Latest comment: 12 years ago48 comments13 people in discussion
If you have any questions about why this thread was closed, please click the 'show' button first and read the comment left by the closer. If your questions are still not answered, please inquire on the closer's talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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?
This article starts with the following sentence. 'Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews during World War II, usually referred to as the Holocaust'. The Holocaust is also used, within wikipedia, e.g. at the page The Holocaust to refer to the Nazi genocide of other groups. Therefore it is entirely approriate that any reference to the Holocaust refer to those other groups. The argument against this is that this article is about Holocaust denial, which specifically denies the genocide of Jews. Holocaust deniers don't really care about denying the genocide of other groups.
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=Holocaust denial}} --~~~~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 proposed two possible solutions. 1 We include a reference in the introduction of this article to the fact that there are two definitions of the Holocaust, one of which includes all victims of the Nazis, and not just Jewish victims. 2 That we reword the first sentence to be 'Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews during World War II' That would ensure that no single definition is used.
How do you think we can help?
It may be possible to get one of my suggestions above, or another suitable solution agreed. I think that there is a misunderstanding about what I am proposing. I am not trying to change the definition of Holocaust denial to include all victims, but I would like consistency about the use of the word Holocaust throughout wikipedia. It should refer to both accepted definitions wherever it is used, or to neither.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
What reliable sources can be brought that specifically apply the term "Holocaust denial" to the denial of the genocide of groups other than Jews during WWII? In all my reading on the subject I've never seen the term "Holocaust denial" applied to anything other than the denial of the extermination of Jews, not to the denial of the extermination of other groups, making the term "Holocaust denial" a specifically anti-Semitic term. Zad68 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
This is what we've been asking for DLDD all along. He's been able to come up with examples of writers criticizing Holocaust denial themselves defining the Holocaust as including others than Jews, but not with examples of either HD being defined as denying other victims of the Holocaust or other writers saying that HD involves denying such other victims. --jpgordon::==( o )19:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
That's your problem in the first place; you fail to recognize that the article is about Holocaust denial, which deals only with Jews; readers are eminently capable of clicking on the Holocaust article if they want more details about the Holocaust and its broader interpretation (which is not the intepretation Holocaust deniers are concerned with.) --jpgordon::==( o )19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
that is simply not correct. I have clearly stated that I accept the same definition of HD as you have just given. The dispute is as to why one definition of the Holocaust is used here when it would be so simple to give both, or neither. Wikipedia, having accepted that there are two definitions should be consistent throughout. It should not be left to the reader to check that for themselves. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Dalai lama ding dong, you are asking "why [is] one definition of the Holocaust is used here"? And here is the answer: Because that's the definition the reliable sources use. If the reliable sources don't talk about "Holocaust denial" referring to denial of the genocide of groups of people other than Jews, I can't see what Wikipedia policy-based reason there would be for putting it in the article. Holocaust mentions that there is a minority use of the term "Holocaust" as referring to groups other than Jews, and it is backed up to a source. What source can you bring that uses "Holocaust denial" in reference to other groups? If we don't have one, then until we can find one, I don't see a reason for putting it in the article. Zad68 (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
This is pointless. DLDD simply refuses to accept reality. I'm quite sympathetic to attempts to correct Holocaust coverage to include the Roma, who as one of two nations targeted for complete extermination suffered just as badly as the Jews but are generally ignored today. But Holocaust denial is not motivated by antiziganism (or by homophobia, or by able-ism, or whatever), but by antisemitism. This is much like arguments that "antisemitism" includes hatred of Arabs, because Arabs speak a Semitic language, when the term was explicitly coined as a synonym for "Jew hatred". He fails to understand that terms have meanings, and that "Holocaust denial", like "antisemitism", is a term with a meaning.
If DLDD can find sources for this, it could be included per WEIGHT, which would almost certainly mean we wouldn't give it more than a passing mention. But it's up to DLDD to find those sources. — kwami (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
again, this dispute is not about the definition of HD. That is not disputed. My RS for their being more than one definition of the Holocaust is the Holocaust article in wikipedia. I have made this very clear. So far no one has addressed my point. The analogy to the meaning of anti semitism completely misses the point, and is irrelevant. The motivation for HD is completely irrelevant. I do not have to find any sources, they are already in wikipedia. Can we please discuss why this article does not reflect the wikipedia article on the Holocaust, which gives two definitions of tha Holocaust?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
here is the wikipeda article on the Holocaust. The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban,[3] from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, throughout Nazi-occupied territory.[4] Of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust, approximately two-thirds perished.[5] In particular, over one million Jewish children were killed in the Holocaust, as were approximately two million Jewish women and three million Jewish men.[6][7]
Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include the Nazis' genocide of millions of people in other groups, including Romani, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, homosexuals, people with disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses and other political and religious opponents, which occurred regardless of whether they were of German or non-German ethnic origin.[8] Using this definition, the total number of Holocaust victims is between 11 million and 17 million people.[9].Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Response back to you is still here, you haven't addressed it or brought a source that talks about "Holocaust denial", despite your edit summary. Zad68 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
He simply doesn't understand how words are used. If he hasn't understood by now, I doubt he's going to get it from this discussion.
DLDD, your time would be better spent on the Holocaust article, which I see has now degenerated. (The killing of Soviet POWs was not genocide. The targeted 'final solution' of the Roma was. I don't know how we can equate the two, as we now do in the lead, without feeling ill.) — kwami (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
still no one can address the point. Why not include both accepted definitions, or neither? Only including one is POV. No one is wiling to discuss this point. No one has referred to my two suggested resolutions above.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Zad68. All RS..All refute that there is only definition of the Holocaust.
Nobody is disagreeing with the definition of "the Holocaust". We are disagreeing about the relevance of the extended definition of "Holocaust" to the subject of "Holocaust denial", of which there appears to be none. --jpgordon::==( o )22:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Dalai lama ding dong, this distinction was pointed out to you many times on the Holocaust denial talk page and you acknowledged this point several times. You explicitly stated, "Please show me where I claiming that all definitions of the Nazi holocaust apply to Holocaust denial? I certainly do not intend to claim that." Isn't this a fair description of what you are currently seeking to do? When an editor informed you that, "Holocaust Denial is not about the Holocaust, but about Jews", you responded, "agreed. I have never disputed this". Your above assertion belies your various responses on the talk page, and I request that you explain this apparent inconsistency, and the revisiting of a problem that I thought had been resolved. Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork23:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Dalai, your whole complaint is based on nothing but a straw man. The phrase in question, "..the genocide of Jews during World War II, usually referred to as the Holocaust" is not a "definition of the holocaust". It is stupid to say that it is. Zargulon (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Please try and remain civil. If it is not a definition, then why not remove it as I suggested? Thank you for being the first person to recognise the dispute. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I am a regular mediator/clerk here at this noticeboard. Rather than let this discussion drag on any longer, I have to note that I'm not seeing any support for the edit (or any similar edit) proposed by Dalai lama ding dong. It appears to me that DLDD has made the argument for the edit to the best of his/her ability and is not being misunderstood. While several opponents have objected to the edit on the basis of inadequate sourcing and have indicated a willingness to consider the edit if reliable sources were to be provided for it, they have not accepted the sources which DLDD has provided to this point. It must be borne in mind that even if the proposed edit were supported by unassailable reliable sources and was indisputably relevant to the topic of this article that nothing can be included in a Wikipedia article unless there is consensus for its inclusion. Under the current circumstances it appears that there is an clear consensus against the inclusion of this edit and that, unless several of the opponents indicate that they are still on the fence on this issue, further discussion of it will be, at the very least, inappropriate and disruptive. For that reason, I will close this discussion as resolved 24 hours after the time stamp on this message unless in the meantime a substantial number of the opponents to the edit indicate that they wish for it to be continued. If this discussion is so closed, I would also suggest that DDLD should consider his only option for further pursuit of this issue to be the filing of a request for comments at the article talk page, as any further advocacy for it elsewhere might be considered disruptive editing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It is quite simply original research to say that Holocaust denial, the title of the article being discussed, applies to non-Jews, in the absence of a source. All material must be sourced. All material added must be verifiable. There is no source in support of the implication that DLDD wishes to put into the article: that "holocaust denial" encompasses denial of the tragedy of death and destruction to befall non-Jews in mid twentieth century Europe. The reason for this is that there is no "denial" of the death and destruction that befell non-Jews in mid twentieth century Europe. Holocaust denial is not just for the purpose of contradiction. Another aim of holocaust denial is the infliction of mental anguish. Holocaust denial is a present day manifestation of antisemitism. Holocaust denial is an expression of antisemitism because it requires a response. The response can be psychologically painful but such responses must be delivered in order to counter the falsehood of such claims, thus "holocaust deniers" accomplish a purpose, an antisemitic purpose, even if their arguments are effectively responded to. Antisemitism thus serves as the motivation for "holocaust denial" and of course this is a motivation confined to Jews. Thus there is a bifurcation between the scope of the term "holocaust" and the scope of the term "holocaust denial". Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
First, I generally support DLDD's complaints insofar as the article on holocaust denial implies a narrow definition of the holocaust. Almost all secondary sources (e.g., historians, sociologists, etc.) almost take for granted by now that the Nazis systematically murdered many groups and that we refer to this systematic murder as the holocaust. There are many questions still about the holocaust, when exactly it began, who was targeted, and so on. The article on the holocaust is clear here but certainly does not as some people have suggested consign broader definitions of the holocaust to minority usage. DLDD is asking - and myself - to have the (implied) definition of the holocaust given in the article on holocaust denial brought in line with the broader definition given in the article on the holocaust. Second, I completely disagree with anyone who says that holocaust denial has only ever been anti-semetic. This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of holocaust denial. Has anyone here besides DLDD actually read or heard David Irving, who is in my mind the most sophisticated holocaust denier on the planet today? Irving certainly is an anti-semite, but he is many other things too... and the crux of his message is that the Nazis did not embark in any way whatsoever on a course of killing their opponents. I suppose that, given Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources, Irving can't be considered a proper source. OK, I'll just have to find someone now who discusses Irving and points to the many places in which he does deny the holocaust broadly speaking. Cheers. Mfhiller (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
The issue here is not your definition of the Holocaust, nor your understanding of David Irving's statements, but rather what reliable sources state about Holocaust denial. They define it as an activity directed against Jews, and more specifically as an antisemiticconspiracy theory. There's a reason that Holocaust denial books have names like Did Six Million Really Die?, not Did Eleven Million Really Die?. As Kenneth Stern wrote in 2006, "Holocaust Denial is not about the Holocaust, but about Jews" (Antisemitism Today, p. 79). Jayjg (talk)01:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Mfhiller says, the article on holocaust denial implies a narrow definition of the holocaust. Yes, it does, because our reliable sources show us that holocaust denial is about a narrow definition of the Holocaust. --jpgordon::==( o )02:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll accept the points about holocaust denial being an "antisemitic conspiracy theory"/ holocaust denial about a "narrow definition of the holocaust". The article on holocaust denial, however, mentions none of this and I think this has been part of the dispute all along. Something of this sort should be included - discussion of terms. The aim after all is just to make the article better, right? Mfhiller (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
I withdraw the closing notice which I gave above, as the consensus against inclusion was not quite so clear as I thought it was. However, I would again note that under this provision of the consensus policy that once an edit has been challenged that a positive consensus for its inclusion must be established or it cannot be included and there is nothing close to that here, nor any indication that this discussion might be moving in the direction of the formation of such a consensus. I would suggest to DLDD and Mfhiller that if they wish their desired edit to be included in the article, the best opportunity to obtain a consensus in their favor without improper canvassing would be to file a request for comment at the article page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The article on Holocaust denial is not "about a narrow definition of the Holocaust", it is about Holocaust denial. Phrases often don't mean what their constituent words may or may not superficially suggest, and it is not necessary to belabour this fact in the lead of the article, which currently defines "holocaust denial" accurately and concisely. Zargulon (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Zargulon, the article on holocaust denial does not define holocaust denial accurately at all in so far as the first sentence inaccurately implies an exclusionary definition of the holocaust. There is a good suggestion now on the talk page for holocaust denial, something to the effect of "Holocaust denial is the act of denying the extermination of Jews during the holocaust." What I and others have been objecting to is a statement like "Holocaust denial is the act of denying the extermination of Jews, usually referred to as the holocaust." Of course the article on holocaust denial is about holocaust denial: therefore it should not assume a controversial definition of the holocaust that implies that the term "holocaust" only refers to the extermination of Jews. It isn't just a controversial definition, it is blatantly false. Mfhiller (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
No Mfhiller, the first sentence does not imply any definition of the Holocaust - you are making a wrong inference from that sentence. Please read it again carefully and try not to be influenced by what you may want it to mean. Zargulon (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
transporter man, there is an excellent suggestion for a re wording on the HD talk page. It is supported by myself and mfhiller. Can I copy it over here?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
the user Rip-Saw has proposed the suggestion for re-wording that is supported also by DLDD and myself. It is a minor change that only reflects the definition of the holocaust already given in the article on the holocaust. For consistency's sake only, please, let's change this accordingly. Mfhiller (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
Zargulon, yes the first sentence does imply a definition of the holocaust and I am not making a wrong inference; how can I when the relative clause says exactly, by way of grammar, that the holocaust is defined by the extermination of Jews? The article is about holocaust denial, not about the holocaust, and the article about the holocaust already states quite explicitly that the holocaust involved many groups the Nazis found unacceptable. This is already conceding quite a lot actually, given that there have been many holocausts and that there isn't just one but many holocaust denials. Mfhiller (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
No, the relative clause really doesn't "imply a definition", "by way of grammar" or by any other "way". My dog is usually referred to as James, as it says in the lead of the "Dog of Zargulon" article. Do you really think that implies some sort of exclusive definition of the word "James"? Do you really think that "Dog of Zargulon" article needs to carefully explain in the lead that James is a name given to people and entities other than my dog? You are certainly making a wrong inference. Zargulon (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
About what "exactly right"? That Zargulon knows the name of his or her dog? I should hope so. I might give in if you are comfortable with this sentence: "Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews during WW2; the holocaust is usually defined as the genocide of Jews during WW2." Clearly though that's wrong unless one is going to start a whole other sort of holocaust denial. Mfhiller (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
Since for some reason you have decided to start talking about a completely different sentence from the one under dispute, perhaps you could just "give in" anyway? Zargulon (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I haven't decided at all "to start talking about a completely different sentence." I'm talking only about the one that is already there and how one ought to read it literally. My resentencifying (forgive the neologism) only highlights the disputed meaning. I hope your dog, James, is doing well. Mfhiller (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
On the contrary, your paraphrasing (what you meant when you said "resentencifying"), completely changes the meaning. Your failure to see this, arises exactly from your failure to read the existing sentence literally, which is ironic in light of your last post. Zargulon (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary? One brute assertion is as good as another. How exactly have I completely changed the meaning? Given your strong objections I expect that you are able to articulate reasons for your idiosyncratic understanding of relative clauses. Mfhiller (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
Holocaust denial is about Jews, and the definition of Holocaust does not fall under the breadth of this article. From a purely grammatical standpoint, the lead should be changed to "Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II." As the lead currently reads, it is unclear as to what the Holocaust "usually refers" to. Rip-Saw (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
this is an excellent suggestion. Would you like to make the change? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes this is a good suggestion. Thanks. Mfhiller (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
There are now three supporters of this wording. Can anyone explain why this change should not be made. If the current lede really does not include a definition of the Holocaust then nothing is lost by adopting this improved wording.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I support the wording "Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II." It is a precise description of the subject and does not carry any baggage regarding definitions. I don't know why it isn't obvious that this sentence is better than what is currently there. Zerotalk11:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
There are four people now who support the wording "Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II." Mfhiller (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
Make it five. I have no strong feelings either way on this topic, but the above appears to be what is in the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
With this much support I shall now go ahead and make the agreed change,a s no arguments have be received against this new wording. Thanks to all who contributed.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Citation dispute on automotive topic
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
If you have any questions about why this thread was closed, please click the 'show' button first and read the comment left by the closer. If your questions are still not answered, please inquire on the closer's talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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?
User RTShadow consistently reverts citations to a source with a questionable reputation and no formal expertise on the subject matter from a reputable source with many decades in automotive journalism and testing.
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=Citation dispute on automotive topic}} --~~~~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 debated with RTShadow on the subject and provided two reputable sources while proving his source as unreliable due to lack of expert knowledge on the subject matter.
How do you think we can help?
blocking carthrottle.com as a citation or flagging it as questionable.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
My observations are: 1) You have not discussed this enough at the article Talk page to bring it to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and 2) This appears to be a dispute over whether carthrottle.com is a reliable source. Take "carthrottle.com" to the reliable sources noticeboard. I did a search on the RSN history and carthrottle.com has not been discussed there yet. I took a quick look at the carthrottle.com "About us" page and it appears to be in the same general reliability category as caranddriver.com--they are both advertising-based industry specialist publications with editorial boards. However, caranddriver.com is much bigger and more well-established. Take this to WP:RSN. Zad68 (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
You're correct. My main dispute is with the credibility of using Car Throttle over Car and Driver. I question the credentials of the Car Throttle staff as they do not prove any expertise in their field, whereas Car and Driver staff generally have journalism degrees, mechanical engineering degrees, and many have held positions with other large media corporations. An example is the Editor-in-Chief of Car and Driver, Eddie Alterman. He has an extensive background in automotive journalism with Men's Journal and Automotive Magazine, both well-established companies. He also created Motive Magazine and MPH Magazine. The Editor-in-Chief of Car Throttle, and writer of the citation in question, has no background beyond being an enthusiast. His review is no different than if anyone else had created a blog post making a claim. I will take this over to the reliable sources noticeboard as you suggest.
(99.144.70.71 (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC))
Seriously? Somebody is claiming that a website founded in 2008 is a better source than a website associated with a major automotive magazine that was founded in 1955 and is available on every newsstand in the country? I don't buy it. Alas, I also don't believe that the dispute resolution noticeboard is the right place to take this. Close it and open up a ticket at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Palestine is/is not a sovereign state
Latest comment: 12 years ago33 comments11 people in discussion
If you have any questions about why this thread was closed, please click the 'show' button first and read the comment left by the closer. If your questions are still not answered, please inquire on the closer's talk page.
Closed discussion
This one looks like it's slowed off. If the issues re-arise, it should be addressed either through formal or informal mediation. Steven ZhangTalk 08:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Spesh531 (me) and User:99.237.236.218 have been in this dispute since February, and we were both blocked starting May 5, at around 3:00 UTC for edit warring.
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=Palestine is/is not a sovereign state}} --~~~~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?
No
How do you think we can help?
Hopefully we can try and put an end to this conflict, and stop the edit warring.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I suggest you check the Oslo Accords which the so-called "Palestinians" signed. They prove that so-called "Palestine" is NOT a sovereign nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DionysosElysees (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet.
Ok, before we go any further, we have an important announcement from our friends at the Arbitration Committee
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.
Now we have that out of the way, let's remember to stay civil here. Having taken a look at the page history I see potentially having to call in some members of Arbitration Enforcement if people don't behave themselves. Hasteur (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The reach of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on wikipedia is truly impressive. There was a previous conversation with the IP at Talk:List of world map changes#Palestine declares independence in 1988 started by Spesh but continued by the IP and myself, which I think counts as a form of previously attempted dispute resolution, and which can be read over. I made a revert/edit to one of the decade-specific articles complying with the edit summary as I received the ARBCOM warning, so I didn't see the warning till afterwards. I think the return to the status quo was the correct edit, BRD spirit and all that, but I'm happy to self-revert if that was a mistake. CMD (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
As long as you acknowledge the receipt of the warning, I don't think it'll be a problem. Typically those notifications are for unrepentent warriors Hasteur (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
There are easy solution if WP:RS will be presented for the assertion.Then no one could object.
For which assertion exactly? It's included there with qualifiers, sourced about the topic abound. The desire for such a specific and tailored source is untenable, I doubt that it exists for many entries on the list (or if they do exist, they'll be hard to find). CMD (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
To show that a claim is not original research, one requires reliablesecondary sources explicitly supporting that claim. Shrike is asking for the reliable secondary sources indicating that "Palestine is a sovereign state". For example, one could use this paper by the International Development Research Centre as a source. Well, except that the paper actually says "Palestine is not a sovereign state" - but if it said the opposite, it would help your cause. Jayjg (talk)00:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that Jayjg - you made me laugh out loud. It is clear that Palestine is not a sovereign state. It is not a member nation of the UN and it does not meet all of the required characteristics of a sovereign state. There are tons of sources indicating that it is NOT a sovereign state. Here is another one, about the plans of the PA to "become" recognized as sovereign at the UN, which ultimately did not occur [6]. Nobody has brought any sources to indicate that Palestine is indeed sovereign, or that the symbolic declaration of 1988 resulted in any change in the world map (which would be cause for it to be listed in the List of world map changes article). Instead, editors with a certain POV have continued to put the information into the article without references and without providing any valid reasoning. I think Palestine should be removed from these articles for those reasons. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources discussing whether Palestine is a state or not. This article focuses on it, looking at the different viewpoints, and shows clearly that there are different opinions on the matter. To follow just one seems to me to be a failure of NPOV. The definition of a sovereign state is complicated, so the black and white assertion the IP is making is dubious at best. This paper analyses what it means to be a sovereign state, and is a good read for anyone interested, concluding that a sovereign state is something that the international community says is a sovereign state (the paper also mentions Palestine in passing, as an entity recognised as a sovereign state even if it does not yet have full domestic sovereignty). CMD (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
CMD, if you take a look at the discussion above you'll see that nobody is arguing whether or not Palestine is a state. We are discussing whether or not Palestine is sovereign (and whether its 1988 declaration made a change to the world map). The first source you linked works against your view that Palestine is sovereign. From page 56: "Following the Montevideo convention, the sovereignty of a state should be declarative. Therefor, a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states are required." The source goes on in more detail to show that Palestine does not meet these four criteria. Again, none of the sources you have provided have definitively declared that Palestine is sovereign. Multiple sources have been provided that definitively state that Palestine is NOT sovereign. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Being a state is...being sovereign. It's implicit. I don't know what your'e trying to say there. Also, if you read the whole source rather than cherry picking certain parts of it, you'd realise that both sources note it's complicated. They don't work for or against either view (and what makes either of the views my view?). CMD (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
You expressed your view when you reverted in order to insert the unsourced content back into the articles. I'll repeat again what you seem to have missed... several sources have been brought explicitly stating that Palestine is not sovereign. None have been brought stating that Palestine is sovereign. Meanwhile, it is listed on Wikipedia in the above articles of "lists of sovereign states". There are similarly no sources showing that the 1988 declaration caused a change to the world map. I can easily bring sources showing current world maps that do not label Palestine based on the 1988 declaration. Palestine should be removed from all these articles based on WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
CMD, there are all sorts of sources that indicate that a "state" need not be sovereign. For example, Alan James, in "A response to Kurtulus," Review of International Studies, Vol. 28 (2002), p. 799 writes "the characteristic which distinguishes a sovereign from a non-sovereign state is etc." In his 1986 book Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society, he notes that even full membership in international organizations (such as the U.N.) does not necessarily imply sovereignty, giving Soviet Union-era Byelorussia and Ukraine as examples. In order to avoid WP:OR, you need to find sources that explicitly state "Palestine is sovereign". Please quote either source you have brought stating that explicitly. Jayjg (talk)02:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, when we reach that point you describe above the debate is about authors splitting semantic hairs rather than an actual meaning. An author arguing that something is a state and yet not a sovereign state is using their own definitions for these words. Most sources use "state" as a convenient shorthand for "sovereign state" (with the other option being a federal state, such as Texas, Queensland, or Bavaria, a difference established by the context of the writing). This is, at any rate, irrelevant to this discussion, as none of the sources shown by anyone use this sort of difference.
As for bringing an explicit source, I don't think any reasonable writer worth their salt is going to be so blindingly explicit on such a complex topic, and I would be very wary of citing anyone who did. Just like the sources, we are also not being blindingly explicit in our articles; we include Palestine with a description of its caveats. Explicit statements are for politicians, like an Iranian politician saying "We support the Palestinian cause but Palestine is a sovereign state with a sovereign government and Iran should in no way interfere in their affairs." It's not OR to not directly quote from the source. Quite a number of states have granted full recognition to Palestine, the idea has even more diplomatic weight than the idea that Taiwan is a state does. CMD (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Please note that this topic is also being discussed on an admin's talk page here [8]. The admin gave his explanation there that no sources have been provided to show Palestine is sovereign, and that only WP:OR is being used to justify it so far. Also another uninvolved editor said he thinks it is not sovereign. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Questions: I would like to see citations to reliable sources that answer the following questions:
Does the government of the west bank portion or the government of the Gaza Strip portion of Palestine claim that Palestine is a Sovereign State? Do they claim that it isn't (probably in the context of saying that it should be)? You can use any of the definitions at Definitions of Palestine to answer this.
Do any of the nations that border Palestine (IIRC, that would be (in alphabetical order) Egypt, Israel, and Jordan), say that Palestine is or isn't a Sovereign State?
It was the PLO (who govern the West Bank, but not Gaza) that declared independence in 1988 and pushed for recognition in 2011. They published a copy of this declaration along with a map of countries that recognise the Palestinian state in the run up to the UN bid here, which includes Egypt and Jordan. This was published in July 2011, so won't include states that recognised after that point.
I don't know if Hamas (control of Gaza) notes Palestine as a state. They believe that Israel shouldn't exist and Palestine should include all of Israel as well, but as for whether its currently a state I bet they're rather ambivalent. This article says that Hamas "would not stand in the way of President Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Fatah party" and "support establishing a Palestinian state on any part of Palestinian land without giving up an inch of Palestine or recognizing Israel", which was in response to the PLO's UN bid, which shows they want a different state than the one espoused by Abbas, but leaves no comment on his state (the article also gives a more detailed explanation of Hamas' views than my quick summary).
Our sovereignty article notes that "sovereignty may be recognized even when the sovereign body possesses no territory or its territory is under partial or total occupation by another power." It's unsourced, but I suppose Somalia is a case in point there. CMD (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
CMD, you continue to miss the point. Even if this unsourced statement in another Wikipedia article is true (and I dispute it), it is not up to us as Wikipedia editors to decide whether or not to recognize anything as sovereign. That is WP:OR. So even if Palestine "may be recognized" as sovereign under current circumstances, the only thing we care about is IF IT IS sovereign. Do you have any WP:RS or not? 99.237.236.218 (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
CMD not only missed the point, he ignored the question I asked and instead answered a completely different question that nobody asked. I didn't ask whether Palestine is a state. Nobody here disputes that. I asked whether it is a sovereign state. Please read Sovereign state. I am pretty sure that every entity that CMD lists says that Palestine is a state, but not a sovereign state. I am pretty sure that they all say that Palestine is an occupied state. If it is occupied, it isn't sovereign. If it is sovereign, it isn't occupied. ---Guy Macon (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I answered what I could IP, only mentioning that article because Guy Macon mentioned it, and in conflicts with what they said. As for Guy Macon, you asked multiple questions, I ignored none. Please show me the definition of state Palestine fits under, and sources saying that states once occupied for some reason must therefore cease to by sovereign states in the eyes of the international community. (If they did, Afghanistan would have ceased to be a sovereign state a decade ago.) CMD (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
"In the study of International Relations, few concepts cause more confusion than sovereignty." Thus begins Alan James, "Sovereignty: Ground Rule or Gibberish?", Review of International Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Jan., 1984), pp. 1-18. [9]. He's not talking about confusion among ordinary folk either, but among legal experts, international organizations and the states themselves. He proves this confusion quite thoroughly, it seems. Zerotalk04:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
When the PNC declared the State of Palestine as a sovereign state, there became one viewpoint that it is a sovereign state. By the end of the '80s, it was recognised by almost 100 states. That's almost 100 more similar views. A few recent statements that were made in English:
There have been dozens of lengthy discussions and mediations on disputed states and the outcome is always the same. Our long-standing criteria on the list of sovereign states is that we represent all viewpoints proportionately. A three-year mediation determined that criteria would stay, and that's why I reverted—because that is the consensus. Unless consensus chages, there is absolutely no reason to ignore those viewpoints. We don't ignore the 82% of states that recognise the State of Israel, we don't ignore the 68% of states that recognise the State of Palestine, and we don't ignore the >1% of states that recognise South Ossetia. They're significant viewpoints, but we present them all in accordance with WP:WEIGHT.
I should note that the right of legation—to establish diplomatic relations—only comes with sovereignty. A state cannot accord an Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to a non-sovereign polity. What constitutes "sovereignty" is up to the government according recognition to decide, not us. Albania was recognised as a sovereign state by the international community at the London Conference of 1912-1913, at a time when it didn't have a government—there was no government until 1920.
Thanks! I think the above is a very good answer that addresses all of my questions, and I strongly support the Wikipedia policies cited. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Without wishing to get involved in the dispute about the oPt, I would just like to make the observation that Western Sahara in the form of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is included in all 5 of the articles listed at the top of this section. This could confuse a stupid person, like me for example. It's virtually impossible to even get into Western Sahara to do anything without having to deal with the occupying power, Morocco. It strikes me as being even less of a sovereign state than the oPt, and yet there it is in the lists, for better or worse, hard to tell, but these kind of inconsistencies probably aren't helping. Sean.hoyland - talk06:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
There's a long wall down the Western Sahara, and the Sahrawi Republic controls the small arid eastern part of it. Morocco of course exerts full control over the majority of the WS, which is west of the wall. CMD (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but to clarify, I think the important point when it comes to assessing whether consistent inclusion criteria are being used for the Wikipedia articles is that the "Sahrawi Republic" is all of Western Sahara as far as the Polisario Front and all of the states that recognize it are concerned. It isn't just the free zone, it's Western Sahara, and it isn't possible to state as a simple fact that it is a sovereign state. I think from the article inclusion criteria perspective it's rather similar to the Palestinian territories. My concern is that the decision procedures used in articles like these are inconsistent simply because it is far easier to deal with content related to Western Sahara than content related to Palestine. I don't have an opinion about whether these articles should include or exclude states that don't qualify as sovereign states according to many and the way to decide whether something qualifies for inclusion appears to have already been made, but all of the cases obviously need to be treated consistently even when they contain the word Palestine. Sean.hoyland - talk05:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
One source of confusion is that the criteria for the List of sovereign states Wikipedia article (which I fully agree with based upon Nightw's comments above) appears to conflict with the definition in the Sovereign state Wikipedia article. Another source of confusion is the tendency for some individuals to hear a question like "is X a sovereign state" and to respond with citations that call X a state, an independent state, a recognized state, or some other variation other than sovereign state. This requires me to decide whether those are the same thing. The criteria for the list of sovereign states relies on reliable sources calling it a sovereign state, not some other variation. That makes the WP:V question much easier to answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree and I guess I am starting to sound like a broken record but the only way for Wikipedia to state that Palestine is sovereign is with WP:RS stating that Palestine is sovereign. There has been a whole lot of explaining and justifying here (and the majority of it hasn't even been about sovereignty, rather simply statehood which is irrelevant to this discussion). For the purposes of Wikipedia, that is all WP:OR at worst and WP:SYNTH at best to use as reasoning to call Palestine sovereign. What is the process here? Multiple editors have called on those supporting the claim to bring WP:RS stating that Palestine is sovereign, but none of them have done so. How long do we keep asking for them to bring the sources until we conclude that there simply are no sources and remove the claim? 99.237.236.218 (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Itsachat
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?
We have a chat room site we launched in July of 2007. We noticed our competitor chat sites have a wikipedia pages. Sites like wireclub which launched same time we did, and is of the exact same kind of site as ours. We would like to create an itsachat article like you have allowed our competitors 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".)
Not yet.
N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Itsachat}} --~~~~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?
allow us to create our page on wikipedia like you allow our competitors
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.
War in Afghanistan (2001-Present)
Latest comment: 12 years ago23 comments7 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?
One user keeps deleting the minimum Taliban casualty estimate, linking to a BBC article says no reliable estimate exists. However, the page List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan lists reliably sourced reports of Taliban casualties. If we add them up, we get a reliable minimum. Multiple users have tried explaining this on the article's talk page and in the edit summaries. However, the user continues to delete it.
Should it be deleted, or is it permissible to combine the reports with math to get a minimum?
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".)
"In our coverage of Afghanistan, we at BBC News do not generally report the numbers of Taliban or insurgent casualties and fatalities, because there are no reliable or verifiable source figures available."
Wikipedia must report what the sources say, and the sources say that there are no reliable or verifiable figures for Taliban casualties. End of subject unless someone finds a reliable source that directly contradicts the above-quoted source. Counting the numbers in another Wikipedia article is WP:SYNTHESIS and the numbers you get cannot be used to replace a direct statement by a reliable source.
How is it synthesis? That's when you report separate pieces of sourced information and manipulate them to imply a conclusion they don't. All we're doing is basic math - If source A reports "this happened 5 times here", and source B reports "this happened 5 times at this other place", then we can establish reliably that it happened a minimum of 10 times. X Nilloc X (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
You aren't going to get anywhere by writing things that aren't true about Wikipedia's policies. WP:SYNTHESIS does not say not to "manipulate them to imply a conclusion they don't". What WP:SYNTHESISdoes say is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" Is your conclusion explicitly stated by any of the sources? No. It is not.
As for your "All we're doing is basic math" argument, please read WP:CALC, which states "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources" Do you have that consensus? No. You do not. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
In addition, there is a statistical fallacy in play when you count the numbers and add them up. If we assume that the individual sources cited in List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan tried to be accurate (a questionable assumption -- news agencies make money by attempting to panic the readers -- but let's accept it for the sake of argument) then some will be too high and some will be too low. The problem is that there is a limit on being too low (nobody reports a negative number of fatalities) but there is no limit on being too high. This makes the basic idea of adding them up statistically invalid. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The reports are fragmentary, and a lot don't get added to it - so the total is almost certainly higher that what's there. A lot of Taliban fatalities go unknown, given the nature of firefights there (get shot at from far off, shoot back. Repeat process for a while until the shooting stops.) So, its very unlikely the number is too high. X Nilloc X (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The very fact that we are having a discussion about this proves that the calculation is not "an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources". Also, you have not addressed my argument that adding the numbers up is statistically invalid. All you have done is to propose an unsourced theory that, if true, would cause an error of unknown magnitude in the opposite direction. You are getting farther and farther away from a routine calculation that everyone agrees is correct. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
No need to get huffy. A substantial body of reliable sources have made educated guesses on casualty stats for the Taliban. In most contemporary settings, aside from bureaucratically inclined nations, war casualties are just that, guesses. Doing independent math is a violation of WP:SYNTH but there is nothing wrong with sourcing estimates as long as they are recorded as such. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Can you please post what these reliable sources for total casualties are? I haven't been able to find any, and they'd be a very useful addition to the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
We're not - we're just using basic math. The example the Synthesis page was something like "The UN says its goal is world peace <reference>, but there have been 180 wars since its inception <otherreference>.". In that case, you were combining two references to make it sound like the UN is a failure. That's not what's going on here. All we're doing it look at the reliably sources casualty reports, and adding them up. Its mathematically impossible for the number we get to not be the verified minimum. X Nilloc X (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Adding together uncertain numbers from multiple sources is an obvious example of original research. As well as the statistical fallacy that Guy mentioned, some of these reports are probably references to the same incidents. Different news sources often provide slightly different dates and details that make them appear to be distinct. WP:CALC is for simple calculations that there are no grounds to dispute, not for exercises like this. Readers can add the numbers themselves if they want; we shouldn't make the totals appear more meaningful than they really are. Zerotalk05:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
How are they "uncertain"? All the sources say how many were killed. Show me an example on that page where different reports of the same incident have been taken as the same incident. This is a simple calculation, and there is no rational ground to dispute it.
Plus, if there's a problem like that, shouldn't we fix it instead of being like "oh, well, looks like this is broken forever and we should disregard it"? By your logic any page with an error should be disregarded forever. X Nilloc X (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Exactly what part of "provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources" are you having trouble understanding? If English is a second language for you or you have some sort of learning disability, I will be happy to explain it in detail. Just tell me which part you don't understand. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
It is obvious, correct, and meaningful. Most people who have been to the page have left it, so they seem to agree. There's just a strange, small group of people who are (for some odd reason) obsessed with getting it removed. You're not explaining: if we take each verified report as reliable (as is Wikipedia policy), then by definition they are all reliable. So, adding them up is basic arithmetic. Your resistance to it doesn't make any sense X Nilloc X (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
So your claim is that there is a consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources? Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
And been blocked indefinetly for being a sockpuppet of another editor. I think that this can be safely marked as resolved. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 16 May 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.
Douglas Murray (author)
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?
There is a dispute between me and Jprw as to whether mention should be made of a Daily Telegraph blog post made by Murray inviting his readers to submit anti-Irish jokes in protest at a local politician being repremanded for telling such jokes in a meeting. Murray's blog posting drew considerable attention in Ireland and there was widespread newspaper and broadcast media coverage of the incident. Jprw's argument for removing the references to the incident was that the incident was minor in character and was not significant.
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=Douglas_Murray_(author)}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Discussed on the article talk page and on Jprw's talk page.
How do you think we can help?
Adjudicate as to whether the reference to his promotion of anti-Irish jokes should be included in the article or not.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Note: I am discussing this with both parties on the article talk page. I will report here if we are able to reach a consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:02, 9 May 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.
VGMaps
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.
Appears unwilling to discuss and reach consensus on the talk page and continually reverts my edits. Deltasim is an active user on VGMaps.com as well.
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=VGMaps}} --~~~~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?
Polite discussion of the edits on the talk page, Deltasim was also warned about editing wars and subsequently reported for violation of 3RR after the behavior continued.
How do you think we can help?
It would be great to cease the edit war and if my edits could be restored and discussed politely on the talk page so consensus can be reached. Additional opinions would also likely be helpful.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Just why should "Your" edits in particular be restored? I have reason to believe that the information you edit in the article is more against VGMaps than an attempt to get the facts straight. I would suggest that a more professional editor take matters into deciding what content goes and stays. Deltasim (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
My edits should be restored out of respect for a fellow editor. If you disagree with them, we should politely discuss on the articles talk page and try to reach consensus.
ArtimusSlayer (talk) 14:31, 10 May 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.
Editing Association of Professional Futurists stub
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 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?
A stub was added by a 3rd party and was not up to scratch. Members of our organisation discussed the need to greatly improve the item and began making changes to it to take it from its advertorial tone to one more independently grounded and of greater community value. Editor removed recent additions stripping it back to its stub stage. Have requested on three occasions for those edits to be reverted so that the subject matter experts might be able to enhance it. Have requested a comprise of a fortnight for that to happen; have appealed to the good faith provisions. Editor has responded with what could generously be called 'immaturity'
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=Editing Association of Professional Futurists stub}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
As per talk on the page, you can see I have made a number of requests to resolve the current situation
How do you think we can help?
I'm asking for someone independent to grant us the time to make changes to the age such that it would then be up to standard. I am asking for the original edits I and others had added to be reverted so that we have a structure that takes the page to something of greater value and of greater accuracy than what sits there now
Editing Association of Professional Futurists stub discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I will assume you are referring to Talk:Association_of_Professional_Futurists#_. There, I ask "Who is the editor in question? Which 3 requests? Where was the page protected?". Looking at the article's history, a couple of low edit count editors have edited the article. Are you referring to these editors as the "3 requests (including yourself)"? And are these editors affiliated with the organization?Curb Chain (talk) 04:12, 14 May 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.
Media Section, I'd like to know why my media section was not added or allowed? The facts are all true and not spun in any way.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Explanation given. If you have more questions please inquire on the article's talk page.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you 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=Media Section, I'd like to know why my media section was not added or allowed? The facts are all true and not spun in any way.}} --~~~~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?
This is the first time I've done this so I hope I'm doing it right. Thanks!
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.
Serama
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?
There is one main group, the SCNA and user Chipmunk Dais belongs. He edits out all other peoples work from the article, even when properly sourced, making all kinds of claims to keep it out. If you readd it, he has page protected. One person or group should not control content and force all source and verified information they do not like to be removed.
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=Serama}} --~~~~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 learned all etiquette to properly post information, I have noted its accuracy and provided accurate sourcing.
How do you think we can help?
Make sure that accurate information can be posted, even if it goes against what the biased group would like hidden from history.
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.
Friends episodes
Latest comment: 12 years ago48 comments9 people in discussion
If you have any questions about why this thread was closed, please click the 'show' button first and read the comment left by the closer. If your questions are still not answered, please inquire on the closer's talk page.
Closed discussion
Closing this one as resolved, per the comments at the bottom. If this issue flares up again, I'd suggest mediation, solely as it's a location where a very long thread or slow progress isn't a major issue. Steven ZhangTalk 10:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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?
TheRamblingMan and AussieLegend and other users debate over what style to use in List of Friends episodes. None can agree what to do, and there were condemnations toward each other's edits, including transclusions of Season articles. It is also discussed in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Friends episodes/archive1. Speaking of transclusions, I did make changes to make the list edited as what every episode list is supposed to be, but I'm not sure if I'm counted as part of the dispute because everything is changed in other articles transcluded in the list article. Nevertheless, |RTitle= is used rather than |Title=.
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".)
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Comment by Matthewedwards
Whichever way the dispute is resolved, the repercussions could have bearing on huge numbers of articles. The main issue at hand is the WP:Transclusion of article content from one article into another. For many years, possibly up to about 5, many "List of ''xxx'' episodes" have transcluded the episode tables from ''xxx'' (season 1) et al, resulting in the need to create just the episode tables on the season page, and having an exact duplicate (save for the plot summaries due to markup with {{episode list}}) appear on the parent episode list page. IIRC, List of Lost episodes was one of the first articles to do this, and that page also happened to be a WP:Featured list (but promoted before transclusion - it only transcluded after the season pages also became Featured lists). List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes also began transcluding from the season pages when those pages became Featured lists. Other editors caught on, and while creating/maintaining/editing to FL-standard they followed suit. Most, if not all FL episode lists that are parents to season pages now transclude table content, and this has been the status quo for many years. Even pages that are not FLs now transclude from the season pages.
WP:Transclusion doesn't have much to say about article transclusion, it refers mostly to templates like infoboxes, navboxes, templates such as {{3x}}, etc, etc. What it does say about article transclusion is that in creating WP:Summary style articles, it may be preferential to conduct partial transclusions from other articles, and says, "History of pathology[12] was transcluded into Pathology,[13] which consisted of a collection of transcluded lead paragraphs from several main articles." It should be noted, however, that Pathology has not transcluded any content since July 2009, when the articles it was transcluding from were delisted from WP:GA.
WP:Summary style also refers to transcluding to keep article in sync with each other, but warns that it should be done only when there is consensus to do so and the articles are "rapidly evolving", and links to a small 2010 discussion that points out that old page histories display current content as the reason transclusion should be done with care.
what appears on the potential Featured list isn't actually featured content. It comes from articles that are unreviewed.
when the child article is edited, the changes automatically appear at the parent page, be they good edits, bad edits, or otherwise
if the edit to the child article results in incorrect information being added, or breaking the table code, we have two articles that are then wrong. If the parent article did not transclude, at least one of the articles would still be correct, but the main argument put forth by those in favour of transclusion is that having one incorrect article is worse than having two incorrect articles
People who watch only the parent page do not notice any incorrect/bad edits because they haven't been made to the parent page.
If someone makes a lot of good edits on a season page you're watching, you won't go checking what they've done each time they edit it, but one time accidentally removed one of the table or template code tags in the process, the parent page gets screwed because it isn't highlighted there and it wasn't going through any real changes, so no one bothers to check to make sure it appeared good on a regular basis
Article histories with transclusion always only show the current version of the transcluded article. So if you want to look at the page history taken in 2007, you're still going to see 2012's version of it.
As regular editors, we are supposed to try to create, write, and maintain encyclopedic articles for our readers, of whom there are a greater number than editors. However, how confusing must it be to be reading a table and find something that needs changing, click the [edit] link and find {{:Supernatural (season 1)}}? Forget being a regular editor of TV episode list articles, if you're not a regular editor of Wikipedia, would you know what to do? I doubt it. So much for bringing in new editors and editor retention. I'd give up and let someone else try to fix it.
This is why it is actively discouraged at FLC, and this is where the discussion about transclusion of the Friends seasons into List of Friends episodes originally took place.
The Rambling Man, being a FL director has tried to ensure that if promoted, it conforms to FL standards. Currently {{episdoe list}} doesnt' conform to the MoS or WP:DTT, but that is being worked on. What that template does is remove the need for thousands of lines of Wikitable markup by simply filling out the template's parameters of episode numbers, titles, directors, writers, production numbers, etc. So it was requested at the FLC that straight-forward Wikitable markup be used instead of the template, and that transclusion also be avoided. AussieLegend took issue with that, by basically stating that all episode lists do this, that it is the status quo, and there is no reason to change it (I happen to agree with him on the first two points -- they do all do this, and it is the status quo). If and when the template is fixed, there is no reason not to use that either.
However, at the time the dispute began, one of AussieLegend's first argumentsfor transclusion was that not doing so results in "duplication errors" where the two pages "will" have conflicting information with one page being wrong, a worry about the page increasing in size from 14,184 to 82,569 bytes, and a comment that if the non-transcluded version of the article is promoted, it will force all others to follow suit.
Both The Rambling Man and I have replied numerous times to this and subsequent posts from AussieLegend where he has basically repeated the same thing, and in doing so, so have we. Article size is a non-issue. The 83k is all table code, so it doesn't meet the idea of the article being too big. Forcing editors to have to go to another page just to edit the one they're on is not what Wikipedia was designed for. "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Sure, but only if you understand what the strange coding means and why a table shows up on a page when it's not there in the edit box. And we won't tell you what it means or how to get around it either. It would be good to get other articles to follow suit and not transclude, but that part of his argument is flawed because those that weren't transcluded at the time of promotion have since had transclusion sneaked in. This only serves to encourage and promote transclusion.
AussieLegend then called normal Wikitable markup (as outlined at WP:Tables, Help:Wikitable, Help:Table) "custom tables" and "complex" as if a table has never been constructed using class="Wikitable" before, and went on to repeat "custom tables" no less than eight more times throughout the discussion. He made claims that "most people have difficulty with tables" and took it upon himself to decide that if transclusion be eliminated then the episode tables with summaries need not appear at all on season pages because they'll appear hardcoded on the parent pages (albeit still without summaries).
He's said that I've been silly, queried whether we have a life outside Star Trek‽ (for the record I also watch Battlestar Galactica), claimed to be "disgusted" by our suggesting to the list's FLC nominator to remove transcluding and non-MOS compliant template. I gave up discussing it with him at that point. He truly cannot see where anything could or does go wrong with transcluding, even as it is happening (the Friend episode list page removed transcluding, put it back in, removed it, put it back in, all the while transcluding ill-formatted and incorrect tables).
While I've not had any other word in the discussion, it has carried on between AussieLegend and The Rambling Man. Whether or not transclusion should be allowed is the main point here, but it has been overshadowed, as George Ho has said, by continued exchange of vitriol, belittling, and denouncing each other's points so much so that it seems like nobody else wants to get voice an opinion to the subject in hand. Yes, that needs resolving and putting to bed, but at this point the matter of transclusion is what really needs addressing here. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 07:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a complex issue, having been discussed on numerous pages, and I have no desire to see it become any more complex, but some of what Matthewedwards needs to be addressed:
"For many years, possibly up to about 5," - {{Episode list}} list was created 3 days under 6 years ago and has been in use for all of that time, not "up to about 5" years. This is only minor point, but it is still misleading, as it de-emphasises the extent to which the template is used. Currently the template is used in 5,105 articles.[14] When I checked the transclusion count 8 days ago, it was transcluded to 5,068 articles, an increase of approximately 6 articles per day. As season lists typically have around 18-24 episodes, this means the template is used roughly 100,000 times.
"when the child article is edited, the changes automatically appear at the parent page, be they good edits, bad edits, or otherwise" - I still don't see how this is a bad thing, as it avoids articles contradicting each other.
"if the edit to the child article results in incorrect information being added, or breaking the table code, we have two articles that are then wrong" - That's definitely an issue but, in my experience at least, is something that's picked up within a day or two, even on some of the more obscure pages that I visit from time to time. The reality is that Wikipedia articles, even featured articles, include errors. We're never going to stop that.
"the main argument put forth by those in favour of transclusion is that having one incorrect article is worse than having two incorrect articles" - That's not the main argument at all. The argument is that having two intimately related articles that don't contradict each other is far better than having two articles that do. As I have had to explain at length, with two articles displaying what should be the same information, when there are inconsistencies they can be a nightmare to fix. If there is only one article, it's immediately half the work.
"People who watch only the parent page do not notice any incorrect/bad edits because they haven't been made to the parent page" - This argument is specious. If people are watching the individual season articles, they aren't going to notice if somebody changes something tin the overall episode list.
"if you want to look at the page history taken in 2007, you're still going to see 2012's version of it." - No, you'll still see the 2007 version of the page. There might be 2012 data on the page, but you're still actually looking at the 2007 version. If you want to see the 2007 version of what's being transcluded, you go to the season article. It's not a difficult process.
"how confusing must it be to be reading a table and find something that needs changing, click the [edit] link and find {{:Supernatural (season 1)}}?" - Interestingly, just after talking about Nazis, Matthewedwards suggested "If you're worried about it, include notes to editors at the top of each editable section in hidden tags <!-- like these --> that ask editors to make changes at the 'other' page",[15] and that's what is done in the episode article. After the transclusion code there should be a note saying something along the lines of "To edit the episodes in this section, you need to edit the article listed above", similar to this:
=== Season 1: 1994–95 ===
{{Main|Friends (season 1)}}
{{:Friends (season 1)}}
<!-- To edit the episodes in this section, you need to edit the article listed above. -->
=== Season 2: 1995–96 ===
{{Main|Friends (season 2)}}
{{:Friends (season 2)}}
<!-- To edit the episodes in this section, you need to edit the article listed above. -->
=== Season 3: 1996–97 ===
{{Main|Friends (season 3)}}
{{:Friends (season 3)}}
<!-- To edit the episodes in this section, you need to edit the article listed above. -->
"Currently {{episdoe list}} doesnt' conform to the MoS or WP:DTT, but that is being worked on." - In fact, we're only a few hours away from that happeningI've now made the request to have the edits incorporated, per Matthewedwards' request. The actual code changes will be as proposed by Matthewedwards, so that the template does comply as desired by those who frequent the FLC world.
"it was requested at the FLC that straight-forward Wikitable markup be used instead of the template, and that transclusion also be avoided. AussieLegend took issue with that" - To be fair, it wasn't only me. Another editor had started reverting changes to the article but was stopped. When I came along and found the article in the state it was in I started (there was no indication anywhere in the article that changes had been made after discussion at FLC, there was not even indication that the article had been nominated) but, before I could finish, George Ho came along and pretty much finished the job.
"Forcing editors to have to go to another page just to edit the one they're on is not what Wikipedia was designed for." - I'm pretty sure the same can be said for forcing editors to edit two different articles to change one set of information. It just makes no sense. It makes even leass sense when one considers that we have to edit a template on one page and a wikitable on another. It's one of the reasons that we transclude navboxes, rather than build individual navboxes on each page and isn't editing a navbox "forcing editors to have to go to another page just to edit the one they're on"?
"only if you understand what the strange coding means and why a table shows up on a page when it's not there in the edit box. And we won't tell you what it means or how to get around it either." - Well, that's not exactly true. The template provides full instructions and examples and the issues that matthewedwards sees are the same issues that everyone who edits an article with an infobox or a navbox is confronted with.
"AussieLegend then called normal Wikitable markup (as outlined at WP:Tables, Help:Wikitable, Help:Table) "custom tables" and "complex"" - As I've explained elsewhere (thanks for not mentioning that!), the tables are custom because they have to be built from the ground up for every article. The template just requires that you fill in a few fields. As for comples, it's a easy to fill in a template where the fields are named for you, it's far more complex for editors to build tables. Again, this is one of the reasons we use infoboxes, navboxes and other templates.
"took it upon himself to decide that if transclusion be eliminated then the episode tables with summaries need not appear at all on season pages because they'll appear hardcoded on the parent pages (albeit still without summaries)." - What? No, what I said was that content shouldn't be duplicated between articles. If it's in one article then it doesn't need to be in another article verbatim. To avoid problems with errors when duplicating content, if the episode content is in the main episode list it shouldn't be in the season list, which would mean moving the episode summaries to the episode list.
"He's said that I've been silly" - I did, because Matthewedwards compared transclusion to the Nazis sending Jews to concentration camps.[16] That's always a silly thing. I even cited Godwin's law.[17]
"queried whether we have a life outside Star Trek‽" - Ummm, no. There's been a lot of clutching at straws when it has come to finding reasons not to transclude, including page load times.[18] In response I said "Unless you're Superman, or Mr Data trying to stop a core breach on the USS Enterprise, slow page load times really don't affect most articles." Load time issues have since been debunked.[19]
"claimed to be "disgusted" by our suggesting to the list's FLC nominator to remove transcluding and non-MOS compliant template." - I was disgusted because there were discussions in progress that would lead to fixing the MoS-compliance issues with the template, but rather than wait 5 days, two editors who had been involved in the template modifications decided to encourage another editor (they wouldn't do it themselves) to remove transclusion (neither of them like transclusion). And, to top it all off, the third editor then reverted the changes to the template as vandalism, adding errors as he did so.
Quite frankly, so far I haven't had any problems with the edits that The Rambling Man has made to any of the season or episode list articles. My concerns have been with the way he keeps making things up, as I've explained at Talk:List of Friends episodes. Instead of working together to make {{Episode list}} MoS-compliant, it seems that certain FLC editors are interested only in pushing their own agenda. Despite complaining about non-compliance, I could not get The Rambling Man to explain the issues at WT:TV or Template talk:Episode list, despite numerous requests. In the end, I had to do it myself,[20][21][22] and when it looked like there was going to be some action to resolve issues with the template, which would make the tables completely unnecessary, two editors rushed back to the FLC discussion to get their edits into the article before that happened. It's the sort of thing you expect in a school yard. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Please read the instructions, this is supposed to be dispute resolution, not mud-slinging 101. To that end, could you explain precisely where "the way he keeps making things up" is actually happening? Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Please provide diffs where I'm "making things up". It would obviously be for the benefit of those assessing this dispute. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
As part of resolving this dispute, I would respectfully ask you to provide specific "diffs" to assist others to assess how I "make things up". Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to assess how you make things up is better off following the link to Talk:List of Friends episodes#Disputed changes, which I've provided three times now, as your actions are explained ad nauseam, in the appropriate context, there. I'm quite sure that it is well within the abilities of any editor who might wish to assess your actions to click a link and read a discussion. Diffs alone are not going to help. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Diffs alone are insufficient, partly due to the confusion that you demonstrated during the discussion. In order to adequately address this here I'd need to repost the more than 900 words from that discussion that relate to the matter, and that would not be appropriate in this section. If anyone needs clarification I'm happy to provide that but I won't be posting the diffs as there is simply no need. To avoid getting this section further off-topic I'm taking this page off my watchlist, so there's no point asking again. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem with just posting the diffs you believe constitute me lying. In fact, it's a priority for me to see the diffs that allege that I've lied so that I can refute them. It's very easy for someone to come into a dispute resolution discussion, state "he lied", then not be able to prove it. It's vital that you provide evidence that I lied. 900 words? Cheap, it's, what, 4.5k? "To avoid getting this section further off-topic ...." you accused me of deceit. That's far from "off-topic". Please post the diffs (as is commonplace) or else withdraw your accusation. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
AussieLegend yes, please post diffs that back up your claims. If you think the diffs are somehow misleading or confusing, you can add a note to each, but we really need to look at the diffs ourselves rather than taking your word for things.
With all due respect, writing "I won't be posting the diffs as there is simply no need...I'm taking this page off my watchlist, so there's no point asking again." makes you look like you don't have your facts straight. I am going to post this request on your talk page to give you a fair chance to respond if you so choose. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
You don't have to take my word for anything. All you have to do is click on one of the THREE LINKS TO THE DISCUSSION that I provided. Posting the diffs is pointless, as it's not immediately obvious from the the initial diff as to what I'm referring. The whole discussion needs to be read so instead, I posted a link to the actual conversation dealing with that matter, THREE TIMES. The discussion directly addresses the issue and is a far better guide as to what was made up. Only the most incompetent of editors would be unable to determine, from the actual conversation, what the issue was and, if they can't follow a simple conversation, they certainly would not be able to understand the diffs. Similarly, if they're unable to click on one of the three links that I've provided, they'd be unable to click on the link to the diffs. The Rambling Man knows what I'm talking about, as he is directly involved in the discussion, so I don't know why he needs to see the diffs yet again. However, to placate any editors unwilling to read all of the relevant discussion, and would rather just the cliff notes, here are the directly relevant diffs.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] or [31]. Note that this came about after I simply responded to The Rambling Man's threats to undo all the edits that he'd made fixing the articles,[32] saying "Why would you undo the edits you've made? If you've made appropriate edits leave them".[33] There's a certain level of frustration in trying to deal rationally with somebody directly when they persist in responding to you in the third person,[34][35] especially when it's clear that they're speaking in the third person deliberately, even changing posts when they've "accidentally" reponded directly.[36][37] Who does he think he is, the Queen of England? --AussieLegend (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
No, not the Queen of England, more like the King of Funk. All this fuss about "responding in the third person" is too much for me to take seriously. If a wandering discussion going nowhere becomes unclear then it's useful to reassert who holds what opinion. Anyhow, I can't see the purpose of this page anymore, the list failed, we got a couple of improvements to {{Episode list}} despite hostile opposition, and there's nothing more to discuss. Clearly there's a difference of opinion, but much like AussieLegend claimed he would do by removing this page from his watch list, there's little more to be gained here by further bad tempered bold underlined shouting at one another. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
"we got a couple of improvements to {{Episode list}} despite hostile opposition" - Please don't misrepresent what happened. ONE editor opposed vehemently, another intially opposed not in a hostile manner, but came over to the "yes, let's fix the template" side and there was no real opposition from anyone else. Generally (with one exception) the discussion was fairly amicable. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you watching this or not watching this? I'm confused. In any case, there's nothing left to dispute, the list in question was failed; you and the TV project got what they wanted. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
By the way, in a nutshell, the nub of this "lie" is in that Aussielegend claims here that an edit to the table " was incorrectly restored by the custom table" (i.e. was restored to the simple wikitable that Aussielegend keeps insisting on calling a "custom" table, just for clarification). In actual fact, (and if Aussielegend could just double-check), the data he/she claimed to be "incorrectly restored" was data that was actually lost in that edit. Namely, in the diff in question, here, a production code is removed. And this wasn't the only error that was "overlooked" because of the detachment of the simple table from transclusion. Writers and producers names were preserved, compliance with MOS was preserved, yet Aussielegend maintained that the standalone simple list was presenting data that was "incorrectly restored". So who's lying? I wanted to make sure the data was maintained. Aussielegend claimed our simple list approach "incorrectly restored" perfectly valid and useful information that was missing. Not sure why this is so complex for Aussielegend to understand. The edits Aussielegend passively sanctioned deleted information, introduced errors and MOS failures. Not what I would consider an improvement to Wikipedia, although perhaps it's different in Oz. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
No, the lie was that you said "I'm also surprised that AussieLegend continues to think that removing information from the various sub-articles would make a list better. ".[38] I responded saying "I've said nothing about removing information making the season articles better".[39] You then posted ":I finally found it. Your confirmation that removing information, introducing WP:MOS errors," (etc),[40] linking to a post of mine that, as I pointed out,[41] did not even come close to supporting your allegation because the first part was a response to matthewedwards about quotation marks and the second was all about how restoration of the custom tables made the episode list and season articles inconsistent. Nowhere did I say that "removing information from the various sub-articles would make a list better". You then made the peculiar statement "Hm? I don't remember talking to you about "quotation marks", perhaps you can show me the diff? ",[42] despite the diff that you posted clearly being a response to matthewedwards, not you. After pointing this out to you, by saying "the very first sentence of my first post starts with, in response to Matthewedwards, "Neither the 26 April or today's version of the article by Lemonade51 included quotation marks." (Emphasis added)",[43] you then responded with yet more made up rubbish, saying "Well then, we are where we are, with AussieLegend's acceptance that removing information and introducing errors in the various seasons lists, which resulted in the main list being reverted was in error",[44] despite me never having done anything of the sort. So there we have it, two outright lies,[45][46] and one post misrepresenting what happened in the {{Episode list}} discussions.[47] --AussieLegend (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not sure if this discussion is about Friends episodes or the "liar" game, but, if either of you (including Aussie or Rambling) want to discuss each other's "lies" or something like that, take this in Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance when only this discussion is resolved. I want this discussion to be about transclusions of and editing lists of Friends seasons. I don't want this discussion to become about one editor or another or "lies" or "truths". As said, "This page is not the place to flame other users.". I can see flaming either in a calm or irrational way. --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Quite right George. There's nothing left to resolve here. Aussielegend and the TV project got what they wanted, the list failed to make FL status and a lot of work was wasted. Let's pack this up and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey! Rambling Man, you two were asked nicely to stop flaming each other and you responded with a flame. Knock it off. ---Guy Macon (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey. I responded with what I considered to be a reasonable conclusion to the dispute, i.e. that those who demanded transclusion of templates got their way, while others who spent a great deal of time and effort otherwise effectively had their time wasted. I will not knock it off when all I'm doing is reporting the truth. Perhaps you're not geared up for this kind of debate, but I just summarised the outcome of the dispute. This "resolution" noticeboard has added nothing but yet one more place for people to get upset. That's why I said what I said. Let's pack this up and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
"I want this discussion to be about transclusions of and editing lists of Friends seasons. I don't want this discussion to become about one editor or another or "lies" or "truths"." George that's why, way back here, I baulked at the idea of providing diffs. I knew what this discussion would degenerate into. Unfortunately, others kept pushing, with one calling me a liar no less than 3 times.[48][49][50] He did change his mind a few hours later on the first two occasions, and later toned down the language, but the third remains. I don't see this discussion coming to any useful conclusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Goodraise
First off, a big thanks to Matthewedwards for this (presumably) comprehensive outline of what has happened. I would have commented on the issue sooner (following TRM's invitation at WT:FLC#Discussion over transcluding from other articles into featured lists), but was discouraged from doing so by the fractured nature of the discussion (spread out over various pages) and the "continued exchange of vitriol" as Matthewedwards put it.
In my view, based mostly on Matthewedwards' summary above, neither side has made a strong case. For starters, it is unclear to me why I should prefer either of the two situations regarding the "duplication errors" issue in which either A) both articles can be correct, both articles can be incorrect, and one article can be correct while the other is incorrect or B) both articles can only be either correct or incorrect. Why should I favor either of these?
The other pro-transclusion points are also weak. Templates need to internally do what a manually entered table (or "custom table") does in the article source. Differences in page load times (which can be read as "article size" in this context) will not be significant either way. Lastly, while the argument that a newly promoted FL "will force all others to follow suit" is not quite correct, it isn't completely without merit either. But I'll get to that further down.
No killer argument on the con-transclusion side either. Tackling Matthewedwards' bullet points in order:
So what if that content is unreviewed? That's why it's at FLC, isn't it? As a reviewer, nothing is keeping me from reviewing the transcluded part.
Again, I don't see the problem. Without transclusion, edits to the "parent" article could still be good, bad or otherwise. How is this better?
(See second paragraph of this post.)
I would surmise that most editors interested in watching the content won't mind watchlisting the child pages also. I doubt editors who would only watchlist the parent articles (one such group I can think of is FLC regulars watching all featured lists) are numerous enough to be significant.
(See second bullet point above (three lines up).)
Fair point, but I wouldn't count it as a problem – as the original look can be reconstructed using the child pages' histories –, only as an inconvenience (to be weighed against the convenience provided by using transclusion).
Again, this is no insurmountable obstacle. I'd contend that any editor who would not have been discouraged from fixing an error by a wall of wikitable or template code would not be put off by finding something like <!--The table displayed in this section is actually stored at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural_(season_1). Please edit it there.-->{{:Supernatural (season 1)}} either.
One pro-transclusion argument that has not yet been mentioned is the convenience. Having to maintain some content in only one place means less work. This is especially true for series that are still expanding.
Now there's a side-issue I'm seeing. Should featured lists be treated differently? My personal answer is a clear no. In my view, the featured list process is a means to improve the entire encyclopedia, not merely to highlight a select few articles. Allowing transclusion onto featured lists only from featured lists to protect them from "unreviewed" content would set an example. Non-featured lists would not be compelled to follow suit, but if I believed that featured lists did not influence other lists more than they were influenced by them, I wouldn't waste my time there anymore. Featured lists should be the end product. If that means pages transcluded onto them need to be (at least partially) brought up to featured level quality, I'd like to think that would be of benefit to the encyclopedia. Goodraise10:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Barsoomian
I'm not a "member" in any sense of either faction involved. But I do spend time editing various TV articles, have overhauled several, and used transclusion quite often. I see the two factions as having quite different priorities. Those who are focused on making a beautiful page, scoring a "featured" whatever, and then protecting the page forever after from Philistines who might sully it; and editors who want to update, correct or expand an article, who know that articles are a work in progress, and thus value structure that makes editing easier and reduces the chance of error. The process of transclusion was devised to serve the latter purposes.
Probably every TV show that has been running in the last 5 years or so has seen its article evolve: 1) one article, containing everything. 2) If the show lasts to a second season, a "List of ... episodes" article is hived off. Usually a summary table at the top of the list article (number of episodes per season, start and end dates) is transcluded back to the main article. 3) After a another year or two, the "List of ... episodes" article itself becomes unwieldy, and is split to seasons. Now the episode lists are transcluded back to the "List of ..." article. This is where the conflict comes. The text and formatting, by design, are the same as in the season table, and can only be edited by editing each season table. I see this as a wonderful convenience, automatically keeping related pages in sync.
The FL crew see each article as as separate entity that can and should be polished to a high sheen. I see this foolish, as the "List of..." article's whole raison d'etre is to act as an index to and overview of the season pages. To break the automatic updates that translcuding creates and expect every editor to conscientiously edit two different articles in exactly the same way is completely unrealistic. It does not and will never happen.
I think its perverse to look at these "list of" articles as if they were stand alone articles, complaining that they are subject to edits in other articles, when that is exactly the reason they were created. To make them into stand alone articles would be a step backwards in usability and make errors more likely and editing at least twice as much work, and require patient editors to continuously check every edit in all the related articles to make sure that they are all consistent. If the transcluded formatting isn't optimal, my response is -- no one cared about that till a week ago, so it's clearly not an urgent issue of accessibility or whatever as claimed; just a preference for one style over another. If the problems can be clearly stated, they can probably be accommodated by adjusting the templates, without churning up hundreds of articles, all because bold text is an an abomination that must be extirpated with fire. Barsoomian (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment by TRM
Standards change. FLC implement a strict adherence to WP:MOS, not some kind of "preference-based" scheme. The original dispute originated from the {{Episode list}} template being incompatible with WP:MOS, in particular WP:ACCESS and WP:MOSBOLD. The various attempts to hold onto a preference rather than follow a project-wide guideline led to the initial dispute over the use of bold text. This has now, seemingly, been resolved. Next up was adherence to MOS:DTT to enable screen readers to correctly parse the template when embedded in a table. This also, it seems, has been resolved. The MOS fails will hopefully be remedied in due course by an uninvolved admin in accordance with the recommendations at Template talk:Episode list. This is all good and I'm glad that the FLC regulars have played another part in making Wikipedia a little bit better for the whole audience, not just for those who have a preference for their style.
The "to transclude or not to transclude" debate has become intertwined with the original issue. And indeed, it seems to have become rather unpleasant, and I recognise my part in that unfortunate situation. I also recognise that in an ideal world, all articles would be of good or featured standards, and therefore transcluding them in total or in part would be no problem. With the MOS issues out of the way now, my issue with transcluding these episode lists is rather simple, and that is that people editing them will, most likely, have little or no interest on the effect the edits they make will have on the list where these are transcluded. For instance, a set of recent edits to those season articles merged a number of episodes (along with the loss of several items of data). The resulting transcluded list contained MOS fails and was formatted incorrectly (odd width columns, incorrect on/off background shading etc). Of course, the person editing the season articles has no obligation to ensure that their edits are compliant with WP:WIAFL, in particular the MOS, moreover the person editing the season articles may well have no idea that edits he or she makes will be immediately transcluded into potentially featured material, causing that material to subsequently fail to meet its featured criteria. It's not the concept of transclusion I have an issue with, it's the practical application which, as has been shown during this little saga, to be lacking. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
You DO have a problem with the concept of transclusion, if you can't understand that edits to the transcluded articles will, and should affect the parent article. That's not a "problem", that's how it's supposed to work. If you're afraid that an transcluded article will sully your "featured" masterwork", well, you'll just have to watch all the articles that are transcluded.
Being "featured" was supposed to recognise high quality articles. It wasn't meant to encourage ripping the connections out of an article to make it less likely to be contaminated by the hoi polloi. Barsoomian (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Please don't make provocative diagnoses of my mental state. I doubt you're qualified. Try just addressing the topic. If no one responds to anyone else, this isn't going to get anywhere, is it? Barsoomian (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the one shouting or being overly emotional. Just read the instructions here before commenting further. Your hyperbolic style of writing is precisely the opposite to that required to resolve disputes. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
"Shouting"? one word, two letters, in caps? what a sensitive soul. i'll forebear from using any if that helps. sorry you don't like my style. just ignore the metaphors if they annoy you. they are meant merely to illustrate the point. your style of making repeated disparaging provocative remarks isn't likely to resolve any disputes. you could put me in my place by simply demolishing my arguments. but just telling me to butt out won't. your proposal would cause me a great amount of hassle, i'm not going to let it happen unopposed.Barsoomian (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Why are you so aggressive and hyperbolic in tone? This is supposed to be dispute resolution. Please read the instructions. By the way, the facetious manner of removing all capital letters is noted as I asked you not to shout. You are well aware of what I was referring to. Are you here to help resolve a dispute or something else entirely? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
"concise and on topic". is the topic "barsoomian's writing style and mental state"? fascinating for some, i'm sure, but i'm here to talk about transclusion, not personal sniping. no, i don't have a clue as to what you were referring to by shouting if it isn't caps. must be one of those metaphors. Barsoomian (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
there isn't a single word in any response you've made about transclusion. just your remarks about me, your insistence that i'm "shouting" in some way you won't explain, and now smarmy bureaucratic "Noted" as if you are standing in judgement on me for unstated, kafkaesque crimes. well, I guess its a tactic. Barsoomian (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Also noted. For what it's worth, you had a rogue "I" in your response. Thank you, once again, for attempting to resolve this dispute with your posts. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I really didn't want to confuse the issue for The Rambling Man any further so I thought I'd bring this here. At the FLC discussion, there were concerns over bolding the episode titles, so I was going to change "|Title=" in the episode lists to "|AltTitle=" until the template was fixed. This was mainly because The Rambling Man didn't seem to want to wait for the template changes and was using non-compliance with MOS:BOLD as a reason not to use the template. However, when I looked at the versions of the article using the custom tables that were acceptable to those at the FLC,[51][52] none of the episode titles were inside quotes, so I decided to use "|RTitle=" instead, naturally assuming that's what was preferred. Matthewedwards then said the titles had to be in quotes,[53] and I explained why I hadn't done so here. This is the diff that The Rambling Man provided on the episode list's talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Can i ask is tranclusion main problem that because when teh seaosn article is edited it is istnaely available on list article and since editing involves editing the seaosn article?
If editing on the season article is a problem i cant remmeber how i did it but on a non tv list that had exceed 300kb i split the article out into serperate one and transcluded it, one problem that arose was peopel had to edit those aritlces for it to be on the main list, sokehow i done something that allowed pressing the edit button of the section and it took you directly to the invidual articles only include section, i forgot how i did it but it is possible. As for the translcusion becoming effective straight away even the main list if left there can be eidted and seen straightaway so i dnt see hwo that is a problem, i dnt think semi proection articles indefintely because they becaome featured list or features article is correct either, recent changes which might be coming back is the way forward for that
Personal i transclusion teh aritcles because they look better because the LIST is then LIST of the episodes and not summaries and season information etc, not really want to get invlolved in this just posting my views on it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:TLDR everything except I happened to see Barsoomian's section. Transclusion is excellent for TV episodes. Complaints that it is unwieldy for newbies are resolved by enfolding. You might need to learn to use the "noinclude" tag for sections using bolding and to learn to go to the right article immediately without needing to hit the transclusion page, but that's all part of learning WP. If the episode is so gigantically significant that it takes many more than the average number of grafs to describe, that is an exception where maintaining and synching two pages (detailed and WP:SUMMARY) is appropriate; but it's the exception not the rule. Now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast. JJB 17:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
While I'm sure that's useful, I'm not sure how it helps with the current dispute. But thanks for your input. Now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I haven't read much of the discussion above. It's not unreasonably long, I'm just not that interested in the technical or non-access MOS side of things. I'll give my opinion on transclusion, and it can be discarded if people consider it to be irrelevant.
Whether content is transcluded or not, an FLC reviewer should be satisfied that the MOS and ACCESS requirements that lists need to meet will continue to be met after a list becomes featured. Therefore, transclusion in itself is not an issue, provided there is clear consensus on how the transcluded content should be formatted, and that consensus coincides with FL standards. For the record, Giants2008 did the right thing in closing the FLC while this is being sorted out. My suggestion to those involved with the articles and list is to try and find a way to make transclusion work as a first resort, as I think it will be possible to transclude whilst complying with the MOS and ACCESS. If however this proves impossible, I would urge those in favour of transclusion to consider whether we absolutely must transclude. If, and only if, we get to a situation where complying with the MOS is impossible, yet some editors are adamant that the list must continue to transclude, further dispute resolution may be necessary. —WFC— 21:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NGO Monitor
Latest comment: 12 years ago79 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?
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is and that is what I would like some help with in the first instance. I have been in an ongoing dispute with an editor for nearly three weeks now over an edit I want to make to the NGO Monitor page. He doesn't like this edit and wants to reach a compromise solution. I cannot, for the life of me, understand what his objection is. If anyone could read through the talkpage discussion (tediously long, I'm afraid) and identify the grounds for the objection I would be greatly obliged. The discussion starts here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANGO_Monitor&diff=488354194&oldid=488349680 and moves to a new phase (I thought!) here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANGO_Monitor&diff=491225729&oldid=491205070 after I took what I thought was the issue to the RS noticeboard and reworked my edit using new sources (RS discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#.2B972_Magazine.2F_Noam_Sheizaf). Hopefully, if we can actually identify the issue we can resolve it but the pair of us do not seem to be having much luck following what each other is saying at the moment.
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=NGO Monitor}} --~~~~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?
Extensive talkpage discussion. I then took what I thought was unacceptable behaviour to AER but they felt that it was actually a content dispute, although none of the admins there were able to point out to me what the disputed issue actually was. More recently I sought to resolve the issue by taking the source in question to RS/N but I am now being told that the source was never actually the issue.
How do you think we can help?
Identify and explain the problem to me or if there is no real problem explain that to the other editor.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Soosim here: BHB would like to include item 'a' in the article. i have not objected. he says he is not sure of what the dispute is, so i will try again: it is where 'a' is being put into the article. he wants it in 'x', i said that i thought it would be better elsewhere, giving three (3) other suggestions. but alas, he didn't want any of them, and rather than even trying, simply keeps doing 'a' into place 'x'. so, and help/advice/suggestions anyone has would indeed be welcome. thanks! Soosim (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
That much I understand. What I don't understand are your reasons for rejecting my placement of the comment. Displacing it to any of the locations you have suggested renders it meaningless because it is a statement that derives its significance from following the previous sentence. The current structure is 'A says B about C. X says Y about C.' Moving 'X says Y about C' to another location removes it from the only place in the article where C is under discussion. That aside, what I can't understand are your policy grounds for objecting to the placement if you really don't have a problem with the content. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Just to add, from what I did understand, I thought you had a problem with the content but were willing to overlook that in search of a compromise position (is this wrong?), whilst my view is that there is no problem with the content and thus no need to find a compromise on placing. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
BHB, I saw this dispute when it was brought to WP:Arbitration enforcement. Since that time, you have got an opinion from RSN which says that it's OK to cite Noam Sheizaf's piece on his own web site (+972 Magazine), since he already has journalist credentials due to his articles in mainstream media. My personal editorial opinion is to avoid the SYNTHESIS issue by just quoting what Sheizaf's opinion is, directly. You seem to be going to all this trouble to show the irony of NGO Monitor criticizing lack of transparency in the funding of other NGOs while at the same time obscuring the sources of its own income. My suggestion would be, find something appropriate in Sheizaf's article and just quote that, assuming that other editors think it's relevant and not WP:UNDUE. Then you won't face any issue with trying to combine multiple sources of information. It is probably a mistake for you to be too persistent on this because even if you win support for the material, it won't make any substantial difference to the article, which includes plenty of published criticism of NGO Monitor already. Though you haven't violated any policies that I can see, you may eventually wear out the patience of people who are asked to review this. If you still want to pursue this matter, I suggest opening an RfC at Talk:NGO Monitor. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ed - thanks for your comment but you seem to be suggesting that ongoing refusal to provide reasons for blocking an edit is a legit tactic to stop something you don't want going in an article. Given the problems in the IP area that seems rather dangerous. As to the RS/N result, if you go all the way to the bottom the suggestion from Despayre was to avoid the Shezaif source as the claim of SYNTH was a misreading of the policy since no additional conclusion beyond what appears in the sources is reached (so, kind of the opposite of what you are suggesting here). What you are suggesting is exactly what I did before (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NGO_Monitor&diff=489470952&oldid=488638215) and was exactly what got reverted without discussion, leading me to come to ARE. As to why I want this in the article, it's because I think it is factually significant and not because I think it is ironic. There is an irony issue re: the obscuring of donors but that is another point (the one dealt with in the Haaretz article). As a reader, if I read 'X says they receive no funding from government' (a statement added by Soosim in January, originally in Wikipedia's own voice as 'X receives no funding from government'), that leads me to think, and is meant to lead me to think, that X is financially independent from government. If someone else tells me that 'X's second largest donor is a quasi-governmental body', that puts the previous statement in an entirely different light. The only reason I am asking for another review is because after doing precisely what was advised by RS/N I was again reverted. Just to be clear - I was reverted when I did what you now suggest I do and I was reverted when I did what RS/N suggested I do. I still don't know what the grounds were for either of these reversions. Care to share? BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The juxtaposition is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH; the material is included as a means of countering a statement made by NGO monitor. The use of the word "However" to introduce it makes this all the more obvious. Jayjg (talk)00:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The policy reads: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." What is the conclusion C that is not mentioned in either source in this case? Regardless, this is not really what is at issue with this request. The current formulation (without 'however') is just what I was told to do at RS/N. Previously I used a single source that combined the two points in the context of describing NGOM's funding. The question at issue here is what is Soosim's objection; I switched to the current version of the edit thinking I was responding to his concerns but apparently I am not.BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, I am having trouble with understanding your suggestion that this is a violation of WP:SYNTH. If you have a source that says one thing, and a source that says another thing, and a source that says a completely contradictory thing, the correct resolution is, as per WP:NPOV, present all views. Here are two examples, the first one is not a violation of wp:synth, the second one is a violation of wp:synth:
According to Source A "no he didn't", however, according to source B and C, "yes he did".
According to Source A "no he didn't", however, according to source B and C, "yes he did", therefore, because more sources say he did, he did.
Can you explain where you see the synth policy differently? Examples may be helpful, just saying it's a clear violation doesn't help, as I can't see why it's a violation, so at the very least, it's not clear to me. I'm not saying you're wrong, I would just like to understand your position. -- Despayre tête-à-tête17:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
It is also worth bearing in mind these sensible comments from WP:NOTOR: "Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation. Present the material within the context contained in reliable sources, but avoid presenting the information in a way that "begs the question". An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' "benefit". Let the readers draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 10:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
BHB - since i am having trouble articulating for you what you want to hear in a way you want to hear it, let's try this: please articulate for me what is wrong with my 3 suggestions for your edit? the best would be to explain each one separately so we can really understand. thanks! Soosim (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting back on this. Sure - I take it that the three suggestions are 1) move it to the criticism section; 2) move it to the second paragraph of the funding section; and 3) move the whole second paragraph of the funding section into the first paragraph and embed the statement in the material that was previously in the second paragraph? Ok - my problems with these are
1) (moving to criticism section) the information I want to include is not a criticism, it is simply data about how NGOM's funding is related to government. As such, it belongs in the funding section.
2) (Moving to second paragraph of the funding section) The second paragraph deals with a specific controversy arising from the Haaretz article and concerning the anonymity of some donors. JAFI's status as a quasi-governmental body has no particular relevance to this controversy. It is not entirely irrelevant and could arguably provide very general background information but it is not significant in that location. There is only one place in the funding section in which the relationship of funding to government is at issue and that is the place at which NGOM's own account of that relationship is given. I want to add this information in specifically to provide additional context for the reader who is interested in that relationship so that the reader can read two related complementary and non-contradictory pieces of information next to each other. So, there is a positive and a negative reason to objecting to this change. On the negative side, the info just doesn't belong in the second paragraph and adds very little when placed there. On the positive side the information adds a considerable amount when placed in the only place in the article concerned with the same topic (i.e. next to the sentence about NGOM's own statement on that topic) and moving it away from there (to anywhere else) significantly detracts from the value of that information to the reader.
3) (embedding it in the second paragraph and then moving the whole second paragraph into the first paragraph) This one seems superficially more attractive as it doesn't move the comment quite so far away from its natural home and I appreciate that your intention was probably to provide a bit of a concession to me by making this move. However, a) the statement is still moved away from its natural context and embedded within some unrelated material (which would admittedly now be a little closer to its natural position), and b) making this change unbalances the funding section as a whole. Putting the recent minor controversy about NGOM's funding first and then dealing with the actual details of NGOM's funding later just to mollify me does not seem to be a good way of solving the problem as it upsets a structure that is currently quite balanced and treats the funding controversy as a relatively minor item that should certainly not upstage the basic facts about the funding.
So, in each case the main problem for me is that the 'compromises' involve complete contextual disassociation of two related bits of information that belong together. I think the information belongs in the article at a certain point, not just that it should go in the article somewhere/anywhere. The significance of the information comes partly from its context.
Here's an analogy: say we have a wikipedia page for a notable American businessman of the 1930s and we report that he says in his autobiography that he never visited Europe. However, elsewhere in his autobiography he writes of the many pleasant summers he spent in England. Now, if one puts these two bits of information next to each other they offer some mutual illumination - they are not contradictory but the second bit of information helps the reader understand that when the writer speaks of Europe he understands 'Mainland Europe'; his way of speaking is perfectly legitimate but his use of the term may not correspond to what every reader would understand and, so, is worth qualifying with a further true and well sourced statement. If we were to put the two pieces of information in separate places, however, it would make it much harder for the reader to see that there may be some nuances that should be grasped in understanding the statement that he has never been to Europe. Whilst the analogy is not perfect (what analogy is?), the point is that some pieces of data belong together because they are mutually enlightening.
So, there is my reasoning for not being keen on any of your compromise suggestions. However, I must add a caveat. If I knew what your objection to my suggested placement was I might well be persuaded that those issues need to be weighed against the issues I have noted. But I am still at a loss as to what your objection is, so perhaps you could now spell it out for me. Thanks. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
fascinating. i love your use of the words "natural place". anyway, you say it is not criticism, but it looks like you are using it as criticism. also, let's not forget that jafi is 'quasi' and not really the government. Soosim (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I say 'natural place' because I sought to introduce the information in this place for the reasons I give. Now, do you have any problems with the reasoning I have provided and can you please explain why you object to this placing? You've posted three times in this discussion and the pattern is precisely the same as on the talkpage. I ask you to clarify your objection. You don't. I try to clarify my position in the hope you will engage with it. You don't. I ask you to clarify your position again. You don't. For three weeks now we have been having exactly this conversation ... BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Soosim, it might be equally helpful if you explained your reasoning behind each of your 3 suggestions for the edit placement as well. Seeing your reasoning may well help get a better understanding of where the differences in your two opinions lay. -- Despayre tête-à-tête15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
BHB and D - i have given reasons, and will try to explain again: a) you say it is not criticism, but it looks like you are using it as criticism, so it could easily fit into the criticism section. b & c) it's natural place is where jafi is mentioned, as the second largest donor to ngom, since it is descriptive of jafi. and then, you have two choices as to where to put it in that section. but, all three of mine just pale, apparently, to your 'natural place'. that really isn't nice. Soosim (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
a) It is not a criticism as a criticism involves claiming that someone has done something wrong (we also don't have any source that criticises NGOM on these grounds so to turn it into a criticism would be OR). i) There is nothing inherently wrong with an organisation accepting funds from a quasi-governmental source; ii) the fact that NGOM received funds from a quasi-governmental source does not contradict their own statement that they receive no funds from government. It does, however, provide information that allows the reader to understand their statement in a broader context. Moving it from that context means that the statement adds nothing to the article. In any case, even if you do see it as critical you haven't disputed its truth and nor do you think that all criticism should go in a separate section as we already have a whole paragraph of criticism in relation to funding in the funding section. So, what are the policy grounds for rejecting the placement I have suggested?
b) and c) The fact that JAFI is mentioned somewhere else is neither here nor there. The article is not about JAFI and the reader gains nothing by us grouping together all references to JAFI in one place that ignores the context of those references. JAFI is mentioned as and when mentioning them is illuminating for a reader wanting to find out something about NGOM. JAFI is mentioned on the list of donors because it is a donor. JAFI is mentioned in the context of the Haaretz article because it was one of the organisations cited in that article. And JAFI's quasi-governmental status should be mentioned in the context of NGOM's relationship to government because that is where it is relevant to NGOM. It is not that this info is just some random background information on JAFI and if it was it would have no place in the article at all. It is information that has a natural place because it is directly relevant to one of the topics already dealt with (a topic, I should note, that you introduced into the article in the first place). If you really think all the JAFI info should be pooled into one place for purely organisational reasons then why aren't you suggesting that JAFI be pulled off the list of donors or that the Haaretz material be inserted into the list of donors? The answer is because these are clearly two different contexts and no objective is served by pulling material out of their contexts just to arbitrarily group 'everything about JAFI' in one place. The same is true with this third point - it refers to JAFI but it is about NGOM's funding in relation to government and it belongs in the place where that relation is the topic. BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
BHB, you write: "There is nothing inherently wrong with an organisation accepting funds from a quasi-governmental source; ii) the fact that NGOM received funds from a quasi-governmental source does not contradict their own statement that they receive no funds from government." and yet, you want to put the information in right after ngom says that they don't get gov't funding. this makes it look a lot like 'something is wrong' and/or 'contradiction' (especially when you use "however"). and since the few sentences right after that from haaretz there, talk about funding issues and specifically mentions jafi, then this fits right in. in fact, this seems to be its "most natural place" (a higher level of placement than your "natural place" :-) -- of course, i know, you will find the "supreme natural place" and then i will find the "ultimate royal natural place" and then you the "utmost acme pinnacle of a natural place if ever there was one", etc.....) Soosim (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
First off, I took the 'however' out a few minutes after I made the initial edit precisely because it might be thought to imply a contradiction, although 'however' can perfectly well introduce a clarification, a qualification, or the addition of pretty much any other non-confirmatory material. Regardless, it is gone so as not to imply anything too strong. The current version of the edit reads less well because the two sentences are not directly linked but it avoids a potential problem and simply juxtaposes the two pieces of information. No conclusion is drawn from the juxtaposition and it is left entirely up to the reader what they will think when the two bits of true information are viewed side by side. It is not my fault if the juxtaposition of a piece of true and verifiable information might lead some readers to think that NGOM's relationship to government is less clear cut than their own statement implies. That it is possible to form a conclusion on the basis of the data is not a reason for moving it; it is there precisely so that the reader can arrive at their own view. If you think the data is wrong or that it could be worded slightly differently, then that's a different matter but if you don't dispute the information then it is not really a problem that a reader might draw their own conclusions. Indeed, that's kind of the point and it is not our job to write the article in such a way as to ensure that NGOM's own statements are protected from independent readers forming views that might differ from those that NGOM would prefer them to form.
Now, the Haaretz piece certainly does mention JAFI but the context is not at all the same. The issue there is not relationship to government but obscurity of the chain of donors. The fact that JAFI is a quasi-governmental body is not relevant to that discussion and nor is it mentioned in the Haaretz article (as far as I can see with my appaling machine translation of the Hebrew). It just doesn't add anything to the understanding of the Haaretz stuff to introduce this non-related data. Or, if you think it does add something indispensable, please tell me what it is and we can then balance that against the value I think the statement adds in the place I have suggested. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Thinking a little further about this, is your concern that a reader will read the two sentences and think that the implication is 'NGOM says they receive no funding from government but they do receive funding from a body that is not officially governmental but, when all is said and done, actually is'? If so, how about we add in a little more info to clarify what 'quasi-governmental' means in this context? We could, if you want, emphasise that JAFI has a board of trustees that are not members of the government (although the government has some expectations of being able to decide the members), or that the government currently has concerns that JAFI is too independent and doesn't do enough of what the government wants (as the government minister argues in the JPost article I use as a source). I would be more than happy to add something like that to make it clear that the point is not that JAFI is actually, secretly a full-on government body, so long as we can do it in a way that doesn't involve turning the sentence into a lengthy paragraph on JAFI's internal structure. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
How about something along the lines of: 'NGO Monitor says it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations. In 2010 NGO Monitor's second largest donor was the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI), a private organisation (run by an independently elected Board of Governors) that has a special status in Israeli law and is widely described as a 'quasi-governmental body'.' That should alleviate any concerns that the description as 'quasi-governmental' implies 'crypto-governmental', as its private and independent status will be emphasised along with its special and quasi-governmental status. Thoughts? BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence contains information about the relation of NGOM's funding to government. The second sentence contains information about the relation of NGOM's funding to government. The first sentence is the only place in the article where this relation is at issue, so the second sentence belongs there too as it is concerned with a related topic. BothHandsBlack (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
BHB - the haaretz piece is certainly about funding issues. and there can be no other reason other than it being an 'issue' to want to include jafi's quasi status (which again, is only quasi...). and then you write about what the reader will infer and you suggest that we give an entire explanation of what quasi is, who determines the board, etc but don't want to turn it into a jafi-focused paragraph. seems like a lot of hoops to jump through just to get your point across. and then you have your suggested text, which seems to be forcing a square peg into a round hole. not sure why you just can't say, "oh soosim, you are right. let's include it somewhere more logical rather than trying to use OR and SYNTH and whatever else we can to put it in a place where it just doesn't make sense." but alas.... Soosim (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
So now the issue is 'OR and SYNTH and whatever else'? Previously you said you didn't have a problem with the content. Please, just make up your mind. We are never going to resolve this unless you can show a little consistency on this front. As to my proposed solution, yes it is a lot of hoops to jump through but I only offered to jump through them in order to allay what you said your problem was, i.e. that it looked like a contradiction or criticism. If that is not now your problem, and you have no interest in avoiding that issue, then ignore that suggestion of mine and we can concentrate on whatever the real issue is. So, are you now saying that the issue is SYNTH? If so, please read up and address the comments above where SYNTH is already discussed. As to your other comments, yes the Haaretz piece is about funding issues but everything in the funding section is about funding issues. What you seem unable or unwilling to realise is that there are a range of different funding issues. One issue, that you introduced into the section, is how NGOM's funding is related to government. The Haaretz piece is not about that issue but a completely different funding issue (the obscurity of the donor chain). The sentence I'm trying to introduce re: JAFI is about the government issue. It is logical to place the two sentences that treat that same issue together. It is not logical to include it in the discussion of the Haaretz piece when the quasi-governmental status of JAFI is not mentioned in that article and is not at issue in that discussion. BothHandsBlack (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
no, you misunderstood, BHB. it is not 'now' this or that. it has always been all of them. you've admitted to what you are doing and why you are doing it. you are the one trying to create an impression of OR and SYN - not me. i have never objected to the content - there is nothing to object to. but, just the same, there is not a single RS that says what you want to say, in full. in part, yes. in full, no. you keep saying, sort of, that you want the reader to read 'ngom is x' and then 'jafi is x' and let the reader put 1+1 together. that's SYN without writing it. again, if jafi was a governmental agency, and ngom lied, then fine - let's "prove" it. but you can't prove it, so you are, by your own admission, jumping through hoops to try to prove it. just doesn't seem right. Soosim (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
That is not synthesis. Readers are allowed to form whatever conclusions they want. To deliberately avoid including true and verifiable information so as to prevent a reader from coming to a conclusion that you don't want them to arrive at is clearly a breach of NPOV. There is no such thing as 'Synth without writing it'. SYNTH is explicitly something that is written - it is the providing of a conclusion not supported in any source. That is not happening here. I am not claiming that JAFI is a governmental agency nor that NGOM have lied about anything so please don't ask me to provide sources for any such thing. Frankly, it is difficult to see your objections as coherent. There is no problem with the content but at the same time it is OR and SYNTH! If the content is fine then the content is fine. If you have an objection to the content then object. You can't have it both ways.BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
tl;dr You can't keep verifiable information out of wikipedia just because you don't want readers to form their own conclusions about it.BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
SYNTH policy can be breached by implication, but that does not mean that material from reliable sources cannot be used, even if they contradict each other. However, I don't think these things contradict each other. If I understand correctly, one claim is that they recieve no govt funding, and the other sources combine to say that they recieve funding from a quasi-governmental source, is that correct? -- Despayre tête-à-tête16:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
That's correct. I stand corrected on synth by implication but presumably that involves phrasing things in such a way that the reader is somehow led to a particular conclusion rather than just having various possible conclusions available to him when the information is presented neutrally? 16:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs)
Yes, but it's a fine line. You may want to combine the two sentences if possible, maybe something like:
"They recieve no direct govt funding[cite], although they do receive some funds from JAFI, a quasi-governmental agency.[cite][cite]
I would be fine with that. If we drop the element of the current first sentence that makes it a claim by NGOM and turn it into a statement in Wikipedia's own voice then we also remove the possibility that the second part sounds like it is challenging something that is merely a claim. Putting both parts in the same voice would seem to remove any implication of conflict between the two facts and make it clear that they are complementary. Soosim? BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
based on what is described as follows later in the article (based on the haaretz article) "The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel," the only way to write this accurately would be: "They receive no govt funding although they do receive some funds via JAFI, a quasi-governmental agency." but, it still seems irrelevant since it is not funding that originated with the gov't. (the ol' inferred synth, etc. again?) Soosim (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
If changing 'from' to 'via' would make you happy I could live with that but it sounds like you still think something is being inferred that is not in any of the sources. If so, what is it?BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
what i said was that this sentence "They receive no govt funding although they do receive some funds via JAFI, a quasi-governmental agency." is accurate but irrelevant since the haaretz article (two sentences onward in the ngom article) discusses jafi funding. Soosim (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
it is not a yes or no question (and you know that). the answer is no, i don't object to its inclusion, the question was where....remember? Soosim (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I meant do you object to it in the form suggested by Despayre? It is a simple yes or no question. Do we have more to discuss or are we done?BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
sorry - it was not obvious to me. i apologize. if that is the question, then no. you saw i gave you an amended text after that, no? and then you saw that i said it was irrelevant since the information better fits in the upcoming paragraph, no? if i wasn't clear, i apologize again. sorry. Soosim (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I said your amended text was fine. So, your objection is just that you think it fits better elsewhere? Just for clarity, have you dropped the OR and SYNTH objections or do we need to talk further about those? Quite a bit has now been said to explain why this wouldn't be SYNTH so if you do want to still pursue that line could you respond to what has been said please?BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, Soosim has said he has no objection to my suggested text (if he had OR or SYNTH problems with it still, I don't think he would say he had no objection), so the only thing left to discuss is the placement of the sentence. I unfortunately, I think that's sort of where it started here. Are there no other editors on your talk page to take that issue back to, or is it mainly a collaboration between you two? I don't particularly want to get involved in your article, but if no one else is there, I will read it and give you my opinion on where I think it should go, if you both think that would be helpful. -- Despayre tête-à-tête03:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully that is correct. However, previously when Soosim has objected to 'location' rather than 'content' he has meant that the material that is currently the second half of your proposed sentence is not relevant to the first half and should be located somewhere else with it being the location rather than the content that makes it SYNTH (and he brings up SYNTH in relation to your proposal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=492322679&oldid=492316108). If he is now fine with the two parts of the sentence as a whole being kept together then I'm not too fussed about where that sentence goes - it is how the elements in the sentence stand to each other that is important to me. I think it would be a bit odd to put the whole sentence (or either of its parts) in the middle of the Haaretz material, given that the Haaretz article doesn't discuss those particular points, but if that is really all that is holding us up now then I could live with it.BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
i do object to the text and showed you what i thought would be a better version of it. why are you twisting my words around and using them as answers to other questions. this is way too complicated. i gave what i thought was an acceptable sentence AND said that it is irrelevant. i also said, several and many times, that the other sentence, if used, needs to be somewhere else. period. i hope this is clear. Soosim (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Soosim, I thought when you said above that "the answer is no, i don't object to its inclusion, the question was where....remember?", that you meant you were ok with the text, and were just concerned over its placement. I think I understand now with your latest comment that I misread your meaning originally. If we can leave the relevance issue alone for a moment, because, really, that's a completely different discussion, and will probably need to take place, but solving two things at once is seldom easier than 1 at a time, we can come back to relevance, once we've settled on text (which may, in its final version, remove the relevance problem). Soosim, if I'm reading this right, I suggested
"They recieve no direct govt funding[cite], although they do receive some funds from JAFI, a quasi-governmental agency.[cite][cite]"
and you said you would prefer the text to say:
"They receive no govt funding although they do receive some funds via JAFI, a quasi-governmental agency"
because of other text already in the article, is that correct? (again, leaving aside the relevance problem for now only)
And I'll throw this out for both of you just as a possible alternate option as well, Soosim says it has to go elsewhere because of other text in the article, is it a possibility to alter that other text to avoid this problem of location? -- Despayre tête-à-tête16:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
working backwards - the other text was brought in to try to show a funding issue with ngom. it includes the fact that jafi was used as a passthrough (from private donor to jafi to ngom). fact not denied by ngom or anyone else. and since it is exactly two sentences ahead of the place of ngom's statement that they receive no gov't funding, it makes sense to include it there. as for wording - if talking in the wiki voice, then maybe: "They receive no govt funding although they did receive some funds, in 2010, via JAFI, a quasi-governmental agency". and then, before we put it in, we have to decide where. and then, once in, we have to decide on its relevance. i love wikipedia! Soosim (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm honored to have been unintentionally conflated into this discussion. My first take is that the current structure, two sentences, "NGO Monitor says" and "Second largest donor was", does not strike me as forcing any synthetic implication. I would answer Despayre yes, the other text can be altered, because it only says "Current donors include ... The Jewish Agency for Israel" and thus is wholly redundant with the sentence that gives more detail about this. So I would simply delete "The Jewish Agency for Israel; " and use Soosim's wording ("the only way to write this accurately") to derive the rest as, "NGO Monitor receives no government funding and is currently funded by private donors and foundations, although in 2010 they received their second-largest funding via the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI),[13] a quasi-governmental agency.[14]" It would also be acceptable to keep it two sentences, "foundations. In 2010". This is a longish graf in an article with longish sections and there is no preferred "natural place", but there is a preference to eliminate clearly redundant clauses. It seems that after making an origin statement and a generic statement, a statement about the second-largest funder one year would be linked to the other specific funder statements, not the generic statement. JJB 17:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I guess it could be possible to alter the other text although at the moment it is a self-contained paragraph dealing solely with the controversies raised in a recent Haaretz article and those controversies don't have anything to do with the issue of how funding is related to, or independent of, government. The other reason I am wary about messing around with that paragraph too much is because the primary source is in Hebrew only and I have not had sight of a decent English translation, so it would be difficult to accurately balance the content of that article with the content of other sources. In any case, I would, in principle, be happy to go along with something like that with your proposed sentence as revised by Soosim. My issue is with relative rather than absolute placing in that I don't really mind where the two statements that we have combined go as long as they go together. It is only when they are split up that placing is really an issue for me as I think the second should go wherever the first is.
Here is the current content for the whole of the 'Funding' section:
"NGO Monitor states that it was originally funded by the Wechsler Family Foundation when it was part of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA).[12] NGO Monitor says it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations. In 2010 NGO Monitor's second largest donor was the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI),[13] which is a quasi-governmental body.[14] NGO Monitor receives significant financial support from Research + Evaluation = Promoting Organizational Responsibility and Transparency (REPORT) (formerly American Friends of NGO Monitor (AFNGOM)), which provided a grant of $500,000 in 2010. Current donors include Peter Simpson, Jerusalem; Jewish Federations of North America and United Jewish Appeal; Orion Foundation; The Jewish Agency for Israel; Matan; and The Center for Jewish Community Studies (part of JCPA).[15][16] Financial reports for 2009 and 2010 are available on their website.[17]
According to a February 2012 article in Haaretz (Hebrew), an examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."[18]"
I didn't look closely at the second graf before, but it clearly describes both the criticism and the self-reflection in an individual well-balanced case. Further, it presumes knowledge both of JAFI being a large sponsor and of Matan. Thus it is fitting to keep as a separate graf after both are mentioned in the prior graf, and it would not do to move JAFI to later in the first graf (because of the structure of that source being a list) or to the second graf (because it would give undue weight to JAFI as opposed to Matan). Generically on this article, of course, there should not be praise and criticism sections but they should both be enfolded to other (perhaps new) sections. JJB 17:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Apologies to JJB, I meant to type "BHB" in my edit summary, guess my fingers were on auto-pilot. However, I have no objection at all to your input anyway. -- Despayre tête-à-tête22:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Soosim, I read your answer, but I'm not sure you answered my question. I understand that you have several issues with the text, I am trying to deal with them one at a time, and you are throwing up multiple issues. If you could limit yourself to just the one issue at a time, I don't mind going through every issue with you, just not all at once. Are you now saying you think the text should/could read:
"They receive no govt funding although they did receive some funds, in 2010, via JAFI, a quasi-governmental agency."
Note to BHB, having a source in Hebrew is no problem, the source does not need to be in english. We have many Wikipedians on standby just waiting to verify sources in other languages. -- Despayre tête-à-tête22:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
ok, thought it over. ok, let's try it, BUT, i then want to discuss the other pieces i mentioned above. ok? Soosim (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the wording I proposed above is ok, and we can start looking at your other concerns about it now? The two concerns I see, are placement and relevance? Do you still have a SYNTH objection as well? Can we start on just placement next? And if so, assuming we get through all of everyone's objections, what is your #1 choice for this sentence, as in, where do you think it fits best, and why? -- Despayre tête-à-tête06:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
so, if this sentence is used, as is, i would think it be best in paragraph 2 of the funding section. that paragraph discusses issues/criticism, etc. since (unless you disagree) this sentence is clearly trying to show (that is the synth part) that there is an issue with ngom's statement that they receive no gov't funding. keep neutral facts in paragraph 1, issues/concerns/criticisms in paragraph 2. Soosim (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so I just went and read the article, and when I read it, this is how I see it. The first paragraph is about who gave them money, that's all. The second paragraph is about a magazine article from Haaretz that says there was something odd. The quasi-funding sentence is neither odd, nor in the Haaretz article as far as I know, so it should not go in that paragraph. The first paragraph is about who supplied funds. That does seem like the right place for this sentence.
Having said that, I thought we might be able to give the article a little bit better flow, the text seemed a little choppy, so I dusted off my copyeditor's hat, and re-wrote both paragraphs with some very minor tweaking. I have no interest in messing with your article, so I created a section in my sandbox, you can see it here. The only thing I'm not 100% happy with is that there is a lot of information in that first paragraph, and if something is supposed to be standing out, because of the density of info in that paragraph, nothing does. But I think that problem is smaller than trying to apply that quasi-funding sentence into a paragraph that is otherwise completely about coverage from an unrelated magazine article. Thoughts, opinions? -- Despayre tête-à-tête11:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Good call on the flow of those paragraphs - readability has taken a bit of a back seat to the addition of lots of extra info. Your suggestions look great to me with one reservation - the first clause of the second sentence should not, I think, connect the statement about not receiving any government funding to the separation from JCPA. As far as I'm aware, that statement on their website is presented in a way that is not contextually dependent. As for the placing issue, I'm in full agreement with both yourself and JJB so we need to chew through Soosim's objections, whatever those may be. This conversation started 29 days ago now, so a few more shouldn't hurt. BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
wow - desp - thanks. a few comments (of course). a) as i understand their website and the website of REPORT, they still receive funding from wechsler. b) they did more than separate - they became their own financially and administratively distinct organization in 2007, c) you have JAFI twice in the first paragraph - no need, i think, d) maybe i missed it, but where did the "which includes information about all donations above NIS 20,000 (approximately US$5,200)" come from?. so, can you edit in these? and then let's look at it. Soosim (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
d) is correct. They only have to record donations above a certain size. Re: c) there is absolutely nothing wrong with mentioning the same organisation twice in one paragraph. Doing so breaches no known rules of presentation or organisation. Re: b) that is what 'separated' means. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I"ll take those comments to mean you're both generally ok with my sandbox version (with all the exceptions noted above) (of course, I could be wrong, "wow" could also have meant, "what the hell do you think you're doing?!) . So lets see if we can tweak a little more and keep the readability.
BHB - Did they receive funding from govt when they were part of JCPA, does JCPA recieve government funding?
Soosim - a) so we should add Weschler as as funding source as well? (do we have a source for that?) Also, CJCS is listed as an other donor, with a notation that it's part of JCPA, does that cover that, or do we need to add Weschler again specifically? (I've added it for now either way)
b) I think separation means the same thing as administratively distinct organization, but I'll see if I can come up with something clearer (and thanks for the year)
c) Oops, that's what I get for editing late at night. It makes sense to remove the second JAFI, since the sentence starts with "Other donors include...".
d) I read it in the financial report from the website, and then, as per WP:MOSNUM, gave a rough conversion rate with "what is 20000 NIS in USD?" pasted into google( it's great for stuff like that, it will actually go find the conversion rate and do the math for you if you know how to ask it!)
Additionally, looking at it, I don't know who "Peter Simpson of Jerusalem" is, but unless he's a well known figure for some relevant reason, I don't know that we have to include a private citizen in our wikipedia article just because we have the information to do it. Any objection to removing him from the list of donors? -- Despayre tête-à-tête19:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking again at the draft, I'm a little concerned that we will end up adding in connections to improve the flow that will actually confuse the 'time signatures', as it were, of the various things being reported. As I see it, the first paragraph falls into two parts and we should be wary about trying to elide those parts, even when there is some overlap in content. The first few sentences convey information that is generally significant to NGOM's funding and that does not have its significance bound to particular times even if the events being reported are. The second part of the paragraph, however, is entirely dependent on the specific set of accounts for 2010 and simply lists all the major donors given in the document. When the 2011 accounts come out we will want to simply replace this list with the more up to date one whilst retaining the general comments with which the paragraph begins. So, we can think of the paragraph as broken down into general issues (funding history and affiliations; relationship of funding to government) and current issues (most recent published list of donors). The easiest thing to do is, I think, to treat the two parts as modular and not try to run them into one another or be overly concerned if there is some minimal information redundancy.
Now, within the first section, I think we need to separate out the JCPA stuff from the government funding stuff. I can't quite remember whether JCPA receive any government funds but NGOM's own statement about not receiving such is not tied in any way to the separation from JCPA; it is presented in absolute terms and is most naturally read as applying across the whole history of NGOM, so I think we want to avoid linking it to any particular events. Another connection I think we want to avoid making is the move from the JAFI information to 'other significant donors include ...'. This certainly does read better but by trying to bring the sentences together we confuse the temporal issues. The government funding sentence should be broadly atemporal, in that the contents of the sentence will remain relevant whoever the current donors are, but it contains two different elements: 1) NGOM's own open-ended statement about government funding, and 2) the time-specific statement about JAFI (which will continue to be relevant in the future but refers to a specific time). Reconciling these two elements in a single sentence is not too problematic but if we link it directly to the next sentence 'Other ...' then we are bringing the info about REPORT into the same framework when it does not really belong there. The info about REPORT is information about an ongoing funding programme but in the context of a list of current donors, so it already has its own slightly different reconciliation going on. The link into the following sentence 'more recent donors include ...' is also a bit problematic as those donors are contemporaneous with REPORT's donation but are confined to a discrete single year, so they are not 'more recent' than REPORT (unless what is meant is 'more' in a quantitative sense 'more of the recent donors', rather than 'donors that are more recent'). Basically, what I'm suggesting is that smooth links between the various elements in the paragraph are not necessarily helpful if they force connections on us that do not accurately represent the connections between the different bits of data. The current version avoids this problem by not really connecting the sentences together, which is not a great approach, but if we are going to make connections then they need to be precise and only connect the right pieces of material.
My suggestion, then, would be to keep the two parts of the paragraph seperate and not try to connect the two. Treat the first part as a set of general framing sentences, which can be connected together but probably should not be associated with temporal connections due to the lack of a linear timeline running across the various statements. Treat the material from REPORT onwards just as a reflection of the donors listed in NGOM's own report (including Peter Simpson - whilst he may not be notable it would be odd to exclude him if we are listing every other donor that appears in their accounts). If the two are kept separate then there can be a little temporal variation in each part (such as adding the general info about REPORT in the second part) without there being any need to reconcile the variations across the two parts. It doesn't matter whether JAFI is mentioned once or twice but my preference is to keep it in the list as distinct from the earlier reference. If it turns out that JAFI was also a donor in 2011, we will have to mention it twice as the first mention, in the context of 2010, won't be able to stand in for the current 2011 donor list mention, so, as I see it, it is only coincidental that there happens to be a correspondance at the moment.
Apologies for taking so long to make what is really a trivial point. I don't actually think this stuff matters terribly one way or the other and certainly don't want to hold up the editing on any of these grounds. BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
desp - "wow" was a good one. thanks for understanding it that way. ngo monitor is only independent since 2007 so prior funding of their then-parent body might not be relevant (and i don't know if the jcpa received gov't funding or not. but it is really picayune, i think, and we might as well say then that dore gold, founder of jcpa, is a former israeli gov't employee - ambassador to the US, etc.)
wechsler - on second thought, it might also be a reach and OR since wechsler now gives to REPORT and REPORT gives to ngom. does that mean that wechsler gives to ngom? hmmmm..... and yes, who is peter simpson? clearly not important in wikiland. (unless he is one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Simpson )
and not sure why we need to mention what amount is required by israeli law to report. just seems to complicate it, no?
and lastly, BHB - sorry, but i got lost reading your comments. maybe just write the 3-4 sentences as you think they can/should be, and then we can see it, rather than trying to guess what you really mean from the paragraphs above? thanks. Soosim (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it was probably not very clear :-). The tl;dr is a) try to be careful with words that signify time sequences, but b) I'm not too fussed really and am happy to go along with whatever on the copy editing front, although I do think we should leave Peter Simpson on the list as it would be odd if he was the only person they mention in their accounts that we don't provide details for. BothHandsBlack (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
It makes no difference to me, the only reason I suggested removing Peter Simpson was that he is the only individual on the list, all others are companies. Seems like a little bit more of a privacy concern, but I'm not worried about him either way, was only a suggestion.
BHB - Did they receive funding from govt when they were part of JCPA, does JCPA recieve government funding?
Must have got lost in my long ramble above but quoting from there: '[w]ithin the first section, I think we need to separate out the JCPA stuff from the government funding stuff. I can't quite remember whether JCPA receive any government funds but NGOM's own statement about not receiving such is not tied in any way to the separation from JCPA; it is presented in absolute terms and is most naturally read as applying across the whole history of NGOM, so I think we want to avoid linking it to any particular events.' BothHandsBlack (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
As to whether NGOM received any funding from quasi-governmental sources when part of the JCPA, we can't know. In fact, I'm not sure we can know anything about their funding with particular precision, other than from their own general statements, before 2009 as this was when they started making their accounts public. BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
BHB - just fyi, if i understand it correctly, ngom became an independent non-profit in 2007. their first official filing financial data, as required by law, would've been for tax year 2008 (and the partial year of 2007). the 2008 information would only be filed in 2009, so yes, that is when they started to make it public since that was the first one. Soosim (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, and contrary to what I thought, the 2009 accounts cover two calendar years, both 2008-2009 (see the auditor's statement at the start of the report) and must have been submitted in 2010 as they run to the 31st of December 2009. However, whilst the balance sheets and the total value of donations in 2008 is recorded, the 2008 donors are not. In any case, the only donor for 2009 was the Centre for Jewish Community Studies, which is a part of the JCPA, so I don't think we can really say that NGOM was financially independent until 2010 (in the lead we just say 'financially distinct', which is still fine as administrative distinctness does not imply financial independence). It might, of course, be the case that CJCS was used to obscure the real donors and are just a channel here but this isn't something we can know. One other point worth noting is that they do appear to have filed accounts for 2008 but that these were faulty (on technical grounds rather than anything serious). The 2009 report talks about restating and correcting the 2008 figures so they must have been published before and there may be a donor list on that document if it can be found (I suspect they don't provide it on their site because of the error that was made). However, a wild guess would be that the donor list there would be about as informative as the donor list for the 2009 accounts, although it is possible that they broadened their funding base in 2008 and then reverted in 2009 to being funded entirely by JCPA again. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking again at the 2010 report, they also continued to receive funding from CJCS/JCPA in that year as well. I have a feeling this is why we settled on 'financially distinct' in the lead.BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
BHB, just going back to the one issue of govt funding here for a moment. You just said the same thing I thought, which was "whether NGOM received any funding from quasi-governmental sources when part of the JCPA, we can't know". Therefore, we can only know about *since* they separated. Which makes the temporal flow correct doesn't it? We should not make *any* assumptions about the time we don't know anything, but we *can* say they haven't recieved funding since they separated because we have a source for that. Am I missing something here? Did they make that statement before they left JCPA? -- Despayre tête-à-tête16:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
So, the suggested sentence is: 'Since its separation from JCPA, and formation as an independent organization in 2007, NGO Monitor has said it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations, although they did receive some funds, in 2010, via The Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI), a quasi-governmental agency.' Taking your last comment into account, we can read this as saying that 'Since its separation ... NGOM has said ...' which I guess is right, taking the temporal sequence to apply to what has been said, although I don't know what they said before. However, the meaning I got from the sentence previously was 'Since its separation ... it receives no governmental support ...', taking the temporal sequence to refer to the funding that they received with 'since' being used to contrast two time periods with respect to funding (in the way we would use it if we wanted to say 'NGOM received government funding when they were part of JCPA but since they separated they do not'). My point is that we get into tricky ground by implying any contrast between before and after, as we don't know the situation before the separation. Whilst I understand the desire to combine bits of information to improve the flow of the writing, in this case it looks to me as though we are combining two bits of information that do not illuminate each other, yet we are doing so in a way that suggests an unnecessary relation between the two pieces of info. As we have no reason to believe the situation was any different before the split I would prefer to keep the JCPA bit distinct from the funding comments. How about this:
NGO Monitor has stated that originally, when it was part of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), it was funded by the Wechsler Family Foundation.[12] Since its separation from JCPA, and formation as an independent organization in 2007, NGO Monitor has drawn on a wider range of funding sources. NGO Monitor has said it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations, although they did receive some funds, in 2010, via The Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI), a quasi-governmental agency.
This is a bit less elegant but the material on the separation from JCPA really, I think, goes with the first sentence rather than the material on government funding. Unfortunately, I can't work out a way of getting it into the first sentence without making that sentence ungainly but an additional intermediate sentence seems preferable to bringing it together with the unrelated material that follows. In any case, feel free to move on from this point as I'm not so concerned about this issue as to wish to hold up progress. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
when ngom was part of jcpa,i assume that all their funding was from the jcpa pot. hard to know - even if jcpa rec'd gov't funding, whether ngom did or not. they were a "wholly owned subsidiary" of jcpa, for better or worse. my guess is that they split (or at least one of the reasons) is so that they could indeed be financially independent of jcpa. i just checked the wayback machine, and it seems clear that ngom was just a piece of jcpa, with dore gold listed as an executive staff member. Soosim (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I think your assumptions about their early funding are very plausible and this is why I want to avoid any hint of a contrast between their current relationship to government funding (i.e. none) and an earlier relationship, as we have no reason to think that things were different before.BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with the proposed re-wording, and I've amended my sandbox, here. Does that look ok to both of you? We should try and stay away from saying anything about the funding pre-split, unless we (we being you ) have sources about it. -- Despayre tête-à-tête18:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
ok, i can live with it....(gasp). i would suggest adding "as required by law" after the 20,000NIS so people shouldn't think that they are not reporting what they shouldn't or being overly kind and reporting beyond what is required. Soosim (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
None from me! Many thanks for taking the time to help us out with this and for providing a model of how to go about resolving a tricky problem. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
bhb, desp - care to look at another issue, further down this page, for the article mikis theordoris - see my issue and let me know what you think. thanks! Soosim (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Well I think we can stick a fork in this one, it's done! Feel free to lift that text right out of my sandbox directly, but note that I "faked" the citations, so you'll have to add those in manually (except the note about being in Hebrew). And thanks for both of you for not being those "difficult, entrenched" type of users we all hear about that make some processes impossible (or at least ear-bleedingly painful) around here. As for the Mikis T. issue below, I'd rather not step into that one as it's already long been started, and I've got my warm chair over at RSN to get on with, I just thought that maybe we could fix this one, but you guys did all the work, I was just a broker, so again, well done to you two (I'll stop with the warm fuzzies now before this breaks out into a group-hug!). -- Despayre tête-à-tête16:19, 22 May 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.
Thomas Sowell
Latest comment: 12 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion
If you have any questions about why this thread was closed, please click the 'show' button first and read the comment left by the closer. If your questions are still not answered, please inquire on the closer's talk page.
Closed discussion
Stale. Reopen as necessary. Steven ZhangTalk 10:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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?
The main argument is whether sources by Media Matters should be included as criticism and to some extent the conduct of certain users. For reference, this was the final version before being reverted:
Sowell has been criticized for various remarks such as a comparison he made between President Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler in an editorial for Investor's Business Daily after the creation of a relief fund for the BP oil spill. This has been criticized by liberal groups such as Media Mattersand the Democratic National Committee. However, Republicans such as Sarah Palin and Representative Louie Gohmert have endorsed Sowell's comparison.
Sowell was also criticized for an editorial in which he stated that the Democratic Party played the Race card, instigating ethnic divisions and separatism, and argued that a similar situation occurred between the Tutsis and the Hutus in Rwanda.
The editors' justifications for why it shouldn't be included are based on a violation of WP:POV or are just soapboxing as can be seen in their defenses:
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=Thomas Sowell}} --~~~~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.
Why is this here instead of at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard? The only dispute I see here is whether Media Matters is a reliable source for the purpose adding cited material to the critical reception section of the Thomas Sowell article. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I figured there were other problems such as consensus and user behavior (ie soapboxing) which warrants a wider discussion than reliable sources. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, makes sense. Here is my first impression from looking at the diffs you provided:
First, I really don't see any soapboxing, just a spirited debate about Media Matters.
The consensus issue is far more interesting to me. Let's assume for the sake of argument that a group of editors "takes over" a page and enforces their POV through consensus. (not saying that this is or isn't the case here; I am talking about the larger issue). Certainly we have seen a lot of accusations of this on various pages. As I understand it, the proper way to deal with this starts with asking for outside opinions through RfCs noticeboards, and in extreme cases ArbCom. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Well I'd consider calling Media Matters a propaganda hate site comparable to a KKK newsletter as the reason for excluding it be more than just spirited debate but I suppose that can explored later.
Regarding consensus, that's exactly what I tried to do with the NPOV noticeboard. The result of which was all the users ignored the outside opinion and reinforced claims of census (their opinion evidently outnumbered the outside opinion). This is also why I wanted to make this about user behavior as well. From what I can tell, it's not so much a group of editors "taking over" so much as almost all the editors hold the same beliefs and use those to justify POV exclusions of criticism. For instance, I don't think the reasoning that Media Matters is comparable to a KKK newsletter is anything other than POV exclusion but it's justified on account of most people allowing it.
I think it's also worth noting that since Media Matters was noteworthy criticism of a noteworthy event, as an arbitrator pointed out, "when a notable entity criticizes another notable entity, and that is widely reported in RS'es, to NOT include it would be an NPOV issue" even excluding the blatant POV reasoning.
Note: I am still undecided about this specific question; I am still talking about generally applicable principles. OK, let's assume for the sake of argument that that this is notable entity criticizing another notable entity. Is that enough? I don't think it is. It is clear from reading Media Matters for America that they strive to criticize all conservative talk shows, newspaper columns, etc. Even if Media Matters is notable, that does not mean that all of those hundreds and hundreds of criticisms are notable. That, I believe, is why the arbitrator added "and that is widely reported in RS'es". Has anyone showed any citations that show multiple reliable sources reporting on Media Matters criticizing Thomas Sowell? I haven't read the entire page history, but none of the diffs above establish this. If there are cites to RS's establishing that Media Matters criticizing Thomas Sowell was widely reported, then it should be retained. If not, it should not be retained. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, criticisms that appear in multiple RS's are prima facie acceptable in a BLP, whether MMfA is involved or not. For instance, I retained a report about the Democratic National Committee criticizing Sowell.
BTW, my comparison of MMfA to the KKK was not "the reason for excluding" MMfA; I argue for that on the basis of core Wikipedia policies.
I started a discussion at "Talk:Thomas Sowell#Media Matters, again", which now has more information and links to related discussions. CartoonDiablo, I'm disappointed that you have not made any comments on this talk page for nearly a year, especially when adding a {{neutrality}} tag. Cheers, CWC08:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point but my general sentiment is that even in cases without a second party RS, the noteworthyness of the event would allow us to use it, after all, what's the difference between citing the DNC and Media Matters? With regard to RSs being removed, my edits citing the Washington Monthly were also removed for similar reasons as the Media Matters removal
that's why I think almost all of this is just POV exclusion which is justified under consensus.
And CWC, me not making comments is somewhat disingenuous considering the only person that's party to this conflict that has made any comments within the past year is yourself and I don't think anyone disagrees there is a neutrality dispute. I think it's obvious the fact that we're in dispute resolution shows that a year of discussion on the page didn't accomplish much. CartoonDiablo (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Please hold that thought about the Washington Monthly. I do want to examine it, but I want to figure out the Media Matters situation first. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not think Media Matters is a reliable source. Their sole mission is to advance the progressive viewpoint by discrediting the conservative one (this is a paraphrase of their own mission statement.) PokeHomsar (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Also again this is a slight digression but even if the Media Matters source is ruled to be valid, how would that be "enforced" for lack of a better word. All the editors can just claim consensus and ignore the advice here as they did previously. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
One thing at a time. Consensus does not trump policy. If editors are not following policy -- even if they have a consensus to do so - bring that up on the appropriate noticeboard as a separate issue after the question we are discussing has been resolved. --Guy Macon (talk)
The mission of Media Matters would only indicate a bias, all sources have some kind of bias. What's relevant is if they have a signficant viewpoint that should be in the article or not. That doesn't mean that anything they say should be taken as gospel either, but having a bias is not a reason to rule them out. Otherwise, how could we have articles about extreme viewpoint organisations at all (any opposing views to the KKK could be stricken as biased for example)? -- Despayre tête-à-tête14:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not complaining that they're biased, I'm complaining that they are maliciously deceptive, based on the fact that every MMfA item I've read was malicious and deceptive, if not outright dishonest. A proper cite to a MMfA about a conservative will almost always introduce a lie into the article via their headline. Examples available on request ... so many examples. (You also have to be careful about their antisemitism.) CWC16:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
My comment was in reference to Pokehomsar's, just above. I have not reviewed MMfA, but if it's a reliable source question, you should take it to RSN I would think. -- Despayre tête-à-tête17:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this dispute will end up at RSN and BLPN, but I prefer to limit discussion to one board at a time, so lets see what happens here first. Cheers, CWC14:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
After looking at a number of examples, in my opinion Media Matters should be rejected as a reliable source. There are too many things that they claim that appear to be blatantly untrue (no citation or unreliable source, other reliable sources tell a completely different story) We should look at any claims made by MM, find them in other, more reliable sources, and use those sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Struck out because I find Debbie W's argument below compelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Acceptible Use MMfA is clearly an organization with a political slant. However, that does not mean that their opinion cannot be quoted in a Wikipedia article. Political-based articles routinely cite sources which have a political stance (e.g., NRA, PETA, NAACP). There have been at least 25 reliable source discussions about MMfA, and the general conclusion of the RS forums is that the organization cannot be used as a source of news, but that their opinion can be cited. The text cited above makes it clear that MMfA is a liberal organization, and that the comment in question is their opinion. The actual article comparing Obama's actions to Hitler's is referenced in Investor's Business Daily, which is a reliable source of news, and the paragraph also gives the opinion of two people supporting Sowell's publication of the article, thus ensuring the commentary is NPOV. Based on this, inclusion of MMfA is acceptible. Debbie W.03:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments about consensus Based on the article's talk page, the biggest problem that I see is a misunderstanding of consensus by both sides of the debate. I saw a number of comments on the talk page about consensus that were wrong. A few things about Wikipedia and consensus: (1) Consensus cannot trump Wikipedia policy; (2) Consensus regarding a particular topic cannot be determined by one of the participants of the discussion -- a neutral third party is needed; (3) Consensus can change over time -- a consensus from a year ago can be changed; (4) Wikipedia's "Don't revert solely due to non-consensus" disallows the use of "no consensus" as grounds for preventing change to an article. Debbie W.03:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Propaganda model
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
If you have any questions about why this thread was closed, please click the 'show' button first and read the comment left by the closer. If your questions are still not answered, please inquire on the closer's talk page.
Closed discussion
Looks stale. If issues continue in future, re-open as necessary. Steven ZhangTalk 00:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For obvious reasons, this is a violation of WP:Weight and uses blatantly WP:NPOV language like "force-feed right-wing views."
Acadēmica has since wanted to restore the section and has been completely unwilling to acknowledge editors' explanations, if not being disruptive, and continues to ask or assert the same points despite me and another editor pointing out why it's not the case.
I'm actually not too sure if this would belong here or in Incidents but I chose here because there is no overt vandalism and it relates to content.
Asking why the content was removed
One of the key methods is repeatedly asking why the content was removed despite me and ThePowerofX answering multiple times (sometimes mixed with other questions). Here are diffs for each time ThePowerofX and I answered:
diff - "it amounts to massive undue weight...The underling points are used, not every single point of criticism made."
diff - "I hope it's clear the material was deleted based on only using the main points" (per WP:Weight)
diff - (ThePowerofX) "The Eli Lehrer section is lengthy for one individual." (per WP:Weight)
diff - "that's why we use general bullets." (per WP:Weight)
diff - "for reasons of WP:Weight we only use the main points"
Also notice in the last diff, Acadēmica contradictorily asserts that he is not asking the same question but that I am answering it differently each time and then proceeds to cover it up (diff). Even after I point this out, Acadēmica is unwilling to address it (diff).
Asserting evidence by the authors counts as bias
Another odd feature has been Acadēmica repeatedly asserting that evidence provided by the authors for the model counts as POV bias despite continual explanations by me and another editor.
Here are the diffs, some of them mine, some of them by ThePowerofX and some of them mixed with questions in the previous diffs.
diff - "I wouldn't exactly call listing the claims...to be "supporting" it"
diff - "Those examples are the main ones given by the authors"
diff - "the fact that criticism section is smaller than the non-criticism sections does not mean the article is "supporting" it"
diff - (ThePowerofX) "What you erroneously describe as "pro-model material" is neutral, descriptive content."
diff - "WP:NPOV doesn't say anything about non-criticism sections as being NPOV "support" for the article"
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=Propaganda model}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Discussed it on the talk page as well as the user's talk page.
How do you think we can help?
Saying whether or the edit was a violation of WP:Weight and WP:NPOV
By telling Acadēmica Orientālis to stop disrupting the talk page and if necessary to take on sanctions.
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The issue is whether to include some sourced criticism or not: [54]. CartoonDiablo, a self-described "fan of Noam Chomsky" [55], wants to almost completely exclude it. As reasons he has given reasons such that he personally thinks the criticisms are incorrect or "minor points" or are supposedly contradicted by the authors of the model somewhere in their books without giving any verifiable source with page numbers for these claims. Arguably none of these are valid reasons for removing sourced criticisms. The other main reason given is that the material is too long which is a strange reason when most the rest of the article contains extensive pro-model arguments. This claim becomes absurd when after only keeping a small straw-man paragraph of the original criticism he added a longer pro-model paragraph making the article bias and amount of pro-material ever greater.[56] More generally, see the talk page discussion: [57]. He has also removed a disputed template despite there being an ongoing dispute: [58]. Finally, he has not responded to my proposal to move the disputed material to The Anti-Chomsky Reader article while only keeping a small link in the Propaganda Model article.[59]Academica Orientalis (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
This response is another perfect example of the issues that I'm talking about (ignoring the six counts of us explaining why it's a violation of WP:Weight and eight counts of us explaining why the author's arguments do not constitute bias or "pro-model" material). If another user could comment on the matter it would be appreciated.
With regard to the proposal, I did not reply because neither I nor most of the editors of the Propaganda Model article have either the knowledge nor interest in editing the Anti-Chomsky Reader article. That is up to their editors as the Propaganda Model is scarcely related. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
My reccomendation is to keep the criticism section, but be careful and use a neutral description to avoid WP:POV language in the future. The criticism section right now seems OK.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
