non-relevant to the article about the bike.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. I've looked at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and the Wikipedia:Handling trivia essay and I find no policy or guideline which requires the inclusion or exclusion of the material removed in this edit. The essay is only an essay and is not binding in any way; the MoS guideline is, at its heart, about trivia sections not about the inclusion or exclusion of individual items which are contended to be trivia and, indeed, the third bullet point of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia sections#What this guideline is not expressly says:
"This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies."
No other policy or guideline has been brought forward to justify the inclusion or exclusion of this information, nor can I think of any which would do so. In light of that fact, then the information must be included or excluded by consensus. The information was originally introduced into the article in this edit in 2009 and has remained there until the current controversy arose with the information being, first, broken into a separate section in this edit, then removed in this edit. It has been restored by two editors since that time. The consensus policy says:
"Some discussions result in no consensus. "No consensus" means that there is no consensus either way: it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action. What the community does next depends on the context. ... In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article."
There is clearly no consensus at this point in time to support the removal of this long-existing material, so it should remain in the article until a clear consensus has been formed to remove it. If the editor wishing for the content to be removed desires to attract additional editors to the question, then a request for comments would be the best way to do so. My personal feeling is that while the material is unquestionably marginal that it could be of importance to some readers and, indeed, supports the notability of the subject of the article, so my support would be for continued inclusion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania!17:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
(2) 'No other policy or guideline has been brought forward to justify the inclusion or exclusion of this information, nor can I think of any which would do so.'
Point (2) was absolutely correct at the time on the 'other policy/guideline' issue, and I have to shoulder some blame here for not searching out the most apposite Wiki code. Apologies for that. But that is why I think it is especially important that we can now raise the following communal consensus:
Wikipedia generally does not support the addition of trivia and pop-culture sections within articles. There is a tendency for such sections to degenerate into long lists of movie and TV show appearances, song lyrics, and the like. Similarly, lists of celebrity owners of cars (etc.) tend to grow to inappropriate length. The guideline that has been widely accepted for automotive subjects is that mention of pop-culture references should be strictly limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle. It is not sufficient to note that the vehicle had a major influence on its owner or some movie or TV show — such facts belong in the article about the owner, movie or TV show."
In principle, I’ve already been arguing exactly the highlighted points above - (especially re: the importance of the motorbike to Neil Peart not being the same as the importance of Neil Peart to the motorbike's entry) - and I’ve been putting them on the entry’s (talk) page (I won’t copy/paste them all here). But this is the first time I’ve been able to present an exact Wikipedia consensus code that explicitly expresses the same.
Obviously this miscellany/relevence problem with vehicles has arisen before hence why the hard work of consensus-seeking in WP:WPACT has already been done on the subject by many other Wikipedians. (And, to be fair to Dennis Bratland (talk), perhaps he was also unaware of the existing consensus of WP:WPACT.)
I do think it is an extremely important point in principle that there is no elitism on Wikipedia and that communal consensus clarifications are seen to be enacted equally, regardless of the insistence otherwise of editors that may have some historical ‘investment’ in an entry. That’s all I ask. Thanks.
CommentWikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions is neither a policy nor a guideline (see WP:PG). WP:WPACT is useful as a minimum standard for appearances in movies and such with no well-sourced cultural impact to go with it (example). As a minimum standard, if the appearance affects the car's design, sales, etc. then you can positively say the appearance belongs in the article about the car, even if the cultural significance has no reliable sources to back it up. But that doesn't mean you then have license to delete all material that doesn't meet WP:WPACT. The more general Wikipedia policies and guidelines have precedence, and those don't justify deleting well-sourced material that is considered culturally and socially important by many reliable sources. Examples: A, B, C...
It is an error to think that the primary purpose of a Wikipedia article about a car or motorcycle is to recite the design details and engineering specifications. The policy WP:NOTMANUAL makes that point. The same policy underscores that once again with WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. AKA WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTPLOT. With regard to fiction plots, it says "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." A good article about a book is not merely a detailed recitation of the contents of the book -- a mere plot summary. On the contrary, that is kept to a minimum, and instead the critical reaction and cultural impact is the primary purpose of the encyclopedia article. It says the same thing about song lyrics -- Wikipedia is not a database of lyrics; we write articles about the effect the song had on culture, and what the critics said.
So a Wikipedia article about the BMW R1100GS motorcycle should not be mere a list of statistics and technical facts. Giving sales figures and production numbers and what kind of fuel injection it had is nice, but that's not terribly encyclopedic. The policy in fact tells us to not overdo such statistics and repair manual data. Instead, the main point of an encyclopedia article about the BMW R1100GS should be the critical reception and the cultural impact. Neil Peart's book is perhaps the greatest cultural effect of this motorcycle. The policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not has precedence and tell us to do almost the opposite of WP:WPACT in this case. Provided authoritative sources exist to support it, and for Peart's Ghost Rider, as with the examples of the Brough SS100, XR-750, and CB77 linked above, sources are copiously available.
Dear Dennis, the first argument you presented on the article talk page was: ‘I found several sources that show that Peart did not ride just any motorcycle. It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS. See[1][2][3][4]'.
Now, that appears well sourced. But, when we look more closely:
source [1] simply says - ‘BMW off-road machine owned by Neal Peart of the Canadian rock band Rush’ source [2] is a six-page/1,400 word excerpt showing ONE mention of the bike and it is only: ‘his wife Jackie bought him a BMW R100GS for Christmas 1993’. source [3] is a magazine exerpt that does not even mention the bike by name. source [4] is a Google page with 10 search results - 3 are about motorbikes but none mention the R1100GS; the other 7 results are websites for pedal bikes not motorbikes.
So, this is very weak sourcing (in fact, most should be deleted), and none of it proves the opening claim, yet it is presented as if conclusive. It actually more proves why the Peart/book section should not be included on the R1100GS bike's entry page.
YOUR POINTS: (1)'WP:WPACT is useful as a minimum standard for appearances in movies and such.'
No, it is not just ‘for appearances in movies’ - please note: PACT states ‘It is not sufficient to note that the vehicle had a major influence on its owner,or some movie or TV’ - so the movie appearance point is secondary to the primary point of relationship to owner. You are skipping the primary point (which applies here) and leapfrogging over it to a secondary point (which doesn't apply).
(2)'Don't justify deleting well-sourced material that is considered culturally and socially important by many reliable sources.Examples: A, B, C...'
As has been demonstrated in first paragraph - (re: [1],[2],[3],[4]) - it is NOT well sourced and the so-called ‘cultural significance‘ is highly questionable. ‘Cultural significance’ is a phrase that should be used sparingly and only where it applies (i.e. the drummer in a non-culturally significant rock band using a motorbike is nowhere near a definition of cultural significance - So, your example, source A, is of the genuinely significant figure of TE Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) dying on a certain motorbike. But this only proves the case for deletion of the Peart book and disproves the case for inclusion - because: TE Lawrence, culturally significant? - Yes. Neil Peart? - No).
(3) Your example, source C, is the most damning - it first seems to prove that the book ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’ should be on the entry page for the Honda CB77... but really it shouldn't. And you agree, because, if we look in the revision history, we can see that you yourself deleted mention of the book on the bike page because ‘(Make and model motorcycle isn't mentioned in the novel.)’ - Revision as of 02:35, 6 April 2011 (edit) - but now you seek to use it as proof of the opposite? This doesn't make sense.
It makes even less sense when the next day, without explanation, you reinserted the ’Zen’ piece with a subject heading and some references. But references are not adequate support for material that should not be there in the first place - then it just becomes referenced trivia rather than unreferenced trivia. So the reason you first deleted it still stands. Which is exactly the point. And this is the same point that applies to the Peart book section on the R100GS entry.
Again, your ‘evidence’ here unintentionally proves the case for deletion of Peart’s book and not for its continued inclusion. And also further proves the relevance of WP:WPACT
(4) 'It is an error to think that the primary purpose of a Wikipedia article about a car or motorcycle is to recite the design details and engineering specifications. The policy WP:NOTMANUAL makes that point.'
I'm afraid that is cherry-picking policy points; the policy article you quote also says ‘In any encyclopaedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful’ and ‘there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done’. And removing non-culturally significant information does not reduce the R1100GS page to a handbook. You seem to be using criteria for what shouldn’t be there as justification for what should. One does not follow from the other; included information has to stand independently.
(5) 'It says the same thing about song lyrics -- Wikipedia is not a database of lyrics; we write articles about the effect the song had on culture, and what the critics said.'
Again, this speaks to cultural significance - which your previous sources have failed to establish - and the policy quote regarding books and songs does not indiscriminately apply to all books and songs - it would only be relevant to the ones where a good case could be shown. That is the whole point.
(6) 'Giving sales figures and production numbers and what kind of fuel injection it had is nice, but that's not terribly encyclopaedic. The policy in fact tells us to not overdo such statistics and repair manual data.
Well, ‘not overdoing’ statistics is a point in and of itself : it is not a point that justifies other non-significant inclusions. The two are not linked.
(7) 'Neil Peart's book is perhaps the greatest cultural effect of this motorcycle.'
Once again, cultural effect not proven; (and such effect the book might have would come from Peart's description of how travel can help with grief, not how a particular motorbike can do that).
(8) 'Provided authoritative sources exist to support it, and for Peart's Ghost Rider, as with the examples of the Brough SS100, XR-750, and CB77 linked above, sources are copiously available.'
Here you raise for a second time the examples of your 1,2,3,4 and A,B,C 'sources' that have really been proven very weak (or non-existent) and even contradictive to your own case. Those examples still more heavily make the case for non-inclusion of the Peart book material.
(9) 'If anything, WikiProject Automobiles ought to either delete or rewrite WP:WPACT so as to cease the appearance of contradicting policy.'
This is so hubristic it almost offends: to argue for the deletion (seriously?) of a useful and hard-earned Wikipedia consensus just because it does not support your own personal view says something, I think, about even the proposer's own lack of confidence in the evidence provided (and especially when you have cited WP;PACT yourself.)
I would humbly suggest that the proposal to keep the Peart book section is a classic form of ‘overvaluation’ and 'over defense' of the material. Fan fervour can be good - without great enthusiasm there would be no Wikipedia - but it can also effect objectivity. (And not sure why motorcylists seem particularly aggressive about 'their' edits - is it something to do with the tightness of the riding suits?)
Hope this hasn't been too long (but, well, what else have we got to do...)
I have not yet been involved in this discussion but I have just looked at the article and section in question, the WP guidelines on relevance and WP:WPACT. From the perspective of a fresh set of eyes on this article, the Ghost Rider section, as now written, does not appear to have a strong relevance to the article. But I think the connection could become more apparent by revising the language of that section. What throws the reader off is that the focus of the section as written is Neil Pearl, not the motorcycle. I would think that someone who has read the book could find a perspective there that emphasizes the characteristics of the motorcycle/the experience of the motorcycle as crucial to the author's healing process. A brief but prominent mention of these might bring the section back onto the topic of this article. If it's not there in the book, then the section does not seem relevant.Coaster92 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Re: comment 04:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
From my sourced and researched rebuttal of the argument against deletion there is perhaps one word ('hubristic'), and there is, at the end, a small joke about the tightness of riding suits(!), which was an obvious attempt to lighten any ranquor that may have developed during this discussion (levity is allowed; we are humans, not bots!). So I think that hardly constitutes the description above of 'getting far out of hand'.
(Note: Unless the user Dennis Bratland is referring to the use of the word 'aggressive' in the lighthearted aside about riding suits; in which case I'd like to refer Dennis back to his own quote on the BMW R1100GS [Talk] page: "I aggressively deleted mention of the movie as trivia," - Dennis Bratland'. (Also important to note, even over guidelines such as good faith, Wikipedia policy clearly states that this 'does not prohibit discussion and criticism.' And criticism is not the same as uncivility.)
However, the most important thing here is this:
If we concentrate on the evidence provided regarding the original sources that supposedly support inclusion of the Peart material - (please see [1], [2], [3], [4] and A, B, C mentioned in 'Comment') - we can see that have all those 'sources' have been proved upon examination not to stand up and to not prove the case for inclusion. This is the only evidence that matters.
Crucially, when new editors are introduced to this discussion (the Peart material has already been described as 'unquestionably marginal') and thereby also introduce what Coaster92 above accurately calls 'the perspective of a fresh set of eyes on this article', it can be objectively seen that the separate section on Peart would be much more suited to an article on Peart himself and not in this BMW R1100GS article.
Another important point identified by Coaster92 is one previously raised in the longer 'Comment' post - 'and such effect the [Peart] book might have would come from Peart's description of how travel can help with grief, not how a particular motorbike can do that'
I contend there is no strong case for relevance to the article and we have yet to see any evidence presented that meaningfully rebuts that. There also appears to be increasing consensus for deletion until relevant sources prove otherwise ("Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument" - WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS)
Also see - Talk for further evidence of the Peart material’s inability to pass Wikipedia Google Test WP:SET . A Google search (Re: the WP:SET for Wikipedia criteria for relevance) reveals that in Google search results for the term 'BMW R1100GS' there is no mention of a drummer called Peart in connection with the bike. Similarly, even in the first 14 pages of Google Images under the term 'BMW R1100GS', there is no image of the drummer and the bike.)
Doing... With regard to Coaster92's suggestion (and what I said back on March 15) to expand the section to include specifics from the book as to why it mattered that Peart rode a BMW R1100GS and not just any motorcycle, I'm gathering citations from the book Ghost Rider, as well as from Clement Salvadori's June 2003 review in Rider magazine, and Brian Catterson's article in Cycle World, February 2003. So the problem should be fixed shortly. Any impatient editors may of course take matters in their own hands and use these sources, or other sources, to do the expansion themselves. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Re: Dennis Bratland's Doing..., the below text is taken from the BMW R1100GS page and establishes that the task of trying to prove that the R1100Gs is like no other bike is an impossible one:
"The BMW R1100GS is a dual-sport motorcycle that was manufactured from 1993 to 1999 by BMW Motorrad in Berlin, Germany.[1] The bike has a 1,085 cc (66.2 cu in) flat-twin (boxer) engine, first seen in the R1100RS which was launched the year before in 1992,[1] and was the first member of the GS family to use an air- and oil-cooled engine rather than the earlier air-cooled airhead engines which had been used on BMW motorcycles since the R32 in 1923. From 1996 to 2001, a sister model, the smaller capacity 848 cc (51.7 cu in) R850GS, was produced. In 1999, the R1100GS was superseded by the R1150GS."
So it is clear that there is nothing particular about the R1100GS over other bikes. For example - the R11000RS was produced the year before the GS and is very similar, they even share an engine. Also, the R1100GS was then replaced by the almost identical R1150GS and the R1150GS Adventure - if you look at the tech specs it will confirm this. (The R1150GS was produced in 1999 and Peart made his trip in 2002. See here for dual-sport range: BMW dual-sport range)
As an example of the this-bike-versus-that-bike argument that this could descend into, this is the first evidence I found (and there was much more out there) on an Internet search regarding R1100GS vs R1150GS:
"Both bikes have their advantages. If you're planning on doing lots of highway miles at high speeds, go with the overdrive equipped 1150. The 1150's two-piece exhaust system also makes it easier to swap cans. Lots of people who go off the tarmac prefer its lower gearing of the 1100, and you get good roll-on grunt in most gears in the twisties. The 1100's also a bit lighter and the headlight works better once you add a juiced up bulb. I liked my 1100 a lot-- my main beef with it was highway wind protection, but the 1150 wouldn't be any better. It was also nice not having servo-assisted brakes."
They are clearly very, very similar. And this is just ONE example of another model that could have been used by Peart; and these are just the similar bikes from the BMW range - if we introduced other manufacturers then the list would grow longer.
So however much Peart might eulogise in his book about how much he loves his R1100GS, and even if a passage could be found where he says he wouldn't use any other bike, it doesn't matter - because the R1100GS is a bike that could have been replaced by another of BMW’s dual-sport range or, indeed, another suitable dual-sport motorbike. And, crucially, that would still be true whether Peart knew it or not - which is a very, very important point.
So:
There has been evidence presented above that the reference/sources for including the Peart/book material is weak or in some instances non-existant.
There has been no rebuttal of this evidence.
There have been 3 other Wikipedia editors - Coaster92, Iglooflame, 842U - independant of this discussion that have expressed their view that the Peart/book material does not belong on the motorbike page.
There is ample evidence that very similar motorbikes exist that could have been used instead
Based on all this and the consensus that has emerged, the Peart/book section on the the entry BMW R1100GS should be deleted.
The section on the books seems entirely forced. Parts of the discussion here and the article talk suggest that there is an intrinsic quality in a BMW R1100GS that may be construed by the reader as "healing." This anecdote might more appropriately belong in an article on placebo effect, transference or — better yet — Jesus Toast. It detracts from the overall credibility of the article.842U (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This is consensus? Looks a lot like ongoing disagreement to me. I don't know why it has become urgent to delete the section just when I'm in the midst of providing the improvements that were requested in order to justify keeping it. But now all of a sudden an artificial deadline exists? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This edit summary should be addressed as well. "this whole section seems like a square peg in a round hole -- like an anecdote forced the article. Just get rid of it." So what if it is an anecdote? An anecdote is a story, or narrative that is interesting or humorous. Wikipedia does not have an official bias against narrative, even if some editors push that point of view. In fact, as implied by WP:NOT, piles of statistics are not what Wikipedia is really about. Social and cultural meaning is just as important as a lot of cold data, and most featured articles have more narrative, not less, than mediocre articles.
Wikipedia's systemic bias shows on many car and motorcycle articles: favoring engineering facts over social meaning, as a result of the white, male, technical-oriented background of the majority of editors. Favoring physical facts over human relationships. And then we have the bias against offline sources, the FUTON bias. Looking at the world through a lens of only "full text on the net" information makes a woefully distorted picture. It's obvious, once again, that a deletionist opinion is being championed by editors who clearly have not laid eyes on the offline sources: Peart's book itself, and Clement Salvadori and Brian Catterson's reviews, to name three. If you haven't gone to a library and read the offline sources, then assume editors who have read them might just be right. As explained in the Wikipedia pillar policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:SOURCEACCESS "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why this issue has gone back to edit warring? [5][6]. I'm looking at WP:CLOSE and I don't see anything that says one of the disputants can just declare themselves the winner and pretend it's resolved. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It also needs to be pointed out that 842U (talk·contribs) was recruited to edit BMW R1100GS and to come and stack the vote on this dispute, and then proceeded to do both those things just as requested. The reason the anonymous IP chose 842U was because he had previously had disagreements with me on other articles, and so whoever is behind 62.254.173.13(talk·contribs·WHOIS) thought they'd be able to tip the consensus their way by canvassing. The guideline says it is inappropriate to engage in "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)."
And lo and behold, after 842U was canvassed, he graciously piled on, and Rivercard declared the issue decided in his own favor. Oh, and he helped Rivercard's edit war, as if that solves anything.
Point-by-point reply below inclduing summations of previous and earlier evidenced replies.
(1) * The intitial sources chosen to support the inclusion of the Peart/book material as relevant/notable have been proved to be inadequate. No new evidence has been presented to replace to the initial sources. See (also above)
"Dear Dennis, the first argument you presented on the article talk page was: ‘I found several sources that show that Peart did not ride just any motorcycle. It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS. See[7][8][9][10]'.
Now, that appears well sourced. But, when we look more closely:
source [1] simply says - ‘BMW off-road machine owned by Neal Peart of the Canadian rock band Rush’ source [2] is a six-page/1,400 word excerpt showing ONE mention of the bike and it is only: ‘his wife Jackie bought him a BMW R100GS for Christmas 1993’. source [3] is a magazine exerpt that does not even mention the bike by name. source [4] is a Google page with 10 search results - 3 are about motorbikes but none mention the R1100GS; the other 7 results are websites for pedal bikes not motorbikes.
So, this is very weak sourcing (in fact, most should be deleted), and none of it proves the opening claim, yet it is presented as if conclusive. It actually more proves why the Peart/book section should not be included on the R1100GS bike's entry page."
Also see further evidence earlier regarding the similar and comparable weakness of the supposed A,B,C sources. (Above, under 'Your Points')
(2) * The above evidence has been presented not just once but, when it received no answer, presented again in summation further down the debate. See:
"However, the most important thing here is this: If we concentrate on the evidence provided regarding the original sources that supposedly support inclusion of the Peart material - (please see [1], [2], [3], [4] and A, B, C mentioned in 'Comment') - we can see that have all those 'sources' have been proved upon examination not to stand up and to not prove the case for inclusion. This is the only evidence that matters."
NOTE: these are the supposed primary sources presented in support of the case for inclusion and yet, upon research, they clearly do not present any meaningful support.
(3) * The proposed Peart/book bike connection does not pass established Wikipedia Google Test criteria:
"Addendum: Also see - Talk for further evidence of the Peart material’s inability to pass Wikipedia Google Test WP:SET . A Google search (Re: the WP:SET for Wikipedia criteria for relevance) reveals that in Google search results for the term 'BMW R1100GS' there is no mention of a drummer called Peart in connection with the bike. Similarly, even in the first 14 pages of Google Images under the term 'BMW R1100GS', there is no image of the drummer and the bike.) Rivercard (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
(4) The added and contested material falls within the purview of and does not eet the criteria of WP:WPAC.
(5) * Also, to re-highlight the point made by another editor who reviewed this case:
"Another important point identified by Coaster92 is one previously raised in the longer 'Comment' post - 'and such effect the [Peart] book might have would come from Peart's description of how travel can help with grief, not how a particular motorbike can do that'."
(6) * Point (5) then leads on to the final stage of attempting to prove relevance/notablility by trying to find evidence that proves the R1100GS was the only bike that Peart could have used, thus making it inextricably linked with the experience. However, no evidence has been presented to prove this and, in fact, there is ample evidence that shows other motorbikes could have been used. See earlier evidence after 'Doing' section of the debate - and see excerpt below:
"RE: Dennis Bratland's Doing..., the below text is taken from the BMW R1100GS page and establishes that the task of trying to prove that the R1100Gs is like no other bike is an impossible one:
"The BMW R1100GS is a dual-sport motorcycle that was manufactured from 1993 to 1999 by BMW Motorrad in Berlin, Germany.[1] The bike has a 1,085 cc (66.2 cu in) flat-twin (boxer) engine, first seen in the R1100RS which was launched the year before in 1992,[1] and was the first member of the GS family to use an air- and oil-cooled engine rather than the earlier air-cooled airhead engines which had been used on BMW motorcycles since the R32 in 1923. From 1996 to 2001, a sister model, the smaller capacity 848 cc (51.7 cu in) R850GS, was produced. In 1999, the R1100GS was superseded by the R1150GS."
So it is clear that there is nothing particular about the R1100GS over other bikes. For example - the R11000RS was produced the year before the GS and is very similar, they even share an engine. Also, the R1100GS was then replaced by the almost identical R1150GS and the R1150GS Adventure - if you look at the tech specs it will confirm this. (The R1150GS was produced in 1999 and Peart made his trip in 2002. See here for dual-sport range: BMW dual-sport range)"
"So however much Peart might eulogise in his book about how much he loves his R1100GS, and even if a passage could be found where he says he wouldn't use any other bike, it doesn't matter - because the R1100GS is a bike that could have been replaced by another of BMW’s dual-sport range or, indeed, another suitable dual-sport motorbike. And, crucially, that would still be true whether Peart knew it or not - which is a very, very important point."
So:
There has been evidence presented that the supposed reference/sources for including the Peart/book material are extremely weak or in some instances non-existant.
There has been no rebuttal of the presented evidence revealing the source weakness.
There have been other Wikipedia editors independant of this discussion that, upon reviewing the evidence, have expressed their view that the Peart/book material does not belong on the motorbike page.
The contested material cannot pass simple Wikipedia Google Test WP:SET or WP:WPACT
There is ample evidence that very similar motorbikes exist that could have been used instead, so invalidating claims to notability of this particular model of bike to the Peart/book.
Based on all of this and the consensus that has emerged both through strength of argument and research and contributions, the case for the deletion of the Peart/book section has been proved and the case for inclusion has been refuted in all the relevant instances - and so it seems a perfectly logical and commonsense conclusion to all this that the non-relevant material on the article page should be deleted.
(PS. I'd also contend that a deletion of the material based on the lengthy and detailed presentations above does not warrant the description 'edit war' (as mentioned earlier); but I would also contend that a deletion that is revertedwithout presenting any further or new evidence for inclusion would more likely fall closer to the edit war description.)
I really have to wonder how a dispute like this can ever be resolved. What are the odds that any disinterested, objective editor is going to read these appallingly long comments? Look at the other discussions on this page. Is anybody else posting 9,000 character long comments? Literally, each of Rivercard's comments is long enough to be a stand alone Wikipedia article. The effect of this filibustering is to exclude third opinions and limit the discussion to highly motivated partisans who were recruited because they have an axe to grind (*cough* 842U, Iglooflame). Maybe we need to declare a mistrial and start over from square one, but next time WP:BECONCISE. And no more canvassing.
Be that as it may, if the issue is that the GS1100R is not distinct enough from the other the BMW GS adventure touring bikes -- after all, BMW's David Rob said, "We had 19 models covering just two and a half market segments" -- then I'd be happy to move the Ghost Rider section to BMW GS and call this resolved. Which is not to say that the bizarrely high standard that the GS1100R must be the only bike on Earth Peart could have used is reasonable. WP:CONPOL simply doesn't work like that. I'm just trying to be accommodating. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
RE: the above: The dispute can be solved by clear evidence being presented that proves the case for deletion - and that has already been comprehensively done. It's no more complicated than that. (Though I notice you are not disputing the content of the evidence, you are just saying there is too much of it!)
You raise points only to then complain about other Wikipedians actually disproving those points. But that is contrary to a central ethos of Wikipedia.
There’s an important difference between concision (being concise) and length. So a comment could be short but still be off-topic and non-relevant; just as a comment could be longer but still be on-topic and relevant. It is the content that is important, not the length. And a perfect example of that is your own last 3 comments which may have been short but also have been off-topic and non-relevant to the case evidence.
(There has already been a failed attempt to derail this discussion with false accusations, so better to spend time on the actual case.)
The (1-6) blue-numbered list above is a clear layout of evidence proving the case for deletion - each numbered point is concise in itself. If you don't like the amount of evidence presented then I suggest that that is because it disproves your case. (In the other words, if the evidence proved the case, there would be no complaint.)
You are of course free to refute the evidence. But the fact that the evidence has not been refuted is revealing.
You say - 'the bizarrely high standard that the GS1100R must be the only bike on Earth Peart could have used' - but this so-called 'bizarrely high standard' was one first introduced by yourselfHEREwhen you said - 'Peart did not ride just any motorcycle. It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS' . And that's why I took the time to find evidence that disproved the point.
BUT you now admit yourself that BMW themselves said"We had 19 models covering just two and a half market segments" - but you only admit NOW that you already knew this, after we've been through:
Why did you not admit you knew this at the beginning? Your whole case has been falsely founded on this point! And, in effect, you have just disproved your own case.
And moving the Peart/book section to a generic BMW GS article would not be a solution, because it presents exactly the same type of problem - that in the vast world of motorbike manufacturing there are other brand makes of dual-sport bike that could have been used.
Unlike today, in 1997 there were not a dozen models of adventure-touring dual sports. At that time, there were few motorcycles on the market which could both traverse mud bogs and rocky goat trails, as described in Ghost Rider, and travel for hundreds of miles well above the freeway speed limit in relative comfort. He got a lot of speeding tickets. Peart often rode 500 miles in one day. You can't push a fully-loaded, 37 bhp 1997 Kawasaki KLR650 to do that for fourteen solid months and 55,000 miles. One of the reasons BMW GS imitators have proliferated in the last decade is due to the popularity of travelogues like Ghost Rider. But how can that influence ever be proven to a Wikipedia editor who is on single-minded mission to poke holes in it? Hence the impossibility of meeting a "strict" rule written in WP:WPACT, and the need to change WP:WPACT to conform to the lower, and more realistic standards of MOS:TRIVIA and WP:CONPOL. Oh, and the fact that Peart often found himself hundreds of miles from a BMW dealership, in need of parts and repairs. Had he been on a Honda -- had Honda built the kind of bike Peart needed in 1997, as they do in 2012 -- the types of hardships Peart overcame would have been much different. There are hundreds of Honda dealers in Canada, not the dozen or so BMW shops. Forget about the South American leg of the journey.
So if now the real issue is that the presence of a section on Ghost Rider is causing grievous harm and must be deleted immediately because there's not enough citations to show why the bike matted, but that's all good once the citations are added, then how about this. Close this dispute, and give others time to gather the page numbers to fully cite the 455 page book, and the other sources, and then when the expanded Ghost Rider section is put back in the article, hold your fire and don't delete it.
(And no, putting everything in bold is not the same as making it concise. It just looks like angry shouting. And, still, I'm not going to refute your worst, most illogical arguments. When an unbiased editor sees them, they are instantly refuted and I don't need to waste time on them.)
Considering all the canvassing shenanigans, and the crapflooding that has driven off third opinions, I don't see any way this can be closed as resolved in your favor. There are consequences for behavior like canvassing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Again you're missing a crucial point: as has already been stated, it doesn't matter what is in the book because - "however much Peart might eulogise in his book about how much he loves his R1100GS, and even if a passage could be found where he says he wouldn't use any other bike, it doesn't matter - because the R1100GS is a bike that could have been replaced by another of BMW’s dual-sport range or, indeed, another suitable dual-sport motorbike. And, crucially, that would still be true whether Peart knew it or not."
And you have admitted to exactly that same point a few paragraphs ago in your own quote from BMW's David Rob about the BMW range of bikes when you said: 'after all, BMW's David Rob said, "We had 19 models covering just two and a half market segments" '
This all means that even if Peart genuinely thought there was no other bike he could have used, he would have actually been wrong. And information cannot be included if it is based on erroneous beliefs, however geuninely they were held at the time.
(ps: For the record and FYI: bold is classed as highlighting, not shouting...)
So then what is the problem with ignoring all the fussy little differences between BMW's many adventure bikes and putting it in BMW GS? And it wasn't just Peart's opinion. It was Catterson's and Salvadori's too. And those are only two sources. I could pile on more. I'm not here because I have a grudge against another editor *cough*. I'm here because Wikipedia policy is to follow where the sources lead us. If the experts say the bike mattered because of the lovely shade of red paint, then we give the sources their due. Have we forgotten that the premier motorcycle museum in the US put this bike (not just any bike) on display? Maybe the museum curators know something...
I don't understand the "another suitable dual-sport" nonsense. He could have done an epic trip by bicycle (that's another Peart book...) but it would have been much different. On a bike with half the horsepower, it would have been a different, much shorter, tour. There was no other dual sport motorcycle in 1997 that could have made this particular, highly notable, trip except one of BMW's GS bikes. Just because some Wikipedia editor has a pet theory that any other bike would do, published motorcycle experts Neal Peart, Brian Catterson, Clement Salvadori, and the Motorcycle Hall of Fame museum curators, to name four, beg do differ. Your opinions are unsourced original research. If you have a good source who published the opinion that Peart, Catterson, Salvadori and the AMA were mistaken, then cite it and we'll describe the controversy in neutral fashion. Otherwise, there is no controversy in the real world; only a Wikipedia artificial controversy.
(And it wasn't only a paean to the BMW bike. Many of Peart's troubles could be traced to the difficulty in getting parts and repairs, and to BMW's infamous complexity and overengineering, for his niche market bike. And by the way, Peart's very first motorcycle was a gift from his departed, lamented wife. She gave him a -- wait for it -- BMW! I know Wikipedia is biased against emotion and the human face of relationships, but Wikipedia also has a policy to try to overcome that bias. This is not a one-dimensional tale.)--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)<
‘So then what is the problem with ignoring all the fussy little differences between BMW's many adventure bikes and putting it in BMW GS?’
The problem is that in the same way that the R1100GS is not a unique model - as you have now inadvertently admitted - then neither is the GS range uniquely distinctive enough to warrant inclusion.
Another problem is that you have now admitted - albeit unintentionally - that you knew the R1100GS wasn’t unique - which means you are suddenly abandoning an argument you have maintained for over 3 weeks! - and it also means you were not arguing in good faith.
And now, instead, you want to start another debate over the uniqueness of the GS range? It is the same unprovable, unsustainable argument dressed up in different clothes. (And how can we trust that you even believe it yourself, after you’ve argued so long for something you now admit you knew wasn’t true?)
And on top of all that, you are now saying that the R1100GS is distinctive because of a certain kind of unreliability? That doesn’t make any common sense - because any other bike that was as unreliable or similarly unreliable or comparably unreliable would have given Peart very similar problems to deal with. Again proving the BMW wasn’t unique in either model or range.
You seem to be saying that the Ghost Rider book section should be included because Peart used a bike that broke down in a way that no other motorbike breaks down (!). Which is an incredibly odd and disingenuous argument - And certainly an argument that does not stand up to examination.
I think anyone taking the time to read the ample evidence above can see that it does disprove the case for uniqueness. And it also proves ther case for deleting the article section material. And if the case against deletion has degenerated to the level of the arguments that are now being advanced, then I think that in a way that says as much about your case as I could.
OK. Fine. Name a motorcycle made before 1997 that could have served just as well as one of BMW's big twins?
("You seem to be saying that the Ghost Rider book section should be included because Peart used a bike that broke down in a way that no other motorbike breaks down" This is an example of one of the fallacious arguments I generally don't bother with. Scroll up and read what I wrote again. Keep re-reading until you spot the fallacy. Hint: the reason you find it so "incrediby [sic] odd" is that in your zeal to detect errors, your reading comprehension has failed you. Try assuming I'm as intelligent as I appear to be, following the principle of charity. Imagine how much time we could have saved had you done that. ) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
As a counterpoint, here is an edit from just this morning that gives a genuine example of what WP:WPACT is actually meant for. Notice the total lack of third party citations? A careful search turns up zero quality sources that mention the model of bike in the Austin Powers Goldmember film. If good sources had noted it, it would satisfy WP:TRIVIA and WP:CONPOL. WP:WPACT has been applied for the last 3 years in a way consistent with the spirit and letter of the controlling WP policies, until this BMW R1100GS case, where the strict wording of WP:WPACT is being applied literally, revealing the inconsistency with policy. Hence the need to ignore to flawed Automobile Convention and rely on actual Policies and Guidelines. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
'You seem to be saying that the Ghost Rider book section should be included because Peart used a bike that broke down in a way that no other motorbike breaks down" This is an example of one of the fallacious arguments I generally don't bother with.' - Well, you really should bother with it because that argument is not mine, it is yours. I was simply summising it. Again, you are finding fault with your own contentions. Re: 'Many of Peart's troubles could be traced to the difficulty in getting parts and repairs, and to BMW's infamous complexity..' So you advance an argument only to then deny it when it is disproved. Which is, that another bike could also have presented difficulties for Peart to deal with. (So no zeal at all is needed to detect such errors, just simple logic.)
I also notice that you are not addressing the question that after 3 weeks of discussion - and 3 weeks of you asserting the uniqueness of the R1100GS - you have now just abandoned that argument. You abandoned it after you quoted BMW's David Rob describing the proliferation of models - and it's a quote which unintentionally revealed your own bad faith in this discussion. Imagine how much time we could have saved had you not embarked upon an argument that even you did not believe.
There's plenty of evidence above that disproves the case for admitting into the BMW R1100GS article a separate section on a book called Ghost Rider just because it features a R1100GS bike. Rivercard (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
BMW R1100GS (Reopened) section break 4
So in my first edit on this issue, at 12:58 GMT, 15 March 2012, my edit summary said "With minimal research, it can be cited why it mattered that Peart rode an R1100GS. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. see WP:POINT"
Next, I followed up on the talk page, at 13:01 GMT, 15 March 2012, where I wrote "It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS." and linked to four sources.
A scant 3 hours later, before anybody else commented, I added to the talk page 16:00, 15 March 2012: "Furthermore, the basic reason why this is relevant is that the sources tell us that it is relevant. Wikipedia is, ideally, a slave to its sources, and has no need of editors' opinions." I also said, "The only issue is that the section on Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road should be expanded to explain more about the role the bike played," which Coaster92 echoed later: "I would think that someone who has read the book could find a perspective there that emphasizes the characteristics of the motorcycle/the experience of the motorcycle as crucial to the author's healing process." Not counting votestacking brought in by canvassing for editors with a grudge, we have consensus on that, and right there should be where this is resolved.
Since then I have repeated again and again that the fundamental reason for keeping this is because the sources tell us it is relevant. The secondary argument can also be made that it should be kept because it mattered that the bike was a BMW GS, but that has not been the main argument since March 15. March 15 was Day One of this dispute. So the "uniqueness" argument was the only argument for exactly 3 hours, not 3 weeks.
So all this business about having only argued for the uniqueness for 3 weeks and then abandoning that argument is demonstrably false. Can we drop it? I don't even know why you think other editors will support deletion of content on the grounds that some other editor supposedly changed his mind about which argument to make. It's ad hominem, and so has no bearing on the real issue.
By the by, both Elen of the Roads and Dennis Brown have stated that the deleted section must be restored until this dispute is resolved. Since 842U seems to have lost interest, can you take care of that? Elen of the Roads also cited even more instances, where media appearances have community support, further undermining WP:WPACT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey! I almost forgot. Please tell me the name of which motorcycle made before 1997 could have been a substitute for a BMW GS. Obviously, it's not the main argument, but if you can't even think of one equivalent bike, then we don't even need to waste much time on the further arguments. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
We've been over this ground, above, more than once - But you seem to want it reiterating again:
You said: "it can be cited why it mattered that Peart rode an R1100GS" and "It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS" - First, good to see you're admitting that your contention was that you thought it mattered that the bike was an R1100GS. Second, there's ample evidence above (see Blue-numbered summation) that your claim is erroneous and that there is no proof that R1100GS was uniquely the only bike. Third, also good to see that even you yourself have finally admitted that Peart could have used another bike, when you quoted BMW's David Rob saying:
"Be that as it may, if the issue is that the GS1100R is not distinct enough from the other the BMW GS adventure touring bikes -- after all, BMW's David Rob said, 'We had 19 models covering just two and a half market segments' " - Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You said: '"It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS." and linked to four sources.' You have tried to use this dubious 4-source argument before - see above after 'BMW R1100GS (Reopened) section break 1' - and the answer then is the same as the answer now:
Comment
The first argument you presented on the article talk page was: ‘I found several sources that show that Peart did not ride just any motorcycle. It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS. See[11][12][13][14]'.
Now, that appears well sourced. But, when we look more closely:
source [1] simply says - ‘BMW off-road machine owned by Neal Peart of the Canadian rock band Rush’ source [2] is a six-page/1,400 word excerpt showing ONE mention of the bike and it is only: ‘his wife Jackie bought him a BMW R100GS for Christmas 1993’. source [3] is a magazine exerpt that does not even mention the bike by name. source [4] is a Google page with 10 search results - 3 are about motorbikes but none mention the R1100GS; the other 7 results are websites for pedal bikes not motorbikes.
So, this is extremely weak sourcing no matter how many times you mention it. And none of it proves your opening claim (yet it is presented as if conclusive). It actually more proves why the Peart/book section should not be included on the R1100GS bike's entry page.
Re: the question of thinking of another bike. This is simply negative proof arguing. Meaning, the burden of proof lies with you to prove the 'uniqueness' of the bike that you have been advancing; other Wikipedians do not have to research all the other bikes that could have been used. Simple example: you could say you'd driven around LA in a certain car and that no other car could have been used - the car was unique to the experience. Well, if that claim is false, it is not then beholden on other Wikipedians to find all the other cars that could have been used (!). It is beholden on you to prove the veracity of your original assertion and provide evidence.
You have quoted only two editors who suggest it should be reinstated but there are four editors who think it should remain deleted - so that is not conclusive for reinstation.
(Sidebar - Sorry, earlier I forgot to mention the other two points on which you wanted my opinion. First, re: your mention of apparent intelligence; I think a modicum of modesty would suggest that this is for others to decide about you rather than for you to claim for yourself. And second, re: the retributive '[sic]': my initial use of it was regarding word usage; your use of it is regarding a typo. But I think we’ve both learnt something valuable from each other. I’ve learnt from you to be more careful when I type the word ‘incredibly’ and, from me, you have learnt the distinct but subtle difference in meaning between ‘refute’ and ‘rebut’. So, warm congratulations: on this one, you’ve definitely learnt more.) Rivercard (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
And your new suggestion that the R1100Gs be subsumed into the generic GS range was not made until 7th April, 3 weeks after the discussion began - see comment: 'Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)' - Rivercard (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Biker Biker and I consider the section well supported. No fewer than 3 editors have told you, repeatedly, that when there is no consensus, cited material is kept, not deleted. Elen of the Roads pointed out that several other articles have similar sections, along with the half dozen Featured Articles I mentioned elsewhere. Coaster92 agrees with me that the problem is only that the section needs to be expanded with specific citations. I even offered to leave it deleted for now if you will leave it alone once I provide the expanded examples and citations. I also offered to move it to BMW GS, but that compromise was rejected.
All you've got are 842U and Iglooflame, two users with grievances against me who were canvassed to join this dispute, in violation of policy, in order to stack the vote. Discounting the ringers who should not have been recruited, you've got nothing. You've won over zero objective editors to your side.
You say the bike was not unique, but you can't name even one equivalent bike.
Suggestion Since there seems to be an impasse with whether to include or disclude the content, and the significant amount of discussion has taken place, I see nothing more that DRN can do for you. At this point it appears that the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee are your best alternatives for attempting to get this resolved. Would this satisfy all involved users? Hasteur (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Considering the this was tainted by canvassing to an unknown degree, then unless one of my compromises is accepted, this has to go to mediation. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Iglooflame was not 'canvassed', they were notified, as per policy, of a discussion in which they were involved. Perfectly normal, as other editors in the discussion have already pointed out to youhere.
It is partisan and selective to deny the legitimacy of 842U's view here just because you have disagreed with them in the past (and especially if you have disagreed regarding similar behaviour of your own) - And, by that standard, then, BikerBiker's support of you would also be illegitmate by dint of their previous favourable links to you. (Do you see how that works?: there isn't one rule for you, and one rule for other editors.)
Finally, you are wrongly paraphrasing Coaster92; what they actually said was, 'find a persective there [in the book] that emphasizes the characteristics of the motorcycle/the experience of the motorcycle as crucial to the author's healing process... If it's not there in the book, then the section does not seem relevant.' You've had plenty of chance to quote from the book (presumably you own a copy) but no quote has been forthcoming. In which case, Coaste92's last sentence stands: If it's not there in the book, then the section does not seem relevant. and therefore does not support your case.
'You say the bike was not unique, but you can't name even on equivalent bike.' - Please read again the paragraph above on negative proof arguing; the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, not on other Wikipedians to try to find all the other bikes that could have been used. (And if you do want to know of some other bikes, just look back at your own quote earlier from BMW's David Rob who noted they had 19 models over two sectors. Or if, because of limited knowledge of this sector, you are personally unaware of comparable bikes, feel free to canvass biker Wikipedians to pitch in their suggestions to you.) Rivercard (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Important to Note: There was no taint by 'canvassing', as has already been shown, only policy-recommended notification. And user Dennis Bratland's deliberate and continual mischaracterising of one as the other is certainly not helpful and is transparently partisan. But thanks to Hasteur (talk) for the further suggestions. Rivercard (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm still putting together all the citations, from Ghost Writer (550 pages), the AMA's 160 page book on the "Motostars" exhibit, and two long magazine reviews. I assure you, there are many, many citations to more than meet Coaster92's request. I offered to let this drop for now, and then once I'm done writing it all up, put the section back in BMW R1100GSorBMW GS. Just to please you. What's the problem with that offer? It satisfies the request, in due time, and until then you get what you wanted. Especially since your laughable argument that providing an example that it's not unique is proving a negative (!). The real problem is, you haven't read the damn book, or researched adventure touring motorcycling at all. You don't even know what special things Peart's bike did for him in Ghost Rider because you have no idea what the book says. Read the sources before coming to Dispute Resolution. I did. You came to the article BMW R1100GS to get back at Biker Biker for deleting your stuff from the VW Corrado page and you're in way over your head. It's sad.
Of course, as I and Elen of Roads and others have said, uniqueness isn't the sole, ultimate criterion. Policy only requires decent sources, not uniqueness. T.E Lawrence could have bashed his head in on any bike, not just a Brough-Superior SS100, and Starsky and Hutch didn't have to drive a Ford Gran Torino. Sources are sources, and sources say it goes in the article, even if the bike or car isn't "unique". But I'm willing to meet you halfway, and to let this lie until I deliver the promised citations. It's a good compromise.
You can deny, deny, deny the canvassing all you want, but the fact is, the alternative is mediation because of the canvassing skunked the process. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The so-called 'canvassing' doesn't need to be denied (even thrice (nice melodramatic touch)) because it doesn't exist. All that needs to be denied is your mischaracterisation of perfectly normal discussion notifications as canvassing. They are not the same thing, as other editors have already tried to explain to you.
Your intention wavers uncertainly between 3 different assertions, depending on which ones are currently being disproved: (1) Trying to prove the bike is unique because of what it can do - even though you have already conceded that claim by admitting that there were other model/range bikes he could have used. So, that claim died on the operating table at your own hand. I expect its family might sue for malpractice. (2) Then stating that the bike was unique because of what it couldn't do (it's weaknesses/parts availability, etc), and expecting other editors to list other bikes that would fail in the same way. That is not only (again) negative proof arguing, it is also slightly infantilised reasoning. The burden of proof is on the user who wants to include the material. I think I've done enough time at the wheel in disproving your original 'sources', let alone assembling evidence of other bikes not nominated for inclusion! (3) This is the one you seem to find most difficult to grasp (unless it is deliberate obsfucation): Hold on now, little Dezzer, this is going to be a bumpy ride - Even if Peart states explicitly in his book 'As I said to my good friend, Dennis Bratland, I could not have done this journey on any other bike ever made or that ever will be made, ever, (even in the future) other than the R1100GS."he would still be wrong. I know that the cognitive dissonance experienced by reading that may cause your face to melt, but it is true nonetheless.
So, however much Peart might eulogise in his book about how much he loves his R1100GS - it doesn't matter - because the R1100GS is a bike that could have been replaced by another of BMW’s dual-sport range or, indeed, another suitable dual-sport motorbike. And, crucially, that would still be true whether Peart knew it or not.
Are you aware of a quote from BMW's David Robb, Vice President of Motorcycle Design, who, on the matter of model proliferation, said: "We had 19 models covering just two and a half market segments, and we were fighting ourselves for these sectors." '
This all means that even if Peart genuinely thought there was no other bike he could have used, he would have actually been wrong. And information cannot be included if it is based on erroneous beliefs, however geuninely they were held at the time. So what this means is that trawling through the Ghost Rider book will, at best, provide material that only proves Peart either did not know about comparable bikes he could have used or that he might favour one over the other. But by all means read it anyway; reading is good.
You know, I think 80% of the text of your posts is copy-pastes of your previous posts. So it forms a kind of diminishing echo. Can you put the 20% that is new a special color, like green or something? Because I'm not so interested in the recycled filler.
Anyhoo, is that a yes or no to the suggestion of closing this and going to mediation? And if it's a no, then what do you think is going to come of all this? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it's only when you resurrect old claims that I have to wearily present the same answers - the answers don't change, can't possibly change, in fact, because the evidence doesn't change. The answer to 2 + 2 will always be... well, you know what I'm saying. Anyway, I thought you were reading the book looking for undisputable evidence of Peart's belief in the uniqueness of the bike? (the key word there being 'belief'). So I'm quite happy to wait for you to do that. By the way, what did you think of my suggestion of requesting other Wikipedian bikers to suggest other comparable bikes? Rivercard (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Canvassing on user talk pages is a terrible idea. You can post a short, neutral message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling but I think everyone there has probably caught wind of this and doesn't care to waste a weekend reading all of it. But whatever.
"I thought you were reading the book looking for undisputable evidence of Peart's belief in the uniqueness of the bike?" Poor reading comprehension made you think that.
Let's close this now, and I'll restore the expanded, cited section to the article in due time. If you still have a problem with it then, we can open a mediation case. You might want to have read the book by then. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean canvassing on user 'Talk' pages. A message on the project page is also what I had in mind. Then you'd get all the suggestions of comparable bikes that you wanted. You do want them, still, don't you? Not sure why your dig (another one of your interminable digs) has reared its head re: reading comprehension. I took you at your word when you said earlier you were reading the book looking for evidence. Don't criticise me now for actually believing you on something.
If you 'revert' the deleted section 'in time', whether expanded or not, you will be doing so in the face of unprovided necessary evidence, which would only justify deletion. You've already admitted yourself that the bike isn't unique, so it cannot be included on that basis. And I've already asserted that even Peart's belief in it's uniqueness would be wrong - which then completely invalidates the book as a source. So, no, I'm not agreeing to close this because those are two central cases you still need to prove. And you can try to prove them here.
And, just thought, since you keep banging the drum about other bikes, I'll humour you for a second by falling into step with your insistent beat - what about the Triumph Tiger (the 'Nine'!)? Very similar to the GS, but with the great addition of being prettier. Which wouldn't be difficult considering the BM's a bit of a swine, lookswise. See, Brits always did make good-looking bikes. The Germans? Hmm... Rivercard (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and re: 'You might want to have read the book by then.' I don't have to read the book, sunshine - you do. You're the one looking for the evidence that you said is within. Rivercard (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Based on the speed at which these responses are being written I'm almost certain that you aren't reading the other person's point. I'm going to close this thread in 24 hours from 00:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC) with a suggestion that one or all of you take the debate to MEDCAB or MEDCOM. Know that if you go there, they will enforce structure and order on the discussion. Hasteur (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Hasteur, sorry to disabuse you of your 'certainty' (well, you did at least say 'almost'), but, at least on my side, you're wrong; I am reading the responses. And even a quick scan of the timelines shows gaps of 14, 11, 12 and 37 minutes between posts. That's plenty of time for someone, certainly for me, to read those fairly short posts and compose a reply. I know some people think of reading and writing as a chore and take ages to do either, but I don't (think that way) and I don't (take ages). Thanks. Rivercard (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TOMS_Shoes, Timothy_Messer-Kruse
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in 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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
I have been having an ongoing dispute with User:OlYeller21 which has escalated to the point hat he has decided to follow my new additions and nominate them for speedy deletion when such action is patently absurd.
Our disgreements began in a discussion of TOMS_Shoes.
He pestered me on a couple of other minor posts. I have asked him to avoid me and if encountering something of mine he disagreed with to ask a neutral 3rd party to investigate.
I created a page for Timothy_Messer-Kruse following several media stories about his disagreement with wikipedia. OlYeller21 flagged it for speedy deletion. I believe he did this out of animus towards me.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Not yet.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=TOMS_Shoes, Timothy_Messer-Kruse}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hi there, Litch. This noticeboard is for content disputes, rather than for issues over the conduct of particular users. Is there any specific content dispute, or is your issues solely with the other editor? If the latter is the case, I suggest mentioning it at WP:ANI. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)20:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I, as well as others, have had problems with Litch in the past which is evident by his block log. I thought that we had come to an agreement about the content on the TOMS article even after being accused of having a conflict of interest with no evidence and being called a coward and to told to "bite me". He's edited my archives twice but it's not exactly a problem for me. I patrol hundreds of pages for notability, copyright, and conflict of interest concerns and have nominated hundreds of articles for various types of deletion. I don't like confrontations and have been able to solve problems amicably with other users. I have no desire to continue any sort of confrontation with anyone, let alone Litch. I edit Wikipedia because I enjoy helping to build it. I don't enjoy fighting or being called names so unless Litch thinks this needs to be taken further, I'm willing to let this go. OlYeller21Talktome03:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like this is mostly about conduct, then. I would suggest you raise the issue at WP:ANI, where those issues can be dealt with. Once you have settled the conduct dispute, feel free to return here to settle any remaining content issues. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)16:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Donner Party
Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion
This needs to have some current discussion on the talk page. The issue was decided by consensus, at least consensus by silence or abandonment, when it was last raised over a year ago. While consensus can change, the place to change it is not here, but at the article. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
It may come as a surprise to some (it did to me) that two Indian guides of the Donner Party were killed by men of the Party and then eaten. To me, and to some others, this is a rather noteworthy part of the article, to put it mildly. The killings are included with two references, but the problem is that they are not mentioned until at least 30(!) paragraphs into the article, and then there is not even a relevant sub-heading for this topic. Unless you read the entire article, it would be difficult to learn that these Indian guides were intentionally killed during the Donner Party incident. I have attempted to add at least a sub-heading for this topic, but my edits get reverted. A couple other users (Novickas and Yogesh Khandke) have remarked on the talk page about the lack of attention given to this part of the history, but there are three users (maybe all admins) (Malleus Fatuorum, SandyGeorgia, Moni3) who appear to want the information obscured. I don't know why this is.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Donner Party}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I have posted several times to the talk page (and I lost my temper too, which I should not have done).
How do you think we can help?
I would like a neutral third party to determine whether or not the killings of the Indians deserve at least a sub-heading in the article.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I read the article (and I'm a bit sick to my stomach right now). I don't see why a separate section is necessary to separate this horrible incident from the other horrible incidents. One can assume that the reader of an FA knows how to read an FA and can handle longer stretches of prose. This article, BTW, seems (at least at first glance) to fully deserve its status. As for the suggestion that the abovementioned editors, who are among the best writers in the joint, are trying to hide something, we don't need to say any more about that than this: no. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec) A few points here. First, of the three users you mention as "maybe all admins", only one is - Moni3. Second, I don't think a heading is needed here - the structure of the article works well as it is, and a new heading for that one paragraph would disrupt it. Third, why is this here now? The last exchange in this dispute was nearly two months ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Bizarre that this would even be a point of discussion (including it in the lede). The way the killing is described is also remarkable: "William Foster, believing the flesh of the Indians was the group's last hope of avoiding imminent death from starvation, shot the pair." Frankly, I don't know what to say. Do Americans view these people as some kind of heroes perhaps? Ssscienccce (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Along the same lines, I'd be more confident of the article's neutrality if I had seen more discussion of the two guides' killings in light of the problem of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Historic sources might well de-value the lives of the Native American, but would editors broadly representing a global perspective perpetuate that bias? Or would they make an extra effort to give more weight to other sources? The average Wikipedian is an educated, privileged, white, male American, so it's at least within the realm of possibility that systemic bias is at work here. I'm not saying it is, but has that been adequately explored? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why this is at Dispute Resolution either. I didn't even know there was an ongoing dispute because the talk page has been inactive about this issue since February 2011. This is an issue for Jswap and others(?) who think Luis and Salvador were the only people killed to be eaten to hash out with anyone else who has read the sources. Not just one source, but all. Dispute resolution isn't the place to do this until everyone involved in this convo has read all the sources listed at the bottom of the article page and can discuss the sources intelligently because they don't all back up the claim that Luis and Salvador were killed to be eaten, nor that they may have been the only members to be killed for this purpose simply because they were Indians. One of the white members of the party was accused of killing two whites just to eat them. That went to court in California, and the survivor was a pariah for the rest of his life. All dispute resolution can do is remind parties of guidelines and policies. I hope it succeeds in this venture if only to remind Jswap to engage meaningfully on the talk page by referencing published histories. --Moni3 (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I am also at a loss as to why this is at DR. Having read the enlightening, albeit depressing, article in question I then looked at the talk page for some huge disagreement. I found very little. (perhaps I missed some archive?). I would think that the article talk page would be the proper venue for this discussion. If agreement and consensus could not be found there, then a proper RfC would normally be the next step. (enough people involved to skip the WP:3O perhaps?). But, since it is here - then as to the question at hand I would say this: I think the WP:UNDUE section of our NPOV policy comes into play here. In other words, no I do not think a separate section is needed for these few sentences. — Ched : ? 13:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
On a secondary note: I'll also say that I see no evidence that anyone wants to obscure any information, and I feel a bit uncomfortable with that accusation. — Ched : ? 13:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Criswell College
Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments4 people in 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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
A user, Hungus, has been posting false information about Criswell College. He/she claims that the school is Dispensationalist in contradiction to the college's Articles of Faith X which can be found at http://www.criswell.edu/about/beliefs/.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes (by clerk).
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Criswell College}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I have notified Hungus several times that the information he has posted is false. I have also warned Hungus that he/she may be blocked by continuing to do so.
How do you think we can help?
You can help by blocking Hungus from editing the Criswell College Wikipedia page. Thank you for your help. Your time and advice are much appreciated.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Yikes, what a mess of an edit war! I see ~8 reverts by both editors within the last few days, which easily could have resulted in a block for both. Remember that edit warring is not acceptable even if you believe you are correct, and that none of these reverts were to correct vandalism (though some of the edits were incorrectly referred to as such). This disagreement needs to be settled via policy-based discussion and establishment of consensus. I was unable to get Hungus's link to work so I could not verify his source, but Angelic's argument appears to be based on a synthesis of the school's mission statement and a review of the definition involved. Finding the non-broken link that explicitly describes the institution as Dispensationalist would be helpful, though I see no reason that a more productive conversation couldn't be held on the article talk page rather than here. The attempts at discussion on the talk page have been pretty minimal so far, as near as I can tell. VQuakr (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The attempts to talk have been entirely one sided unfortunately. Let me explain the situation somewhat further. I am not claiming that the school is simply dispensational. I have shown through various links in the article that the school abides by a particularly narrow band which is an acceptance of two of the four contemporary eschatological views. Historically it was created as such, but the material showing this has been removed from the web and is only available in the (printed and recorded) archives surrounding the schools founding, as well as interviews I have had with both W.A. Criswell and James Bryant over the years. Months ago I changed the description from Dispensational to Premillenial/ Dispensational. I have linked in the article numerous sources from faculty and staff stating that Dispensationalism is the best interpretation of the Bible, but that the school does allow HIstoric Pre-Millennial viewpoints in Faculty. Since Dispensationalism is a new position in christian thought, being approximately 160 years old and has only been present commonly since the Niagara Bible conferences which were in the late 1800's and early 1900's (so less than 100 years being truly common), and Historic Premillennial itself being a narrow view. (links for this have also been provided in the article) it is important to both the practical information and historic information of the institution that it be noted as ascribing to only these viewpoints. To simply say it is premillenial leave open a significant area of vagueness since many historic premillenial scholars do not accept dispensationalism as a proper interpretation and many dispensationalists do not accept premillenial interpretations. To further illuminate the issue, classic dispensationalists reject progressive dispensationalists as being overly broad and this has lead to the establishment of other institutions. A primary example of this is the founding of Tyndale which was formed out of faculty and staff from Dallas Theological seminary after DTS accepted progressive Dispensationalism in the 1990's. Further, it should be noted that Angelicchordsummoner is a new account for this single issue and I have been working with the Criswell page for over 4 years. Lastly, it has been requested of the Christianity Wiki project to mediate the 'dispute'. Hungus (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
As reflected in Criswell College's Article of Faith X, the school's official position is not Dispensationalist. While W. A. Criswell and other founding leaders such as Dr. James Bryant were Dispensationalist they did not make that the official position of the school. As Hungus has noted above, faculty are allowed to hold to Historic Pre-Millenialism. But describing the school as Dispensationalist on the Wikipedia page gives the impression that Dispensationalism is the school's official position (just like describing it as a Christian college communicates the fact that it officially holds to Christian beliefs). I would be open to having the page mention the Dispensationalist heritage of W. A. Criswell and other founding members but I feel that the school should not be described as Dispensationalist since it is not so. Thank you for your help! Angelichordesummoner (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. The broken link apparently linked (per its URL) to the college's 2010-2011 catalog. The current catalog, which also includes the Articles of Faith, can be found here. Presuming that those articles of faith have not changed, I cannot find the word "dispensationalist" or "dispensationalism" used in Article X. Those articles of faith are clearly a primary source under Wikipedia's primary source policy. That policy says, in pertinent part:
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
It is, therefore, forbidden by Wikipedia policy to interpret Article X to say that the college is or is not dispensationalist. Since all assertions in Wikipedia must be supported by an in-line citation to a reliable source, nothing can be included in the article about whether or not the college is or is not dispensationalist unless a relable secondary source can be found which says so. One of the disputants here has made several references in discussion to his or her personal information about the college, including references to interviews he has had with various persons. Such information is absolutely irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes, either as citations or support for discussions, since it is in clearly in violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. Please remember that at Wikipedia, the standard is verifiability from reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia), not truth. Any assertion that the college is dispensationalist (or any other -ism) must be excluded from the article until a reliable secondary source can be provided for that information. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Supplement: A slight correction: If there is an official college document which says in so many words, requiring no interpretation or analysis, that the college is or is not dispensationalist, then that might be used as a reliable source for the article. (I'd prefer not to say "can" be used because with primary sources the Devil — so to speak — is often in the details.) — TM 15:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi TransporterMan, I agree with your assessment of the situation. However, the Criswell College page is still claiming that the school is Dispensationalist. Will you be removing that reference? Thanks for the help! Angelichordesummoner (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that we should wait to allow others to weigh in here, especially Hungus. Both you and s/he, however, need to avoid editing or reverting the page for awhile since there is a clear edit war going on there and either or both of you are likely to get blocked if you continue. Wikipedia is in a constant state of review and there is no deadline. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
TransporterMan, thanks for your time in this matter. I will not edit the page. However, in your previous post you said: "Any assertion that the college is dispensationalist (or any other -ism) must be excluded from the article until a reliable secondary source can be provided for that information." The article still contains the claim that the college is Dispensationalist and links to a secondary source which does not support that claim. This seems to be violating your instructions quoted above. I don't want to be a nuisance. I would just prefer that we remove the reference to Dispensationalism until a proper secondary source can be provided by either Hungus or me. Thanks! Angelichordesummoner (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
While the rules say that assertions not supported by a reliable source must not be in an article, they also say that the best practice method for addressing them is to tag them with {{citation needed}} and allow the other editor a reasonable time to find a source. The rules do not prohibit removing the assertion immediately, but marking it and allowing time is the preferable process. Since sources are cited, that's not quite the right tag in this instance. I will tag the article with something more appropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the citation tags. In the meantime I have also noted several other factual errors on the page, particularly on the right hand column. It lists Dr. Lamar Cooper as Vice President. He is no longer in that position. Dr Barry Creamer is now the new Vice President of Academic Affairs (this title replaces the former "Provost" title) (see the following references: Criswell College Elects New Vice President of Academic Affairs and Dr. Lamar Cooper's faculty bio and the new VP's faculty bio. The right hand column also claims the campus is in a suburban location. The college is actually just minutes from downtown Dallas in an urban setting (see the following Google map: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl). Would you be able to make these changes since I cannot edit the page and since the page may be locked or should another user do that? If I remember correctly I had previously changed the information concerning the campus setting before the dispute resolution started but it seems to have been changed back. Again, thanks for your help. Angelichordesummoner (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Closing notes: I am closing this as resolved since it appears clear that the dispensationalist assertion is unsourced and subject to being removed at any time (and is currently so tagged and can be removed), and that the editor asserting that claim has not responded here or challenged the tagging. As for the edit requests in the last posting, above. I would note that Lamar Cooper's bio still shows him to be executive vice president and provost and that a site search of the school's website suggests that they might have several vice presidents, so this is a matter that requires some additional work before changes are made. If Angelichordesummoner's reluctance to edit the page is due to conflict of interest concerns, he should ask for help at Editor Assistance Noticeboard, being sure to say why he is reluctant to do them himself and providing links to reliable sources to support the changes he wishes to be made. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Power Electronics
Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion
No discussion at talk page as required by this noticeboard. Listing editor should file an RFC if s/he cannot otherwise get discussion started there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:10, 13 April 2012 (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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
I have spent the last month working on the Power Electronics article, and for the most part I had a good time trying to improve it. But now one particular user is going through and saying that the entire improvements that I made are awful. Here are some of the comments the user has made:
"bloody awful...remove outrageous padding and useless generalizations"
"This is truly dreadful and needs reversion to a more grammatical and less rambling version. Copyedit for tone and out of grade-school essay form"
"If I were marking this essay I'd mark it "D". Wordy filler does not make for an encyclopedia article. This should be reverted back a month or more and work from something that had more meat and less sawdust."
Before I tried to improve the page the average user rating was 3.5, after it went up to 4.6, but this user thinks my edits are awfull and is not being constructive with their edits. Another user tried improving one of the sections I added and he deleated it. Then that user tried undoing it, he said that "Information included at this time (00:07 11 April 2012) is beneficial and insightful," but the other user still undid it. (posted by P-Tronics)
This dispute has made it very difficult for me to want to continue to use wikipedia, and i just don't know what to do.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=User:P-Tronics, User:Wtshymanski, User:DaCozyMan}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
How do you think we can help?
I think you can help by looking at the article and see if what he says is valid, i don't think it is.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Strictly speaking, this does not belong here,given the rule: "It is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page.", so i could tell you to first try and talk things out, but I doubt that's what you want to hear right now.
You wrote 90% of that article, pretty good for a newbee. I understand his point regarding style and tone somewhat, but those things can be fixed, and certainly don't deserve such a reaction, out of the blue. As far as I can see his last reaction until then was "OK, that's going in the right direction in my opinion", and 18 days later he wants to revert back more than a month??? As to the best way of resolving this, I trust someone more experienced than me can point you in the right direction, one of the projects perhaps.
If WP:DONTBITE needed an example of "how not to do it"... Ssscienccce (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. It was noticed that the article talk page has been used by only one editor in this dispute. Before we can consider it here, this really needs to be discussed to an impasse, preferably at the article's talk page. Pending any significant reasons, this thread will be closed in 24 hours from 13:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC) for lack of discussion. Hasteur (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations to Wtshymanski for the level of consensus and discussion he has attempted and achieved in this article. It's much more than he's done in the past. The edit summaries aren't acceptable though. You can point out the issues without being so infernally uncivil and bitey. Comparing the article content, per W's large deletions here I would agree that there are issue with the prior version, but they're nothing like so bad as they've been described.
The tone was wrong. We just fix that, we don't use it as an excuse to beat up an editor, especially not one who's unfamiliar with "house style".
The biogs are excessive. We might list, but this level belong in bio articles. If they're worth mentioning here, they're worth a bio, even if it has to be written as a stub from scratch right now. Any included would also need to be ref'ed as being relevant to power electronics. I don't know why Bardeen and Shockley are here (let alone twice) - did they contribute especially to power electronics, or to small-signal electronics and electronic generally?
The scope should be decided clearly and early. Is this "power control", "power electronics", or "solid-state power electronics" (all three are valid article topics that we could benefit from). Are Ward-Leonard and mercury arc rectifiers in or out? I don't care, but decide this, name appropriately and edit accordingly. No-one is saying that it should or shouldn't be semiconductors only, but decide and then file the relevant content in the correct article, don't just sit there arguing over it.
Overall, I find reasons to change things in this article. I even find reasons to move content elsewhere, to another article (whilst preserving it). I see no reason for blanket deletion. I see no reason for heated argument, or criticism of editor's writing style.
I do find Wtshymanski's attitude and attacks on other editors to be his usual aggressive and single-minded attitude that has proven impossible for any[citation needed] other editors to work with. Use of talk: here apart, he's still a nightmare for others. There is no excuse for this. There is certainly no excuse for it to this level, on this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps if we are confused as to what is in scope for an article topic, we should employ our tremendous talents elsewhere? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly the sort of pointless sarcasm that has given you the reputation you have.
The scope of this article (within the three listed above) is axiomatic. It doesn't depend on how tremendously talented an editor is, it's simply an arbitrary choice. However once chosen, it implies some boundaries and issues of naming. Choose this scope, then follow it. Do not, as you have been doing here, nit-pick as to whether it included semiconductors or not whilst the article had not yet chosen such a direction or made it clear to all editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Many of Wtshymanski's specific comments are very useful but are overshadowed by their unjustified nastiness there. And offering alternate opinions using highhanded "I'm right and you're wrong" type wording is not right. Doubly so when it involves beating up a newbie. So maybe this should be at an etiquette noticeboard rather than here, but maybe just a few thoughts here would help enough. North8000 (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Narcissistic personality disorder
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in 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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
It's not really a dispute involving my own editing, but an older dispute involving other users. What basically happens is a source has apparently be caught being an editor, using itself as source, which was considered hostile. I do not claim to know the whole dispute. Also, I suspect that since that source had a hint that Barrack Obama might had NPD (without confirming it) might had made the issue political or affected by political bias.
The real reason I make this request is that I just want to use information that NPD is abusive, as it can be seen in the last part of the talk page. I do not want to either use that source or to go into a dispute. I just want that information includes, whatever the source (and of course any source that doesn't include Obama).
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Not yet.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Narcissistic personality disorder}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
How do you think we can help?
Perhaps unlocking that URL from being used by third party. I'm neither of those people, why can't I use it? Even if he did something wrong, isn't he a psychotherapist? But I really don't care about that URL to be honest. I just want to see that information posted. NPD is a dangerous condition for those around it, it's not just something that is kept to a narcissist.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
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.
Masakre
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in 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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
"MASAKRE" page. Place of death is incorrect. He died in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina a suburb of Charleston Metro. He died at the home of his son. All of his immediate family were present.
Rada8765 is my brother and son of Radames Cocco Masakre
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Not yet.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Masakre}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
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.
User:184.2.174.194, User:Malik Shabazz, User:Roland R
Latest comment: 12 years ago16 comments8 people in 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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
A protected status has been place on the article due to an edit war which was initiated when I added an interview with Marek Edelman. The edit war had to do with two other contributors who did not want my addtion to be included in the article. There was very little discussion (back and forth) on the dispute and no resolution or compomise to speak of.
I was somewhat surprised that an edit war took place. Although both Malik Shabazz and Roland R continuously deleted the addition of the interview I made - Roland R did not choose to take part in my invitation to discuss this dispute(directly with me) in depth in the Talk Page.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=User:184.2.174.194, User:Malik Shabazz, User:Roland R}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I had started a third party resolution because until today I thought that Roland R was the most active in deleting the addition of the interview I had made. After I had initiated the third party resolution - Malik Shabazz indicated that he want to get involved as well - so I decided to go this route instead.
How do you think we can help?
The main reason I think this route may help is that I believe there needs direction in how to stop this edit war and to come to a resolution. The article itself has become highly politicized which as I see it does not help to enlighten the subject of the article in a truly meaningful way and objective way.
There was a protection template added to the article which has helped to calm things down and I am hoping now a discussion of the dispute can begin in earnest. I hope that after the protection template falls off on April 11, 2012 that an edit war does not begin again.
Perhaps feedback on the best way to proceed with this dispute would probably be the first step right now I think. Thanks
I have not edited this article, though I do edit in the general subject area. The complainant is not reporting the situation accurately. He/she didn't just introduce a source, which would be fine, but deleted existing sources as well. He/she is claiming, on the basis of his own interpretation of an interview, that the previous sources are wrong and wants to suppress them. This seems to me a pretty clear case of original research. Zerotalk14:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The IP editor is 100% wrong when she/he writes that no attempt at compromise was attempted. I incorporated the 1985 interview in question into the paragraph, together with previous language that is based on other reliable sources. What the IP editor would like to do is (a) completely replace the previous language based on the 1985 interview and (b) remove Edelman from a category that she/he finds distasteful.
I initiated the discussion at Talk:Marek Edelman#1985 interview because the IP editor was edit-warring. The article was protected because the IP editor was reported for edit-warring after coming off a 24-hour block for 3RR. The IP editor's efforts to paint her/himself as the voice of reason here is belied by the facts. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk21:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
As I am away from home at a union conference, and my laptop has packed up, I will find it difficult to comment on this for several days. I have not edited the article for several days, I have commented on my edit on the talk page, and I have not been notified of any previous request for comment or third party involvement. As far as I recall, the IP is arguing that his/her own interpretation of an interview posted on YouTube can be used to discount several reliable sources which disagree with this interpretation. As I am using a very clunky tablet, it is difficult for me to comment in greater detail for the next week, so I request patience in dealing with this. RolandR (talk)21:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that unless we can mutually come to agreement on our differences; formal mediation may be the only way to have any final decision with respect to this particular dispute.
I want to add something here. If there is going to be any real frank discussion I believe two things should at least be recognized. The first is that - (as any historian worth his salt will state) - a PRIMARY SOURCE is often the best historical evidence that can be had. An interview with Marek Edelman -in his own words- is much more reliable (with regards to his views on a subject) than any third party hearsay. Mr Edelman words certainly deserve priority - regardless of any political bias anyone seems to have (with regards to this subject and/or article).
The second issue that needs to be recognized is that Wikipedia should (ideally) not be an ideological playground to simply just add opinion pieces - with respect to a particular subject matter - and then use those same opinion pieces as "reliable sources" or as fact. To bring up just one example of such an opinion piece that was used as a "reliable source" (in this article) - one need only bring up the op-ed by self described Trotskyite Paul Foote.
For those who are unaware - an opinion piece is different animal than what a journalist does in simply reporting a story. There is no attempt to give an ideological or political slant. The basic facts are given without reliance on emotion or on subjective references. The founders of Wikipedia ideally did not aim for political opinions as the basis of articles on subjects. Hard evidence (from the source itself) should always be the priority. And I might add - if anyone chooses to use an opinion piece in a Wikipedia article (which I find both amateurish and unnecessary) then at least please have the courtesy to describe it as such in a Wiki article.
Unfortunately Paul Foote's piece was just one of many such opinion pieces used as "fact" and "evidence" in this article. I have no problem if any of the editors embrace the viewpoints of the authors of such articles. I do have a problem with using these coulumns as "reliable sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.174.194 (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
What you are taking from the interview is only your interpretation. In explaining what he meant by one reply, he started "I am not talking about the ideology." You took that to mean he was not ideologically opposed to Zionism, but that doesn't follow at all. All that is plain is that he wanted at this point in this interview to say something that he considered to be practical rather than ideological. Then he goes on to say "you cannot return to what was there 2000 years ago, this is impossible. In the sea of 100 millions Arabs you cannot make a state against them..." which very many people would consider to be an anti-Zionist statement. We have to rely on secondary sources to make such classifications; you can't just apply your own feelings about what anti-Zionism is and isn't. Zerotalk01:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry Zero but I really cannot buy what you are saying... Actually what Marek Edelman said is exactly what he meant. And you are accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing... In other words interpreting what he meant to say. His words should be taken as they are. He said he did not oppose Zionism on an ideological basis.
Instead - he addresses his view of the logistical problem for longterm survival of Israel surrounded by a larger more hostile population - and expresses to the interviewer in answer to why he cannot consider himself a Zionist. And yes - History is more a social science than an art and simply saying that something is up to interpretation solves very little I am afraid to say. It is very much you - who is reading more into the interview than there is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobullgracias (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Thank you for posting here 184 IP. Having taken a look at the edits in question I would like to review a set of policies/guidelines that I feel are important for this dispute
First of all I'm aware that BLP doesn't really apply in this case, however the policies in general still apply. Second, most people will not self identify as a negative tag (like anti-Zionist). As such any first person assertions about what they claim should probably be ignored. We work on what other educated people in the field have categorized the subject as so as to keep a relatively neutral position on the biography. Finally, the page was semi-protected because you were unable to follow the Bold,Revert,Discuss guideline for establishing consensus. After you were warned and encouraged to go to the talk page and discuss the edit, you continued with the change. Hasteur (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Words have meaning. The point is that a term like "anti-Zionist" is not quite the same thing as saying one is not a Zionist. If you were to tell me you were not a Jew I would not call you anti-Jew... You cannot simply make an excuse for people to use words so loosely because of a political bias or for any other reason (educated or not). And honestly; I do not care if Paul Foote chooses to use such words. In any event - an op-ed piece should have no place in an article based on factual evidence and historical fact and veracity.
I am not going to get into hysterics here Hastuer but FYI I did go to the talk page... I did plead for discussion and there was more deletion and edit warring than discussion unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobullgracias (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Here's a case where, after further investigation, there is a right and a wrong and not much need for mediation. Not only is the IP's text not very well written, it also changes content based on a less reliable source than what was originally there. Dispute resolution is one thing, but what we have here is edit-warring against consensus. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
@66 I do not think it is helpful to engage in insults or rude behavior. Insulting the way I write text rather than the content does not solve much (which is what this space is for). Edit warring was not being conducted by myself and more to the point - even when there is a consensus on something - when consensus proves to be wrong (and when there is new information) the article should be re-evaluated. It sounds to me like you may have simply not liked the content of what I added. I am very sorry for that. And incidentally - the "less reliable source" as you call it - is actually the subject of the article himself being interviewed (ie the primary source) FYI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobullgracias (talk • contribs) 02:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I just want to add that if anyone has any suggestions in mind that they think will help bring about a compromise solution - I think it would be a good thing to bring up here - (in this section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobullgracias (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 16, 2012 at 13:42 (UTC) because no discussion for nine days; stale. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, it appears that the issue has smoldered out. Hearing no real complaints, I think this can be safely closed with the resolution as Resolved at the time listed above. Any objections? Hasteur (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sectarianism in the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising
Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments5 people in 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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
some users are reverting criticism of the Syrian opposition by official Christian and Catholic sources claiming that Catholic new agencies are biased.--Rafytalk22:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Sectarianism in the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
made my arguments at the talk page.
How do you think we can help?
Give a neutral opinion on whether criticism of the Syrian opposition by those sources is ok to include.
Sectarianism in the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
When you say "official ... Catholic sources", what you mean is the official media arm of Vatican City, an undemocratic country in Southern Europe. I was raised Catholic myself, but that doesn't mean I think we should count a state news agency like Agenzia Fides as a reliable source. The Vatican has a political agenda that is avowedly anti-Islamist, and it seems from Fides' reporting in Syria (which relies on anonymous sources identified on the basis of their religion), it is fulfilling the state's agenda. I have asked User:Rafy to produce editorially independent sources that support Fides' account, but aside from Christian blogs parroting the Fides/Vatican official line, he has been unable or unwilling to do so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
First of all you cannot describe the Vatican as democratic or undemocratic, as it is not more than a religious institution, even though it's legally defined as a sovereign state.
"The Vatican has a political agenda that is avowedly anti-Islamist" That's a serious claim, got refs?
Everybody including the BBC, CNN.. etc. is citing "eyewitnesses" and other unidentified sources. There are no foreign journalists in Syria remember? That's why you have to cite the source of the claims, which is clearly done in the paragraphs you removed.
Here is an article by the LA times iterating the same claims found in Christian news websites and aid organisations.--Rafytalk00:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The above ludicrous statement by Kudzu1 is typical of the agenda-warring that has resulted in all "Syrian Uprising"-related articles being hijacked by fanatics and converted into unabashed propaganda pieces. Anything that might show those opposing the current regime in Syria in less than glowing terms is automatically removed, every statement issued by the Syrian authorities is dismissed and removed, and every claim, however dubious, however pov, issued by those opposing the Syrian government is always included. These articles need to be brought under the same standards of proof and verifiability that other articles' have to follow if Wikipedia articles on current events are not to be seen as an outlets for spin and misinformation. One passing point for Kudzul: maybe he doesn't know it, but at the core of Wikipedia is a large amount of public domain content derived from "The Catholic Encyclopedia", and in Wikipedia's very early days the bulk of its content was copied directly from the "Catholic Encyclopedia". Meowy17:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Clerk comment@Kudzu1: I have half a mind to close this because you have not indicted where you have discussed this but a general "my arguments are on my talk page".Curb Chain (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I read it wrong: you meant the article's talk page. Noted, but you did not provide the sources in question or diffs.Curb Chain (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 16, 2012 at 13:42 (UTC) because no discussion for seven days; stale. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Younger Dryas
Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments3 people in 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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
An editor is completely unfamiliar with the scientific literature on these subjects, has an apparent intrinsic bias or belief about these subjects, and is letting those biases demonstrate themselves by the inclusion of several false claims (thus far) into the content. The editor in question is dominating the editing of the content of these pages on the basis of these false claims, and does not seem to recognize the limitations of his understanding or comprehension of the unique and arcane subjects that are necessary for an unbiased review of these subjects.
I have managed to convince him that the primary and most recent reference to the literature is a valid addition to these pages, but he insists on dragging in tangential subjects far removed from the primary hypothesis in the hopes of bolstering his misunderstandings, and then has proceeded to make false claims about those subjects.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Younger Dryas}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I have tried to edit out the most obvious false statements made by the editor as I have encountered them. He appears to have reverted to more subtle language in order to impress his biases on the reader, but his unfamiliarity with the issues is readily apparent to any informed workers in the field.
How do you think we can help?
I'm not sure, the editor's intrinsic biases appear to be deep seated and unfounded in any peer reviewed scientific literature that I am aware of.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) CosmicLifeform, it seems that two editors disagree with your edits: SkepticalRaptor and Keilana. Unfortunately, that means there is consensus in favor of not having your additions to the article. Please also note that edit warring is considered disruptive and you may be blocked if you continue to edit war. I also suggest that you read this about fringe theories, in accordance with Wikipedia policies, please add content with reliable sources. Finally, there is no talk page discussion. This is a prerequisite for the dispute resolution noticeboard - to have talk page discussion. If you have any questions, please ask on my talk page. Thank you for using dispute resolution on Wikipedia! Kind regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania!00:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 17, 2012 at 00:18 (UTC) because no talk page discussion Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania!00:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Then I suggest you learn the difference between a theory, a hypothesis and evidence. I have no wish to edit ANY content of this page, all I wish to do it make sure that the edits do not contain any false information and are unbiased. The editor in question, SkepticalRaptor, has already made several scientifically demonstrable false claims made out of his intrinsic deep seated bias against the hypothesis (independent of theory and evidence) and is clearly unfamiliar with any of the literature and the complex interrelated issues (theoretical, hypothetical and evidential) with regard to this subject, and clearly has demonstrated his desire to dominate this subject completely by injecting his biased and unfounded views into the record. Furthermore, my talk page discussion apparently broke some obscure rules that I am unaware of and subjected me to threats of blocking. The only reason I made this account in the first place was to confront the unbiased and false editing of SkepticalRaptor on a subject that I am indeed intimately familiar with at the theoretical, hypothetical and evidential levels, having read the entire body of scientific peer review and gray literature available on the subject. If I thought that SkepticalRaptor was persuadable by any legitimate or rational means, I certainly would have pursued it. This entire dispute started with SkepticalRaptor edited out a reference on both pages to a recent PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) peer reviewed and published article directly addressing previous published criticisms of their work, claiming it was 'fringe science'. When confronted with the audacity of those edits, he was unapologetic, and refused to revert the edits until apparently he engaged in enough superficial research on his own to realize the dramatic magnitude of his mistake.CosmicLifeform (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This editor has stalked me across the internet for an article that has minor relevance to the world and to me. His continue threats in emails, web posts, and other areas places me in a situation where any further interaction with this individual may be dangerous to me. When he has a chance to cool off and leave me alone, I might actually respond to his rants. I will not engage in any further discussion about this until admins do something about him. I'm very creeped out by his activities. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
CosmicLifeform, in order to 'persuade' us that the content that you want to add is reliable, it needs to be in a synthesized, reliable source. This means that it's an independent, third party source, such as an article from a well-acclaimed newspaper or magazine. By now, with your personal attacks and edit warring, you should have been blocked. Take this as your last, final and imminent warning, harassment is completely unacceptable and threatening e-mails will in no way resolve this dispute, it will only escalate it. SkepticalRaptor, please report this to administrators' noticeboard for incidents, should the attacks continue, where admins will take the appropriate action. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania!01:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to do deal with the off-wiki attacks. Every edit I make here, he responds to me in personal emails and public attacks on blog posts. At some point, I have a personal reputation to uphold in the sciences. I've been advised that there's really not much you can do for me in off-wiki threats and menacing. But if we cannot edit, without enduring such hatred, what kind of place is this? It's not like I'm editing Abortion where I expect a certain level of anger. But for this obscure article, which I have spent a lot of time studying and writing, why should I have to put up with these personal attacks. It just makes me want to quit this place. Editing here should have some element of fun. Am I not correct? Or is his behavior acceptable? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Skeptical Raptor's claims again are false. I have sent him no personal emails, and I'm confident an analysis of IPs will confirm that, and all of the blog postings were made well before I even obtained a wikipedia account, and he has since enforced user registration on his blog. Dare I say he is lying? Or just making things up? He removed a reference to a peer reviewed and published PNAS article written specifically to respond to several outstanding criticism of the hypothesis and the work of its advocates, from the pages that are absolutely relevant to the topic. That is unacceptable in the scientific world, and my only response in the wikipedia world was to obtain an account and attempt to bring his actions to your attention. CosmicLifeform (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
SkepticalRaptor's claim that I have sent him personal emails is false. If the subject has little relevance to him, and since he is clearly unfamiliar with it at a scientific and technical level and he clearly possesses an intrinsic bias against the hypothesis, modifications of the hypothesis, theories behind the hypothesis, and evidence for and against the hypothesis, then I suggest a resolution to this dispute would be for him to withdraw as a credible editor of these pages, since his scientific and technical credibility in this matter is severely and apparently irreversibly compromised. And again, I state that I have no wish to add any content. If you would take the time to review the editing history of the page then you would clearly see that the edits I made were minor, and the deletions I made were based on absolute facts. For instance, Carbonado is not composed of Lonsdaleite. CosmicLifeform (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicLifeform (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPA. My credentials are not subject to discussion here, and I cannot believe an admin doesn't stop your continued attacks on me personally and my reputation. I'm disgusted by your on and off-wiki behavior. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any links to the blogs? Can you copy and paste the threats (omit any personal information)? Any tangible proof of these e-mail threats? I've contacted administrators. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania!01:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Plutonium,sections occurence and toxcicity
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in 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 informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Not yet.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Plutonium,sections occurence and toxcicity}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
How do you think we can help?
i am semi computer literate/dyslectic,have sporadic web connection and appeal to the wiki community to address my concerns which i have presented on the plutonium talk page,i am not capable(tho i will continue to try) of creating acceptable edits so i am also appealing for help in impoving this articleSebastian barnes (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Plutonium,sections occurence and toxcicity discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
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.
Katie Piper
Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments6 people in 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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
I believe the race of the attacker is relevant, others don't. That's OK; But I gave a thoughtful (hopefully) argument, with example, in favor of inclusion. The info was removed with a cursory retort amounting to " you're wrong" and the article was then immediately protected. My concern here is not as much about the actual content as it is about (what I see as) the abuse of process here. Granted I am a relatively new editor, but it seems that admins here bully nonadmin editor and enforce their pov via fiat, with the bother of citing any relevant WP:( policy) or the need to engage in substantive content discussion. This is deadly to Wikipedia, as it creates a stifiling environment for new or dissenting editors and enforces content approval by hierarchy rather than discussion. On the content at issue here, would this information be excluded if the person described was laudable, rather than notorious? I can cite numerous articles where the race is included with much less justification than given in this case. ( e.g. Is the race of Beyonce's father relevant, as mentioned in the article on the pop singer?)
I would like to expound, be I hope I have hit the main issue(s) here, so I'll end here for brevity.
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Katie piper}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Gave reasons on talk page. Was dismissed out-of-hand.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
As an outside observer, this appears to be a very fresh issue, and there has not been adequate time to allow a full discussion to develop on the article talk page. I don't think we've reached the level where this can be called an impasse, as no time has been given to allow for discussion to work. The only issue I see is some edit warring by the OP, but since they have also started a talk page discussion, lets hope things develop there instead... --Jayron3205:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)ron
I agree with Jayron32, it is too early to call for a dispute resolution. Looking at Kate Piper, there is not enough discusssion in the talk page before we can chip in our third opinion --Smet (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Jayron, you're a straight shooter. Please have a look at the note I left on the talk page: the last sentence is for admins. I protected the article after I left a comment: I personally think that this was a BLP violation and so I have no qualms about having an opinion and using my bit to protect the article, but given this DR thread I don't want to be an admin anymore in relation to this article. (Mind you, I have no desire to be an editor in relation to this article either, but that's the way things are now.) Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, the protection is of small concern to me.The greater issue is that discussion needs to happen, even if the article is protected in the wrong version the most important thing is to not have the conflict in the article space, and instead use the article talk page for what it is intended for. And regardless, this noticeboard is for help with breaking an impasse in a discussion. Without a discussion, and without time, there is no impasse, as yet. I'd just like to see more level-headed and reasonable discussion on the talk page, and have no ultimate opinion on how it should be resolved. --Jayron3217:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
As a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN, I'd note that even the bare yes-I-did/no-I-didn't discussion which is already at the article talk page would ordinarily probably be enough to satisfy the requirements of this noticeboard. However, I wholly agree that under the circumstances that more talk is needed and that this thread should be closed, but would add one additional thought: One of the very first things which ought to be discussed there is whether there are any reliable sources which tie the race issue into the event discussed in that article. To try to bring that factor in from the mere fact that the accused perpetrator appears to be black in news photographs is original research on both, first, the mere assertion that he is black and, second, the assertion that it has anything to do with the alleged crime. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
not a regular to this board question: When looking at this "dispute resolution" I see Drmies and ukexpat listed as users in this dispute; leading me to believe (falsely) that they disagreed with one another. Should not 108.x.x.x and/or ProfJustice be listed as well? Likely a pedantic question given the out of process nature of this particular "dispute" - but I just wanted to make sure going forward. Thx — Ched : ? 17:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Ched, the instructions in the listing template do say, "Who is involved in the dispute? Include one user per line, and write the name only; do NOT use [[User: ]] or ~ ~ ~ ~. If you are involved in the dispute, include yourself as well." Unfortunately, we're having to have a discussion on this noticeboard's talk page right now about what to do about folks who do not read or follow instructions. The one thing that can be done, in this case at least, is that any editor who cares to bother to do so can update the involved party list. Hint, hint... Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure. I've added five more, four of which also reverted the Professor's edits. I'm not going to bother notifying those people: this dispute should be closed for all the reasons given already. I'm adding it merely to make a point about consensus. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This discussion should, if it continues much longer, probably move to the talk page since it has more to do with the way DRN works than this particular dispute, but let me just note that at least from my own point of view the involved editor list does not really firm up until after there has been discussion about the issue on the article talk page, and before that time any thread created here should be closed. Once there has been sufficient discussion, and a case is properly listed here, the editors who need to be listed here are those who participated in the discussion there. I don't mind editors who only edited without discussing also being listed, but I do not ordinarily consider them to be necessary parties since they were not interested enough in the matter to weigh in on the discussion. Just my opinion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This thread will be closed 24 hours from 17:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC) unless someone can offer particularly good cause why it should remain open. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fascism and democracy
Latest comment: 12 years ago40 comments8 people in 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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Dispute over fascism's position on democracy as a whole. Dispute over whether World fascism: a historical encyclopedia by Cyprian Blamires is a mainstream source. Blamires' encyclopedia states that fascism rejected that it was against democracy as a whole but that it was against liberal democracy, a paraphrase of this: [15]. I am not making a position of whether fascism is democratic or anti-democratic but am addressing what fascists' claimed its position was.--R-41 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Fascism and authoritarian democracy}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I have tried discussing this with The Four Deuces at the talk page, I have addressed the users concerns about other sources, and I have provided a mainstream source that the user requested, the Blamires source that is available at multiple Anglophone world universities' libraries - including the Harvard University's library [16]. The user refuses to accept the source and denies that what it says is significant and goes on to complain that no mainstream source has been provided - denying that Blamires is a mainstream source.
What would help is the following: (1) Determining whether Blamires' encyclopedia is a mainstream reliable source. (2) Determining whether the issue of fascism's claim to be democratic warrants attention for the intro - as fascism is often claimed to be completely anti-democratic. (3) Reviewing other articles on other ideologies that have similarly been claimed to be anti-democratic by others but are claimed to be democratic by themselves - such as Bolshevism, Marxism-Leninism, or others.--R-41 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Tertiary sources are among the favored sources, because they synthesise large amounts of secondary and primary sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·15:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The source is reliable. It's clearly a serious academic book and we can work under a presumption that the information in it is accurate and properly researched. The advisory board appears to include some of the leading experts on the topic, some of whom are frequently used as sources in our article. It makes little practical difference whether we view the book as a secondary or tertiary source.
The lead is generally poor and does not follow WP:LEAD, so it doesn't offer a good context for considering the question asked. I think it would be irresponsible to present the fascist view on anything in the lead without properly balancing it with contrasting views. So, mainly for reasons of brevity, I think this should not be included in the lead.
I don't think comparison to other articles is likely to be useful. Whatever is says about democracy in, say, Bolshevism, will be based on the sources on that topic and what editors of that article have chosen to include, neither of which are good guides as to what should be in the article on fascism. FormerIP (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
CC, we don't have any rule against using tertiary sources, which is why I say it doesn't make much difference. Looking at the overall quality of the source, it would be absurd to suggest that it is not reliable for our purposes. FormerIP (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I see the policy has changed. I wouldn't see a problem if it was used to cite a definition or used to provide a quote provided it is given context.Curb Chain (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello R-41 and TFD. I see things are as lively as I remember at this article! First off, when I looked at the talk page it didn't seem that TFD was disputing the reliability of the source; rather, it seemed that he thought that including the claim in the lede was giving it undue weight. TFD, have I read this correctly? — Mr. Stradivarius♫13:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
To be precise, TFD stated: The encyclopedia makes only a brief mention of the same passage to which Arblaster refers. Articles are in any case supposed to be based on secondary sources, not what fascists said about themselves. That is, a rejection of the source based, it seems, on a claim that what fascists said about themselves is not usable in an article on fascism where the information comes from a standard work on the overall topic. Note also that specialized "encyclopedias" are not in the class of tertiary sources to be avoided. In fact, they frequently represent the only way to determine whether a position is "mainstream" or not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not questioning the validity of the source. The issue is moot because the text can be found elsewhere. The issue is what prominence "authoritarian democracy" should receive in the article. The first volume of the encyclopedia, which is 750 pages long, briefly mentions on p. 170 in a section about "democracy" that Mussolini once claimed that fascism was "authoritarian democracy". Arblaster wrote in "Democracy", "Yet Mussolini, or his ghost-writer Gentile, paid lip-service to the term [democracy] by defining Fascism in the next sentence as 'organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy'". The concept does not seem to have attracted much attention and therefore including it in the lead, or even in the article, would give it undue emphasis. Also, the article appears in general to emphasize obscure aspects of fascism and downplay others. The first paragraph of the lead says fascists "seek rejuvenation of their nation...where its individuals are united together as one people.... [It] seeks to purify the nation of foreign influences...." But there is no mention of the war or the holocaust in the lead. TFD (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... if the claim is as minor as you say, then I agree that it should not be in the lede, and possibly not in the article. However, I would be interested to hear R-41's thoughts as well. R-41, can you give us a quick explanation of why you think this claim is of sufficient weight to include in the article, and in the lede? Is this topic covered by other encyclopaedia articles on Fascism, or other short introductions to the subject, for example? — Mr. Stradivarius♫16:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I've changed the intro of this - it is about fascism and democracy - "authoritarian democracy" is one of the names of describe their claim to be democratic. TFD keeps rejecting multiple sources that analyze fascism's claim to be democratic. Michael Curtis' Totalitarianism on page 6 states that fascism portrayed totalitarianism as seeking to directly connect the state with the general will, of it being akin to the plebiscitary democracy as promoted by revolutionary France - especially the authoritarian version by Robbespierre that legitimized acts of terror against those opponents who were deemed to be against the general will. TFD will claim that fascism is a mere reaction to the French Revolution and that this source is wrong, but that is inaccurate - fascists claimed that egalitarianism and liberalism were what was at fault with the French Revolution, they did not criticize the Revolution's nationalism, and both Hitler and Mussolini admired Napoleon - who fused absolute monarchy with Jacobin ideals. Dylan Riley also mentions fascism's claim to be directly connected to the general will, Riley claims that fascism was an "authoritarian democracy". However TFD accused Riley's work as not having support in the academic community - then I showed him that prominent historian on fascism Stanley Payne praised Riley's work - but then TFD rebuked that Payne noted that Riley's work was controversial, but I note that Payne said that his work was important to the study of fascism. There have been controversial works that have been considered deeply important. TFD also rejected a journal article by Jacob Talmon who described fascism as a totalitarian democracy noting that the general will was invoked to legitimize it, because he accused Talmon of being "fringe" - but presented no evidence to prove that. Robert Soucy in "Barres and Fascism", French Historical Studies, describes Maurce Barres' connection with fascism and specifically notes Barres' promotion of "authoritarian democracy" as important to the ideology of fascism. Bottom line: the issue of fascism's claim to be democratic is addressed by multiple authors. It is important to address this claim because fascism is often considered to be completely anti-democratic - even in its official policies - when in fact fascists claimed they did not reject democracy in its entirety. It deserves attention in the intro because the issue of fascism in relation to democracy is a very common topic about fascism.--R-41 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, R-41, and thanks for pointing out that various different authors have made this claim. From what you have described, I would say that this claim has a place in the article. I'm not sure about Riley's standing as a historian (I'd be grateful if someone could fill me in), but I would say that in general if a respected historian has suggested a controversial theory, then we should include it, and simply note that the academic mainstream disagrees with it. Generally, I don't think such things would fall under the "tiny minority" described in WP:WEIGHT.
Whether we should include it in the lede or not is another matter. I think your last sentence is key here - "the issue of fascism in relation to democracy is a very common topic about fascism". Obviously TFD disputes this, and this is why the discussion has ended up here. In many disputes like this, it is entirely up to editor judgement as to what should be included in the lede. In the case of fascism, however, we are in luck; there are a multitude of encyclopaedia articles and short introductions out there that we can use to decide the prominence of this particular view.
I am quite under-informed on the subject, so I won't try and offer an opinion myself. Instead, I propose doing a survey of these general introductions and using them as a benchmark. If this claim appears in these kind of publications a reasonable amount of times, then include it in the lede; if it doesn't, then don't. I think this is a reasonable test - would you both be willing to put this into practice here? Best — Mr. Stradivarius♫18:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
(out) R-41 provided a review of Riley's 2010 book: "fascist movements
appear considerably less anti-Toquevillian and not as antidemocratic as the
existing literature says they were." (p. 500)[17]WP:WEIGHT says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." If a book has been recently published and the academic community has not weighed on its claims, it cannot be considered a significant viewpoint - yet. R-41 took a quote by from the book's dust jacket which calls it "[T]he most original and provocative new analysis of the preconditions of Fascism that has appeared in years, together with an often persuasive interpretation of the development and failures of civil society". In fact Payne praises the author's writing on civil society, but not on democracy, "It is doubtful that this definition [of democracy] will gain much acceptance, while to term Fascism 'authoritarian democracy' is also to take a broad-brush approach that would nominally include many forms of authoritarianism on the one hand, while failing to distinguish Fascism from Communism on the other".[18]
R-41 needs to show that Curtis' "plebiscitary democracy" and Talmon's "totalitarian democracy" are the same thing as "authoritarian democracy". Curtis's book was published in 1979 by Irving Horowitz's Transaction Publishers, which publishes controversial works by conservative writers, and probably lacks notablity, although Talmon is well-known, but highly controversial. Riley mentions neither writer in his book. He does not see himself as developing the concepts of the other two writers and neither do the historians who reviewed his book.
R-41 has found a 1967 article about Maurice Barres, in which the writer refers to the democracy advocated by Barres as "authoritarian democracy", although Barres probably never used the term. And of course Barres was not a fascist, so it is synthesis to say that because he advocated something and he influenced fascism that fascists advocated it. And of course we would need to show that this writer's view has gained some degree of recognition. If scholars believed this to be important then we would find it in a book about fascism. As it is, we do not even know if this is a significant view about Barres.
R-41 says, "fascists claimed that egalitarianism and liberalism were what was at fault with the French Revolution, they did not criticize the Revolution's nationalism, and both Hitler and Mussolini admired Napoleon - who fused absolute monarchy with Jacobin ideals". That is typical of the arguments he presents on the talk page, but is unhelpful. It is an argument for a position on fascism based on a personal interpretation. It is also unhelpful to make comments such as "you keep making up new excuses for why fascism's claim to support a form of democracy should not be included" or "the only reason I see why you want to remove it is because you do not want to see the word "democracy" associated with fascism".
I see a pattern of searching for sources to support a view. The best approach is to pick up a textbook on fascism that explains the various approaches to the subject and use that as a guide for assigning weight. We need something like, "While most scholars view fascism as anti-democratic, a significant number define it as "authoritarian democracy" which was originally developed by Barres and incorporated into Fascism by Mussolini. [Footnote - the term "authoritarian democracy was coined by Riley, but was called x by Curtis and y by Talmon.]" Otherwise, we are synthesizing views from a number of sources and providing a prominence to them that they do not merit.
I, alas, see a pattern of denying reliable sources which contradict what an editor "knows" to tbe the "truth." French Literary Fascism: Nationalism, Anti-Semitism, and the Ideology of Culture by David Carroll (1998) states explicitly that Barres that Barres is linked to fascism, patterned on a "new man" paradoxically modeled after a radical notion of an original, poetical, revolutionary, totalitiarian "classical man". Routledge states that Robert Soucy called Barres "the first French fascist." It also says Sternhell called Barres a fascist. And so on. Yet saying that none of this is in any reliabkle source is absurd. Cheers. Want to have all the other multiple claims above be demolished as readily? Collect (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a red herring. Whether or not Barres was a fascist, you need to show that scholars believe he developed the theory of "authoritarian democracy", that his version was incorporated into fascism, and tht it is considered to be important enough to be included in a brief article. Your source, French literary fascism, does not mention Barres alleged theory of "authoritarian democracy", which one would expect if the concept were significant. BTW as click here explains, Soucy and Sternhell's view that Barres was a fascist is a minority view. TFD (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I addressed a point you specifically made and showed it was errant. Now you assert that disproving what you asserted to be the WP:TRUTH is a "red herring." Some herring. Collect (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The bottom line as what I am trying to say is that multiple sources say that fascism claimed to support democracy. And that claims that it completely opposed democracy in its entirety are not verifiable. That being said, fascism clearly opposed liberal democracy. I am surprised by the speed in which TFD swiftly rejects academic books as "minority view" or "fringe" - does TFD have the background knowledge of what is or is not minority view or fringe on fascism in the academic community?--R-41 (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
That which hits IDONTLIKEIT is "minority", that which is IKNOWISTHETRUTH is "majority". No other reasons seem to appear. Collect (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Though I would give more room to assume good faith for TFD, Collect, I do agree that perhaps there is a bit of overconfidence on TFD's part in assuming to know what views are "fringe" and what views are "accepted", and yes that seems to involve WP:TRUTH unless he can present evidence on what exactly is "accepted". What I take alarm with is that I notice that TFD has character assassinated Michael Curtis' work because it was published by Irving Horowitz's Transaction Publishers - TFD accuses Horowitz of publishing biased work but presents no evidence to prove the claim nor how Curtis' work is biased - thus TFD is character assassinating Curtis through the fallacy of guilt by association. Transaction Publishers publishes works by scholars in many diverse fields from medieval history to biology to philosophy to psychology to sociology, amongst others. Plus contrary to TFD's claim that the publisher is pushing an agenda of "conservative writers", here is a book it published on the topic of guild socialism that was written by guild socialist G.D.H. Cole: [19], here is another book it published on the topic of social anarchism by anarchist Giovanni Baldelli - who formerly presided over the International Anarchist Congress in London, [20]. Thus Transaction Publishers does not appear to be devoted to the agenda of "conservative writers" as TFD accuses it of, it also publishes works by socialist and anarchist writers. --R-41 (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
In addition to publishing new works by conservative writers, Transaction re-prints major works in social sciences. Both of the examples provided by R-41 are reprints: Guild socialism restated was originally published in 1920 and Social anarchism was originally published in 1971 by Penguin Books.[21] I am familiar with this publisher because they come up continually on a number of articles. However you need to show that Curtis view about fascism and plebiscitary democracy has received recognition in later writing and that it is the same thing as authoritarian democracy.
Also, I have not used the term "fringe" at all in this discussion thread. However the way to determine what views are accepted is to use reliable sources. In the case of Talmon and Soucey for example, I wrote, "as click here explains, Soucy and Sternhell's view that Barres was a fascist is a minority view." It says Soucy is "one of the principal foreign critics of the Rémondian orthodoxy". We do not call people faxcists just because some writers have called them that.
While you have indeed provided "multiple sources", they are not necessarily making the same claim, nor is there any evidence that these are mainstream views. You have developed a thesis and are looking for sources to support it, which is original research.
TFD, for the LAST time, the issue is about fascism relation with democracy. Authoritarian democracy is about one major strand advocated by the Italian Fascists and discussed by Nazis. I know where you are trying to push the discussion into saying "well not every single fascist promoted this particular 'authoritarian democracy' - so the entire argument is in the trash bin". The issue is NOT a SINGLE example of fascism's connection to democracy, but the ENTIRE issue of fascism's relation with democracy. about one The question that I have posed is this: "Is fascism completely opposed to democracy?", the answer I have found is "No, fascism is opposed to liberal democracy, but denies that it is completely opposed to democracy? <-- That is the issue, do not deflect the discussion again into the single example of authoritarian democracy-and acknowledge that I am talking about the relationship between fascism and democracy. I am correcting the title of this discussion to being about fascism's relation with democracy - if you revert it back and go back to haranguing about the single example of "authoritarian democracy" that I mentioned to divert attention from fascism's relation with democracy, I will report you for disruption via Wikipedia:Failure or refusal to "get the point".--R-41 (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Once again you are character assassinating Soucy and Sternhell by using the opinion of one author in one book to denounce their work. Your accusation Sternhell's work is "minority" is pure nonsense - Sternhell's works are addressed and used as references by prominent historians on fascism such as Roger Griffin and Stanley Payne.--R-41 (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
R-41, when sources say that a view is not held by most scholars they are stating a fact, not an opinion. Note that the source used is the introduction to a section which is written by Soucy. The fact that Soucy and Sternhell are well known does not mean that every opinion they express can be taken as the consensus view of scholars. Most scholars do not think Barres was a fascist. Even if they did, you have found isolated sources saying that Mussolini once paid lip-service to democracy and others that fascism could be seen as a form of democracy, but have not established that this is significant. If most writers on fascism ignore this, then you need to explain why we should include it. TFD (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Show us the reliable sources stating that the claim is "fringe" or "minority" - so far you assert what you "know" and assert things not found in the sources you have provided thus far. Provide explicit, reliable, peer-reviewed scholarly sources for your claim please. Collect (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
(out) I provided a source and note that normally sources are required to show that opinions have gained majority acceptance rather than sources that they have not. In the most extreme case, it is impossible to obtain sources that an opinion has received no attention, because there would be no sources that mention it. However, here is a quote from the Routledge companion to the far right. I trust it meets your standards of being a reliable source. "It is in this context that we encounter the problematic concept of 'pre-fascism', a term so controversial and contentious that it is often accompanied by quotation marks. In the opinion of some historians, 'pre-fascism' was discernible in the period 1880-1900, the 'incubation years of fascism', as Sternhell has put it.... 'Barrès'...made telling contribution to the ferment in France" (p. 90)[22] Soucy and Sternhell are discussed on p. 69. "[Soucy] has made a highly original contribution to the debate about fascism and 'pre-fascism' in France.... [He] goes on to label him the 'first French fascist' on account of his sophisticated fusing of nationalist and socialist ideas in the 1880s and 1890s". "[Sternhell] argues that [fascism] developed in embryonic form in France in the 1880s and 1890s, and identifies [Barrès] as the key figure in the process.... [His view was] that the late nineteenth century in France witnessed the emergence of 'pre-fascism'".[23]TFD (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
In short,you have provided no reliable peer-reviewed scholarly sources to back your assertions, and you wish to require R-41 to prove that a claim found in a reliable source meets your definition of "majority view." That is why this is called "dispute resolution" but DR does not work when one editor simply asserts that his side is the "truth" and the other views are "minority." Your source, by the way, does not support what you know. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The quote just provided by TFD (from a top class source) quite clearly shows that it is a minority viewpoint that Barres was a (pre-)fascist. Did you not notice that?·ʍaunus·snunɐw·18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
And I read the context in the entire book. I know - I am only supposed to look at the "quote" instead of all the other stuff surrounding it <g>. "Pre-fascism" is a definite topic there, and it is described at length in Routledge - and not just dismissed as "fringe" or the like at all. Routledge does not only cite Soucy, but also Putnam and Doty wrt how Barres was "pre-fascist." Also read page 93 on of Routledge and not stop at the "quote" above. Note particularly Barres had established his own type of mystical French nationalism... In time ultra-nationalism would become the 'engine' of fascism. Clearly linking Barres to "fascism" in that manner. Also page 197 "Barres 'was fundamental to the 'pre-fascist' era in late nineteenth century France." So much for Routledge opposing the term about Barres <g>. Sorry - the source still fails to back what TFD "knows." Collect (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The first passage you quote is from p. 94 and is explaining why Soucy considered Barres to be the 'first French fascist'.[24] On the second quote you are just making assumptions. Notice the use of scare quotes. Both of these are snippet views. But even if it were consensus opinion that Barres was a fascist, that fascism began in France in 1880, you would still need to show that advocacy of democracy by Barres was notable. It is not even mentioned in this book. Then you would have to find sources Barres's alleged view on democracy is significant in fascist ideology. TFD (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Um -- I read the section of the source concerning this topic (IIRC well over a dozen full pages) dismissing the full quotes as being "snippet views" is a silly and inane personal attack here. And "But even if it were consensus view" shows your personal use of "knowing" the "truth" while I rely on what the reliable source states in black and white. Now deal with wqhat the source states and not with accusing me of using "snippet views." And it is not up to me to show that Routledge's clear statements are "notable." Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
TFD where is your evidence to disprove the claim made by Blamires that basically states that "fascism is opposed to liberal democracy but does not claim to be opposed to democracy as a whole"? Where is your evidence to claim that fascism completely rejects democracy as a whole? Provide reliable academic and scholarly sources that are investigating fascism's relation to democracy. Don't just pick a random unscholarly source that says that fascism is simply anti-democratic or says it as a side note - pick a source that specifically investigates the relation of fascism with democracy - often the term "democracy" in contemporary usage is used to refer to liberal democracy based on multiparty systems, legislatures, universal suffrage, and freedom of speech - ignoring other forms and claimed forms of democracy that do not meet these ideals - like the aristocratic-led ancient Greek democracy that put Socrates to death for censorship purposes.--R-41 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
(1) We need to show that the statement on page 170 of volume 1 of the fascism encyclopedia is of sufficient significance to be included, not that it is true. The encyclopedia does not mention this fact in its 25 page small print introduction. As you say, "pick a source that specifically investigates the relation of fascism with democracy". Most sources on fascism ignore it. (2) You ask, "Where is your evidence to claim that fascism completely rejects democracy as a whole?" Well Blamires does not say that they are not opposed to democracy as whole, merely that they made that claim. Arblaster, whom you also mention, does not even go that far - he says they paid lip service in a single essay. This appears to be a coatrack to hang theories that fascists actually supported some form of democracy. (3) Your reference to Socrates shows that you are missing the point of how articles should be written. It is not up to us to argue which views are best, but which are most frequently mentioned and most generally accepted. TFD (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
TFD, none of your rebukes of Blamires prove anything - just because he chooses one section to mention the point does not mean that it is unimportant - all that you rebukes show is that Blamires chose a specific section to explain in detail fascism's relation with democracy. I do not have time at present to re-add what I attempted to add minutes ago but was disrupted by an edit conflict by an addition by another user. But I have found another source that clearly states that although it does not identify fascism as being in common with contemporary conventional democracy based on pluralism, it does state that fascism did not claim to reject democracy in its entirety and that fascism claimed to promote a "true democracy" in the form of a plebiscitarian direct democracy and through encouraging mass participation within the fascist movement and state. You will probably jump to criticism by the name of the main editor: Seymour Lipset because he became a neoconservative in his later years - however I note that he has been around the political spectrum he was a socialist as a youth and later a liberal. When I do later provide the quotes, focus on what the book is saying about fascism, do not engage in character assassination against Lipset because of his political beliefs - bear in mind that I am a person of social democrat beliefs using the work of person with neoconservative beliefs - and I find condemnation of scholars' works merely based on their political beliefs to be at best foolhardy and at worst McCarthyist. There are also other editors who contributed to it, such as Dutch American scholar Arend Lijphart who is supportive of the more social-democratic leaning consociationalism and corporatist political systems in Western Europe. Nevertheless the book is available as a reference book in my university's library section on democracy. The book is The Encyclopedia of Democracy, Volume II, publisher: Washington, DC, USA, 1995: Congressional Quarterly, pages 472 to 473.--R-41 (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Please do not anticipate and and pre-emptively denounce my objections. The reliability of a source depends on the reputation of the publisher. The weight to be assigned to views depends on what reliable source say the academic community has assigned them. Both are independent of the political views of the writers. However, writings published by partisan publishers are less likely to have broad support, which is why they are published by them in the first place. You need to show that fascism's alleged claim to support some form of democracy is significant. BTW, you need to talk to Collect about Lipset, because he is hopping mad about his term radical right. I do not know where on the political spectrum Lipset was when he coined the term, nor do I care. TFD (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Islamic-Jewish Relations
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in 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.
Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
A user with the account name MJC.2012 (talk·contribs) added a new POV to the article Islamic-Jewish Relations, namely the Islamic POV. Multiple users have removed this POV even though his language was clearly stating that it is the Islamic POV rather than an established fact. Regardless of the validity of his claim, there was an obvious dispute there but other users (who are likely to be friends) are continuously removing his POV check, in many cases without even discussing it in the Talk page .
Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I have personally added the POV check so to get more editors involved. But it's getting removed by the other members and their friends.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I have been trying to revise the language to articulate that there are multiple point of views on the claim that "Judaism has influenced Islam". It's unfair to Muslims to not mention that POV. I've revised my language so it's fair for all POVs, and to make sure that I'm not misusing a primary source I revised my sentence so it doesn't interpret the Qur'anic verse. There are many secondary sources that interpret that verse and I will find one and add it soon. But it's unfair to make the article sounds like that there is only one POV on that claim. At least I think the POV tag should remain there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJC.2012 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) I see that a RfC has opened regarding this point. It appears that the best solution (outside of either of the disputing parties relenting) has already occured. With no significant objections, the RfC should continue and should be advertised to interested parties (WP:Islam, WP:Judasiam, WP:Christianity, WP:Religion, etc.). Pending significant objections this thread will be closed in 24 hours from 12:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC) with that rationale. Hasteur (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved